Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Exactly why this bill was just passed in California. If you haven't been paying attention, the majority of people across the country consistently support mandatory vaccination for kids in order for them to attend school. It cuts through ideological and economic lines, rather it is a small minority of anti-vaxxers making a lot of noise, trying to dictate to the majority what health policies should be in place.
The only "majority" poll that counts in my book is at the voting booth. This impacts the people directly so let the people decide on it, directly.
As you know, wording of polls can be jaded in a way to produce a result. "Are you for kids safety and want them all to have vaccines?" vs "Do you want the gov to make the choice on your kid getting vaccinated or not and tie that decision to their right to attend public school"? Each question will produce a much different result.
Let the voters decide at the polls and gov stay out/don't override the true will of the majority. I may disagree with the outcome, but I will respect what the true MAJORITY says, at the polls, not in the halls of a few hundred elected officials of whom I have about as much trust in as a bag of rocks.
btw, pro-vaccine/gov "tell me what to do types".....hate to ruin your day but this line might.....
"If the petitions for a referendum qualify for the ballot by Sept. 28 with the signatures of 365,000 registered voters, the law will be put on hold until voters decide the issue."
And sorry to ruin your previous celebration tlvancounver of my last poll that I posted but this sounds like the true American way our forefathers would have liked for this decision to be decided upon. And the way I thought it should have been decided upon from the beginning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Juram
It should never have been a political issue, the exemptions should not have been enacted in the first place.
I agree, so let's bring it to the polls where I feel it should have been decided the first place. Do you agree?
There is a risk to everything, you could be driving your kids to school and get blindsided by a truck running a red light. There are no guarantees to anything that we do which is why I find so many of the anti-vaxxers so amusingly irrational.
"You can't promise me that this is 100% safe and 100% effective, well scr*w you jack!"
Life is full of risk, anything you take, anywhere you go, presents its own set of risks, vaccinating against diseases such as measles greatly reduces the risk of anyone being infected with those diseases. They can be eliminated, much as we eliminated smallpox but it requires all people to work together, to cooperate, that is the essence of public health, the system only works when everyone buys in.
And the risk of the disease is the same. A parent can assess their health and say with confidence that they are comfortable with the risk of the disease. That is choosing the risk of the disease. There are other benefits to having the disease. Lifelong immunity. So not only do parents assess the risks but also the rewards. Their precious snowflake endured a few days or weeks of discomfort, survived and is now completely immune to the disease in the future.
That is like taking the risk to drive a tank or just your average Honda. IDK.. maybe the risk of getting in the tank is greater but the reward is also greater. Parents make these type of decisions every single day and every moment of the day. How are others to say their choice is wrong?
I bet... no stats to back this up... that most unvaccinated kids have been exposed to the disease and are immune. Other than polio and hep B... this could be plausible.
I support the vaccines recommended by the CDC. I think people are making this far more complicated then it has to be.
All this fear-mongering about the dangers of vaccination but you look at West Virginia and Mississippi which have the highest rates of vaccination in the U.S. due to the lack of exemptions other than for medical purposes and all these predictions are falling flat, no the rates of autism are not any higher, no there is no evidence that there is an epidemic of vaccine related side effects occurring, it has not been much of a controversial issue in those states and I predict after all the initial fuss dies down, it won't be much of an issue in California.
The tiny percentage of super hardcore anti-vaxxers will opt to homeschool their kids or simply move out of state, meanwhile everyone else will find a way to cope and get with the program.
The California bill is more strict than any other vaccine mandates, not that I agree with those either. How do you know there hasn't been more reports of Autism or vaccine injuries due to the other mandates? How would one know when the Vaccine Court doesn't attribute any cases to the vaccine? Have you got the data that proves the number of VAERS reports hasn't risen in those states? I'd like to see them with the claim. That might be difficult since they are unbelievable.
How would you or I know. It seems there is no way to know if safety is indeed authentic or not. Nobody seems to be able to tell if vaccines cause injury or if these reported cases can't be investigated because our science just isn't good enough to prove causation. For now all we can rely on is reported cases until we can figure out how these vaccines are related to some of these reports.
I'm not sure what you believe "hardcore" is? The pet names are lost on me, but I do know I have a place in my birth state of California, and I also own a place in Arizona. I was deciding on which to stay in because going back and forth is getting difficult. This has made me lean toward a move out of California which I wasn't planning on, even though my children are past the vaccine required age and have had them.
I can't honestly stay in a state that treats any minority of the population like this. This campaign has been ugly, and treated those who want a choice like idiots. It's appalled me and a lot of my friends. There were much better choices than mandates that could have been injected in my opinion, and I know plenty of people that have lost faith in this state and will fight to remove this bill. We have a lot of unique people in California, and acceptance of those made this a great state. It's not just the beach, and sea that draws our population.
