U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 09-10-2019, 10:38 AM
 
9,947 posts, read 5,973,846 times
Reputation: 9897

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by newtovenice View Post
And my friend's child would have been at risk for hospitalization since her reason for not getting the child ONE VACCINE was that my friend had a horrible reaction to it and almost died. She didn't want to risk it.

I guess its more important to kill a kid than to let the parent make the medical decisions.
Yeah, family history will not be a factor that doctors are able to take into consideration for exemptions. So if one child dies after getting a vaccine, his or her sibling won’t be exempted. If a child has a seizure, they won’t be exempted form future vaccines. So on and so forth. It’s extreme. Al due to a less then 1% increase in people obtaining medical exemptions. Very over-reaching legislation.

 
Old 09-10-2019, 10:44 AM
 
Location: Bran's tree
11,393 posts, read 5,055,773 times
Reputation: 12680
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissTerri View Post
That’s pretty much what CA is doing. This is the list.


– Anaphylaxis to vaccine component
– Permanent immune suppressed condition (SCIDS) – Live vaccines only:
MMR, VZV, FluMist, Yellow Fever, Oral Typhoid  Temporary
– Temporarily immunosuppressed (e.g., during cancer chemotherapy) – Live vaccines only
They should add more conditions and not put a cap on the number of exemptions.
 
Old 09-10-2019, 10:52 AM
 
2,599 posts, read 710,464 times
Reputation: 2704
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissTerri View Post
The article states that vaccination rates went up to 95% from 90% once California eliminated personal and religious exemptions which is above the 94% needed to have “herd immunity” and that medical exemptions increased from .02% to .07%. People really see that as a a valid reason to go after Medical Exemptions? Seriously?
The new law is not "going after medical exemptions". That is your activist position and talking point. The new legislation actually will protect all children and especially benefit the very vulnerable few who have a valid medical contraindication to vaccination and legitimate medical exemption. It allows the Department of Public Health to review medical exemptions. Health officials suspected that many medical exemptions were bogus and they needed some tools to protect children and the Public Health overall. They needed to see more kids vaccinated and stay vaccinated and there were numerous obstacles in their way. That is what the latest legislation is all about. Public Health. It actually will protect the true medical exemptions and ALL children.

As for the bogus exemptions topic, which is the reason I linked the LA Times 2018 article
https://www.latimes.com/science/scie...029-story.html

For those of you who choose to be informed, and not be distracted by manufactured diversions, the article provided some interesting findings from that 4 year study published in 2018. A few:

* some medical exemptions were dubious on their face according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.
* medical exemptions can be had for a price.
* questionable people who signed the medical exemptions. Some were nurse practitioners who aren’t authorized to do so as well as a medical marijuana dispensary; others were cardiologists, dermatologists or surgeons, who typically don’t treat children.
*In many cases, medical exemptions are just personal belief exemptions in disguise.

I stand by my opinion regarding the false conclusion drawn in the OP of this thread. The few children who legitimately have a risk to vaccines and therefore cannot be vaccinated will be made safer by attending a school that has a vaccinated population. This "group of kids" will NOT be hurt by this new legislation as the OP suggests. Rather they will benefit.

Last edited by corpgypsy; 09-10-2019 at 11:03 AM.. Reason: added the link
 
Old 09-10-2019, 10:53 AM
 
9,947 posts, read 5,973,846 times
Reputation: 9897
Quote:
Originally Posted by ohhwanderlust View Post
They should add more conditions and not put a cap on the number of exemptions.
That’s what was allowed prior but now that the bill has passed, medical exemptions will be extremely limited from here on out for children in California. Doctor’s hands will be tied. If parents don’t comply they will have to homeschool or move out of state. I suspect that legislation similar to this will make it’s way to other states very soon.
 
Old 09-10-2019, 10:56 AM
 
9,947 posts, read 5,973,846 times
Reputation: 9897
Quote:
Originally Posted by corpgypsy View Post
The new law is not "going after medical exemptions". That is your activist position and talking point. The new legislation actually will protect all children and especially benefit the very vulnerable few who have a valid medical contraindication to vaccination and legitimate medical exemption. It allows the Department of Public Health to review medical exemptions. Health officials suspected that many medical exemptions were bogus and they needed some tools to protect children and the Public Health overall. They needed to see more kids vaccinated and stay vaccinated and there were numerous obstacles in their way. That is what the latest legislation is all about. Public Health. It actually will protect the true medical exemptions and ALL children.

