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.
Sorry if they can't afford that but because of their refusal to vaccinate, other parents may also have to spend money they don't have on hospital bills for their kids.
Why on earth would they be spending money on hospital bills for their VACCINATED kids?
Why on earth would they be spending money on hospital bills for their VACCINATED kids?
She thinks that unvaccinated children are constantly walking around in a state of contagion passing on illness to the vaccinated kids of the world who are rarely fully protected by the vaccine. Only the VPD worry these types. Forget about strep, norovirus, etc. Those don't count. I can't tell you how many times parents of vaccinated kids have exposed my kids to those without a second thought.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo48
Maybe when their vaccinated kid catches cervical cancer from an unvaccinated kid sitting next to them in class?:
Yes, we must ban kids who have not had their HPV vaccine from school in order to protect the special snowflakes who have been vaccinated. You never know when HPV will suddenly become airborne.
Then why, again, are you asking about the risk the unvaccinated present to the vaccinated? A question you've asked at least 5 (more likely 10) times and had the complete scientific answer to?
The answer won't change just because you don't prefer it.
You cannot see the forest for the trees which is that sending them to private schools or homeschools will not keep them out of SOCIETY. They will still be free to go out in public the same as your vaccinated kids. You will never know what child, or adult, out and about around you is unvaccinated.
You have NO solution to this, and you know it.
We know you have no fundamental understanding of probability and risk assessment. When you repeat the same thing over and over, it makes that abundantly clear.
If your unvaccinated child is in a school, the probability that other children in that school will be exposed to any vaccine preventable disease that he catches approaches 100%. If he is out in public, the risk that a child from his school will come in contact with him is much less.
High vaccination rates are not expected to prevent every case of vaccine preventable disease. They do prevent the disease from spreading and causing large outbreaks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissTerri
She thinks that unvaccinated children are constantly walking around in a state of contagion passing on illness to the vaccinated kids of the world who are rarely fully protected by the vaccine. Only the VPD worry these types. Forget about strep, norovirus, etc. Those don't count. I can't tell you how many times parents of vaccinated kids have exposed my kids to those without a second thought.
The key concept here is preventable. You are again saying the equivalent of "we should not use seat belts for our children because children drown, too."
We may not be able to prevent strept and norovirus. That does not mean we should not prevent measles, mumps, rubella, diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, polio, Hib, hepatitis, meningitis, rotavirus, and, yes, HPV.
Quote:
Yes, we must ban kids who have not had their HPV vaccine from school in order to protect the special snowflakes who have been vaccinated. You never know when HPV will suddenly become airborne.
Rhode Island health authorities have specifically said they are mandating all the vaccines on the recommended list. HPV is on the list. They are not mandating HPV in order to protect other children, but to protect the individual child. The fact that HIV vaccine has been more closely scrutinized than any other vaccine in history, is highly effective, and is highly safe makes that a reasonable approach.
Keep nattering on about it and insisting the motivation of Rhode Island public health officials is to protect against airborne HPV, if you wish.
Then why, again, are you asking about the risk the unvaccinated present to the vaccinated? A question you've asked at least 5 (more likely 10) times and had the complete scientific answer to?
The answer won't change just because you don't prefer it.
The risk is relatively small to those who are vaccinated from those who are not vaccinated. I was not asking a question.
Rhode Island health authorities have specifically said they are mandating all the vaccines on the recommended list. HPV is on the list. They are not mandating HPV in order to protect other children, but to protect the individual child. The fact that HIV vaccine has been more closely scrutinized than any other vaccine in history, is highly effective, and is highly safe makes that a reasonable approach.
Keep nattering on about it and insisting the motivation of Rhode Island public health officials is to protect against airborne HPV, if you wish.
So RI is taking away a parents right to choose by mandating HPV to "protect individuals"? Government overreach at it's finest. HPV vaccine is under investigation in Europe and has been suspended in Japan. There are plenty of reasons to suspect that it is not as safe as some claim. HPV vaccine should be a choice.
The risk is relatively small to those who are vaccinated from those who are not vaccinated. I was not asking a question.
