foxnews.com/us/states-seek-to-cut-off-religious-exemptions-for-vaccination
Connecticut's Attorney General gave state lawmakers the legal go-ahead Monday to pursue legislation that would prevent parents from exempting their children from vaccinations for religious reasons, a move that several states are considering amid a significant measles outbreak.
The non-binding ruling from William Tong, a Democrat, was released the same day public health officials in neighboring New York called on state legislators there to pass similar legislation . Most of the cases in the current outbreak have been in New York state.
[...] Connecticut is just one of several states considering whether to end longstanding laws that allow people to opt out of vaccinations for religious purposes. In the face of outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases, some have alleged religious exemptions have been abused by "anti-vaxxers" who believe vaccines are harmful despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
But the proposals to eliminate the opt-outs have also sparked emotional debates about religious freedom and the rights of parents.
Most religions have no prohibitions against vaccinations, according to Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Tennessee. Yet the number of people seeking the religious exemption in Connecticut has been consistently climbing. There were 316 issued during the 2003-04 school year, compared to 1,255 in the 2017-18 school year.
[...] All 50 states have laws requiring students to have certain vaccinations. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, all but Mississippi, West Virginia and California grant religious exemptions. As of Jan. 30, the conference said 17 states allowed people to exempt their children for personal, moral or other philosophical beliefs.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by DannyB on Wednesday May 08 2019, @04:10PM (18 children)
My religious beliefs require me to not obey the speed limits. This has been enshrined in my religion's sacred texts for
trillionsuh, thousands of years!!!The state is actively discriminating against me if they do not allow me to speed!
I am only one single person seeking this exemption. So what is the harm?
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by ikanreed on Wednesday May 08 2019, @06:51PM (9 children)
The counter-weight to this is, of course, all the dumb laws that shouldn't have been laws in the first place, where ancient traditions that have never caused problems before are at odds with them. Ban alcohol, but of course people can still have communion. Have a draft for a unnecessary war, but let the Quakers out of it, they think killing people is wrong. Religious exemptions can be a spotlight on a law that should never have been a law.
Mandatory vaccines should be a law, and exemptions to it take the opposite of a choice of moral conscience, and instead represent active contempt for other people. Religious exemptions to it, to me, show a religion that shouldn't exist, not a law that shouldn't.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday May 08 2019, @07:48PM (8 children)
I wouldn't be affected by banning alcohol. So I can't really speak about it.
I don't know why alcohol is necessary for communion. But there will probably be someone who will insist it is.
I agree about vaccines being required. Maybe only for school, military service, OR maybe made mandatory for all, period. I also agree that a religion that would be against vaccines (are there actually any?) is a bad religion.
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by ikanreed on Wednesday May 08 2019, @08:08PM (7 children)
Sadly, yes. There are several religions that are against vaccination of children.
Christian Scientists feel that medicine in general represents a failure to trust in god to save you, and vaccines in particular are distrusting god in advance of you being even sick.
Some Jehovah's witnesses(though far from all) teach that injections of any kind are a violation of the religion's code against "mixing blood".
The New York branch of the current measles outbreak is mostly located in insular ultra-super-ohmygodsomuch Orthdox Jewish communities, who, while not explicitly teaching that God dislikes vaccines in any way, do teach a distrust of outsiders, outside authority, and outside institutions, which leads to people not getting school-required vaccines because they don't go to public school, and not going to outside doctors and following standard pediatric guidelines, because those are outsiders, making for a de facto low vaccination rate.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday May 08 2019, @09:01PM
That is interesting. Thank you.
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 08 2019, @09:03PM
It is also self-reinforcing. The guidance from the rebbes in the Halakha (in super-duper basic form) is that you should follow the customs of your community as long as they don't violate the mitzvot. But, because the community they live in is so restricted, not only do they not have to vaccinate, because no one else does. I've also seen arguments that they are forbidden from vaccinating because that would go against the customs of the community they are in.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by PinkyGigglebrain on Wednesday May 08 2019, @09:43PM (1 child)
And this dear friends is WHY there are so many problems in the world today.
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Thursday May 09 2019, @03:01PM
I basically agree. However, instances of the opposite can also be found [wikipedia.org], and more than once [wikipedia.org]. Many more times than once [wikipedia.org]. And of course it extends in the opposite direction [wikipedia.org] as well.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday May 08 2019, @09:50PM (1 child)
Am I correct in thinking that some of the ultra-conservative Jewish groups also oppose vaccines because at some point in the process pigs were involved?