Berkeley is well known for standing on the side of the minority and fighting for compassion and understanding. Finding ways to appeal to everyone would have been like the California I was raised in. Other laws have passed, been confronted and appealed here. This isn't the first and it won't be the last.
To remove a philosophical exemption in this state won't be as easy to do or disappear quickly as an issue as you might think.
Most of us do vaccinate but want to dictate our own schedules and which vaccines we want. If your kids are not sexually active they don't need the hpv vaccine. When they become sexually active they can decide then to screen their partner and if they have it then get the vaccine. It's sexually transmitted. It shouldn't be given to junior high student with the presumption that they will all become sexually active. We aren't animals, nor numbers on a chart. Some of these vaccines should be left as a choice unless it's epidemic. And even then, I bet you people would be lining up on their own.
And the risk of the disease is the same. A parent can assess their health and say with confidence that they are comfortable with the risk of the disease. That is choosing the risk of the disease. There are other benefits to having the disease. Lifelong immunity. So not only do parents assess the risks but also the rewards. Their precious snowflake endured a few days or weeks of discomfort, survived and is now completely immune to the disease in the future.
.
And if your decision to not vaccinate your precious snowflake only affected the aforementioned precious snowflake, I'd be right on board with it, but your little snowflake has to attend school with all kinds of other kids, including those that for legitimate medical reasons cannot be vaccinated and often at higher risk for serious complications from a disease such as measles.
These kids have a right to attend school as much as anyone else so in a rational society, we split the difference and say that if your precious snowflake has no medical condition prohibiting vaccination, to go ahead and vaccinate them and that way everyone is protected.
Its the scientifically sound, rational and common sense approach, something I predict that we'll be seeing more of in response to inevitable outbreaks of that were pretty much eradicated one to two decades ago.
It should never have been a political issue, the exemptions should not have been enacted in the first place. States with much more stringent restrictions regarding vaccination haven't had the multitude of problems that I see being predicted from the anti-vaccination camp. You go, you get vaccinated, we eradicate preventable diseases the way we did smallpox, making a safer future for everyone's kids, whether or not they are able to be vaccinated for one medical reason or another.
In his statement, Brown acknowledged that SB 277 has evoked widespread controversy. After lengthy debate by lawmakers, the bill was amended “to exempt a child from immunizations whenever the child’s physician concludes that there are ‘circumstances,’ including but not limited to family medical history, for which the physician does not recommend immunization.” https://www.pharmacist.com/new-calif...-one-strictest
It was even stricter before it was reviewed by lawyers.
It's fear induced and works well. Look at the Japanese camps after the war. They were for everyone's safety. Wink It's not the first time fear mongering accomplished a set of ridiculous laws. Won't be the last. That's why it's important for those who see clearly to speak out and go to the courts. Sometimes you have to magnify the obvious. Fear is one thing that can be used over and over again to grab a majority for certain objectives. History proves this.
And if your decision to not vaccinate your precious snowflake only affected the aforementioned precious snowflake, I'd be right on board with it, but your little snowflake has to attend school with all kinds of other kids, including those that for legitimate medical reasons cannot be vaccinated and often at higher risk for serious complications from a disease such as measles.
These kids have a right to attend school as much as anyone else so in a rational society, we split the difference and say that if your precious snowflake has no medical condition prohibiting vaccination, to go ahead and vaccinate them and that way everyone is protected.
Its the scientifically sound, rational and common sense approach, something I predict that we'll be seeing more of in response to inevitable outbreaks of that were pretty much eradicated one to two decades ago.
You people use "snowflake" a lot. What exactly does this mean? Precious, important to the parent, the most important thing in ones life, their child? What do you mean by this? Nobody else is the same, every snowflake is unique? That's true and.....I can honestly tell you my children are the most important people to me, who's aren't? What line are you drawing with these?
Are people for mandates irritated that others think their kids are one of a kind and important to them? I assumed all parents thought this way.
Well, I suspect the orthopods and general surgeons give a fair number of tetanus boosters.
Any of the surgical specialties are interested in hepatitis B vaccine for themselves (and would probably like it if all their patients were vaccinated, too).
This is in a recent issue of The American Journal of Orthopedics:
Since the pain management folks see people with post herpetic neuralgia, I suspect they would recommend the zoster vaccine, too.
The HPV vaccine has the potential to reduce the number of gynecologists we need, as the number of cases of warts, cervical pre-cancer, and cervical and other female genital cancers decreases.
The podiatrists see plantar warts caused by HPV. I would not be surprised to eventually see a vaccine for the strains that are involved.
It's good to know doctors in many specialties are behind vaccination!
Point taken, and that's good! But how many vaccines does an anesthesiologist give in a day, a week, a year? I'd guess near zero. And that's who, in the example, is "spreading out" his kids' vaccines. My point was that the doctors who give all the vaccines to babies, the peds and family practitioners, do not as a rule oppose immunizations or believe in spreading them out. I did not mean to imply that docs in other areas don't support vaccines or give some vaccines themselves. I recall my mom's oncologist asking her if she wanted the pneumovax. She said "no"; I said "yes, she does". (She really was not of sound mind at the time!)