As for the bogus exemptions topic, which is the reason I linked the LA Times 2018 article: for those of you who choose to be informed, and not be distracted by manufactured diversions, the article provided some interesting findings from that 4 year study published in 2018:
* some medical exemptions were dubious on their face according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.
* medical exemptions can be had for a price.
* questionable people who signed the medical exemptions. Some were nurse practitioners who aren’t authorized to do so as well as a medical marijuana dispensary; others were cardiologists, dermatologists or surgeons, who typically don’t treat children.
*In many cases, medical exemptions are just personal belief exemptions in disguise.

I stand by my opinion regarding the false conclusion drawn in the OP of this thread. The few children who legitimately have a risk to vaccines and therefore cannot be vaccinated will be made safer by attending a school that has a vaccinated population. This "group of kids" will NOT be hurt by this new legislation as the post suggests. Rather they will benefit.
I too stand by my opinion on this law. All due to an increase in medical exemptions from .02% to .07% and during a time where the vaccination rate was already at 95% (above supposed herd immunity) for school children.

My opinion is that this is extreme and will hurt children as well as erode the doctor patient relationship as well as the ability for doctors to practice the art and science of medicine. We can agree to disagree.
 
Old 09-10-2019, 11:04 AM
 
52,878 posts, read 42,524,656 times
Reputation: 33130
CA has a history of quack docs doling out everything from oxy prescriptions to people showing up with an xray of a dog to all of the asbestosis scam claims.

The OP is anti-vax and is clearly just complaining that people can't find fraudulent ways to avoid vaccinations.

P.S. The anti-vax movement is rooted in religious zealots, the quack cure rackets and older parents that despite known vastly higher autism risks with increased age can't accept that might be the real reason.
 
Old 09-10-2019, 11:07 AM
 
9,947 posts, read 5,973,846 times
Reputation: 9897
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathguy View Post
CA has a history of quack docs doling out everything from oxy prescriptions to people showing up with an xray of a dog to all of the asbestosis scam claims.

The OP is anti-vax and is clearly just complaining that people can't find fraudulent ways to avoid vaccinations.

P.S. The anti-vax movement is rooted in religious zealots, the quack cure rackets and older parents that despite known vastly higher autism risks with increased age can't accept that might be the real reason.
Medical Exemptions increased from .02% to .07% after personal and religious exemptions were eliminated. Was this a crisis warranting such extreme legislation? You do the math, Mathguy. I’m also not “anti-vax” I’m pro-choice. Big difference.
 
Old 09-10-2019, 11:39 AM
 
Location: San Diego, CA
1,498 posts, read 1,448,050 times
Reputation: 1034
Good for the State on this one. Maybe the "homeschoolers" will get it next. That is the one that should get a lot more scrutiny from the State. When you mix incompetent parents with private homeschool for profit charters what could possibly go wrong?
 
Old 09-10-2019, 11:43 AM
 
9,947 posts, read 5,973,846 times
Reputation: 9897
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffrow1 View Post
Good for the State on this one. Maybe the "homeschoolers" will get it next. That is the one that should get a lot more scrutiny from the State. When you mix incompetent parents with private homeschool for profit charters what could possibly go wrong?
Why not just go after adults? There are far more adults that are not fully vaccinated according to today’s childhood schedule then there are children. Why not a proposal to catch every adult up to the vaccines that children are required to have today as well as annual flu shots. No shots, no job for you.

Look at the vaccines that were required when you were a kid vs the modern schedule and you can see what vaccines you need to get in order to get caught up. No need to wait for legislation, you can go and request to get this done so that you can be 100% consistent in your message. I’m not singling you out either. Any adult who believes in this legislation can and should do this as soon as possible.
 
Old 09-10-2019, 11:46 AM
 
Location: San Diego, CA
1,498 posts, read 1,448,050 times
Reputation: 1034
Fine by me.... or how about having single-payer and everyone gets at least basic health care?
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.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top