It is not small to those for which the vaccine did not work or for those who have lost vaccine protection due to impaired immune systems. You know, the people you choose to ignore.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissTerri
So RI is taking away a parents right to choose by mandating HPV to "protect individuals"? Government overreach at it's finest. HPV vaccine is under investigation in Europe and has been suspended in Japan. There are plenty of reasons to suspect that it is not as safe as some claim. HPV vaccine should be a choice.
You may choose not to vaccinate your children. You just may not be able to send them to public school. If you choose to vaccinate in order for your child to go to school, you have exercised your right to choose.
You can still get HPV vaccine in Japan. It is just no longer on the recommended list.
"However, in the first birth cohort of 7705 girls eligible for vaccination after suspension, completion rates plummeted to just 0·6%, with only 49 girls finishing the dosing course despite the vaccine still being part of the national immunisation programme and free."
It would be interesting to know how many of the vaccinated girls are doctors' daughters.
"No vaccine safety signal has been recorded in Japan. Instead, individuals who have the misfortune to be unwell with rare or difficult to treat disorders have been encouraged by antivaccination advocates to blame the HPV vaccine, especially in an unrestrained media environment and with little reassurance and systematic addressing of these events by the government."
"According to the Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety, 'Allegations of harm from vaccination based on weak evidence can lead to real harm when, as a result, safe and effective vaccines cease to be used.'Sadly, this is what has transpired in Japan."
Why Japan is wrong about HPV vaccine and the investigation in Europe:
HPV vaccine is continuously under surveillance in the US. Despite all those internet stories you read blaming HPV vaccine for every known malady on earth, serious adverse effects have just not been documented despite intense scrutiny. Desperate parents seeking a reason for their children's sicknesses, preferably something that can perhaps get them money to help with expense of dealing with a chronic illness, are scapegoating vaccines. You insist that complications from HPV vaccine are being covered up. The intussusception complication from the original rotavirus vaccine was identified. It was not covered up. Why would the complication from the rotavirus vaccine be dealt with by reporting it to the medical community and improving the vaccine but complications from HPV vaccine be covered up? The answer, of course, is that severe adverse effects from HPV vaccine are close to nonexistent.
We know you have no fundamental understanding of probability and risk assessment. When you repeat the same thing over and over, it makes that abundantly clear.
If your unvaccinated child is in a school, the probability that other children in that school will be exposed to any vaccine preventable disease that he catches approaches 100%. If he is out in public, the risk that a child from his school will come in contact with him is much less.
High vaccination rates are not expected to prevent every case of vaccine preventable disease. They do prevent the disease from spreading and causing large outbreaks.
You argue that exposure doesn't equal infection then you think that exposure to the disease (by vaccinated kids no less) is a problem?
Disease spreads even in highly vaccinated populations. Expect to see that the rates of disease will not change with these mandates.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010
The key concept here is preventable. You are again saying the equivalent of "we should not use seat belts for our children because children drown, too."
We may not be able to prevent strept and norovirus. That does not mean we should not prevent measles, mumps, rubella, diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, polio, Hib, hepatitis, meningitis, rotavirus, and, yes, HPV.
That is not what she is saying at all. What a poor analogy. Not all illnesses can be prevented by vaccination. The vaccinated kid can get and spread other illnesses. Excluding unvaccinated kids from school will not prevent kids from getting sick with other illnesses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010
Rhode Island health authorities have specifically said they are mandating all the vaccines on the recommended list. HPV is on the list. They are not mandating HPV in order to protect other children, but to protect the individual child. The fact that HIV vaccine has been more closely scrutinized than any other vaccine in history, is highly effective, and is highly safe makes that a reasonable approach.
Keep nattering on about it and insisting the motivation of Rhode Island public health officials is to protect against airborne HPV, if you wish.
You are really being deceptive (or obtuse) in your last sentence. Jo presented an obvious bit of sarcasm directly related to the reason behind mandates being PUBLIC health not INDIVIDUAL health. RI is taking away the right for parents to have INDIVIDUAL health choices which do not affect others.
So...the vaccination is NOT absolute? And they admit it has mercury and other crap in it...things we KNOW are NOT safe.
Hmmm...they've been telling us GMO's are safe too!
"THEY" are being bought out by those with an agenda and profit in mind...NOT our health and safety.
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.