Last edited by Katarina Witt; 07-15-2015 at 09:13 PM..
In his statement, Brown acknowledged that SB 277 has evoked widespread controversy. After lengthy debate by lawmakers, the bill was amended “to exempt a child from immunizations whenever the child’s physician concludes that there are ‘circumstances,’ including but not limited to family medical history, for which the physician does not recommend immunization.” https://www.pharmacist.com/new-calif...-one-strictest
It was even stricter before it was reviewed by lawyers.
Yes. And yesterday you were arguing quite strenuously with me that the docs could only give exemptions based on a "list" of some sort. Now back to ignore for you.
The California bill is more strict than any other vaccine mandates,
It is no more strict than those already in place in West Virginia and Mississippi, those states have the highest rates of vaccination in the U.S. and no epidemic of horror stories resulting from mandatory vaccination of schoolchildren.
Quote:
I can't honestly stay in a state that treats any minority of the population like this. This campaign has been ugly, and treated those who want a choice like idiots. It's appalled me and a lot of my friends. There were much better choices than mandates that could have been injected in my opinion, and I know plenty of people that have lost faith in this state and will fight to remove this bill. We have a lot of unique people in California, and acceptance of those made this a great state. It's not just the beach, and sea that draws our population.
You're free to go just like those who threatened to leave the state after gay marriage was legalized. Nothing is really stopping you from doing so if you feel so strongly about this. Just don't be shocked when similar laws and mandates start getting enacted in other states as a response to future outbreaks among the unvaccinated. The vaccine exemption being enacted was a huge mistake that is now being corrected, no more, no less.
Quote:
Berkeley is well known for standing on the side of the minority and fighting for compassion and understanding. Finding ways to appeal to everyone would have been like the California I was raised in. Other laws have passed, been confronted and appealed here. This isn't the first and it won't be the last.
To remove a philosophical exemption in this state won't be as easy to do or disappear quickly as an issue as you might think.
Actually I think it will be pretty easy because there is no great right that is being denied. If you don't want to vaccinate your kids, homeschool them. Beyond that, support in the state is strong for the bill, the medical establishment is behind it, the legislation was written specifically to withstand court challenges, it isn't going anywhere. If it does wind up as a referendum, only then will the anti-vaxxer crowd see just how much others in the state oppose their position.
Quote:
Some of these vaccines should be left as a choice unless it's epidemic. And even then, I bet you people would be lining up on their own.
The whole point of vaccination is being proactive, prevention not reaction. I think the notion of having a massive run on vaccines due to an epidemic is ridiculous if it can be prevented in the first place.
Quote:
Most of us do vaccinate but want to dictate our own schedules and which vaccines we want. If your kids are not sexually active they don't need the hpv vaccine. When they become sexually active they can decide then to screen their partner and if they have it then get the vaccine. It's sexually transmitted. It shouldn't be given to junior high student with the presumption that they will all become sexually active. We aren't animals, nor numbers on a chart.
Why do you keep bringing up the HPV vaccine, you realize that the legislation does not include the HPV vaccine, nor can it simply be piggy-backed on to the law itself. The law itself is restricted to 10 particular vaccines, if in the future someone wishes to make other vaccines mandatory, they need to generate new legislation for that purpose.
Quote:
Those 10 vaccines include diphtheria, hepatitis B, hemophilus influenzae type b (commonly referred to as Hib), measles, mumps, pertussis, poliomyelitis, rubella, tetanus and varicella
The fear-mongering from the anti-vaxxers is far far worse than the legislation itself which is actually a pretty balanced, rational and pragmatic piece of legislation. Kids already in school are grandfathered in until 7th grade, kids in the 7th grade and beyond won't be subject to the new requirements at all.
Quote:
In a compromise, the authors agreed to limit the number of required vaccines to 10 to address critics' concerns of an ever-expanding list of shots. They also amended their bill to remove a requirement for schools to notify parents of immunization rates. That made it possible for SB277 to bypass the Senate Appropriations Committee.
But perhaps the most significant compromise was the authors' pledge to "grandfather in" many public and private school students whose parents have claimed personal belief exemptions. That would mean that more than 13,000 children who have had no vaccinations by first grade won't have to get their shots until they enter seventh grade. And nearly 10,000 seventh-graders who today aren't fully vaccinated may be able to avoid future shots because the state does not always require them after that grade.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And the way I thought it should have been decided upon from the beginning. 
It's not the first time fear mongering accomplished a set of ridiculous laws. Won't be the last. That's why it's important for those who see clearly to speak out and go to the courts. Sometimes you have to magnify the obvious. Fear is one thing that can be used over and over again to grab a majority for certain objectives. History proves this.