I think I may have read that somewhere, but could be wrong.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 09 2019, @07:02PM
Vaccines have all sorts of non-Kosher ingredients. However, there are two major exceptions to the Kosher rule.
First is that you can have non-Kosher substances injected into you because the prohibition only applies to things you eat. This is the rule that allowed smallpox vaccination originally (which contained rat blood cells) and also allows other routes of medical intervention, such as non-Kosher foods being put in feeding tubes.
Second, the law requires taking steps to preserve life, so you can violate the other rules if doing so is necessary to protect human life. This is was also historically used to allow smallpox vaccination (which at the time had an overall complication rate of 0.1%), as well as allowing gelatin products when ordered by a doctor (usually after surgery) or medications like insulin.
(Score: 2) by SomeGuy on Wednesday May 08 2019, @10:11PM
Facepalm at these idiots. It's 2019 and there are still shitheads in this country that seriously believe this crap.
Someone needs to inform these shitheads that their god is not telling them to avoid vaccination, because their magic god does not fucking exist!
If these ball garglers want to avoid medical treatments and get themselves killed, fine. But don't drag other people in to it.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by mhajicek on Wednesday May 08 2019, @09:32PM (7 children)
As much as I believe that vaccines are good, and not getting them is selfish and inconsiderate, I do not believe that the government should have the authority to decide what goes in my body. Establishing that precedent is dangerous.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 3, Interesting) by PinkyGigglebrain on Wednesday May 08 2019, @09:52PM (3 children)
What about EPA regulations about the amount of arsenic, lead, and other heavy metal contamination of your drinking water? Think those are a bad idea too?
One of the core jobs of a government is to protect ALL it's citizens, and sometimes that means they need trample on the rights of individuals. I believe this is one of those times.
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 2) by SomeGuy on Wednesday May 08 2019, @10:28PM
Except those are basically the opposite. These help keep unwanted things OUT of you. You can still make the informed choice to mix lead into your cup of water, if you want.
If it was law to drink the government's secret kool-aid, would you? Perhaps eventually they will require eveyone to install borg implants? There really are not too many examples of things being forced IN to people. (Other than having the entire "in god we trust" shit shoved up everyones assholes)
If it were a vaccine or preventative medication for some disease that did not instantly try to infect everyone around, then it would seem wrong to force someone. But in this case the un-vaccinated become a serious danger to the public.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 09 2019, @02:14AM
Exactly. The great protector protects all of us, not each of us. If one of us must die for the protection of the rest, so be it. All hail the great protector!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 09 2019, @07:53PM
you're a fucking idiot
(Score: 2) by Fluffeh on Wednesday May 08 2019, @10:02PM
The government already through agencies decides that.
Safe drinking water has to meet requirements set out by... the government.
Pollutants released into the atmosphere are regulated by... the government.
Medicines must meet.. government standards... to be considered legal to use.
And realistically, it is the governments role to protect it's society as a whole. That means doing the most it can to control all manner of dangers, from fires breaking out (and having a fire department) to dangerous citizens (therefore police and sheriff departments) to controllable diseases such as polio, measles and a whole bunch of others along with them. Anyone using religion as a reason why they can't be vaccinated i merely using some quirk of that religion's texts or beliefs to further their own want to not be vaccinated.
I really should drink more coffee before posting, as this is probably harsher than I would normally state.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Thexalon on Wednesday May 08 2019, @11:44PM (1 child)
And how many children, either stuck with stupid parents/guardians or too young to get vaccinated, should die of measles and other easily preventable diseases to protect that principle? Because that's pretty dangerous too.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 09 2019, @07:56PM
children are the responsibility of the parent, not your fucking authoritarian "society". i accept no responsibility for other people's kids. How they raise their kids is on them.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday May 08 2019, @04:18PM (40 children)
Philosophical beliefs? Personal beliefs? That has even less weight (to me) than religious beliefs. (and I do have religious beliefs)
How about for scientific reasons. There might actually be a few children who should not be vaccinated for legitimate scientific reasons.
As for religious beliefs, if that could even be allowed, then qualify it to traditional longstanding religions that can be shown to have an actual long held belief that would clearly apply to vaccinations. Like maybe the Onteen [fandom.com] in Babylon 5.
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 3, Funny) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday May 08 2019, @04:36PM (25 children)
Slippery slope, and how can you tell I'm not Amish?
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 3, Touché) by HiThere on Wednesday May 08 2019, @04:39PM (24 children)
Well, if you drive a car, then if you're Amish, you're not traditional enough about it the allow a vaccination exemption.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday May 08 2019, @04:49PM (23 children)
What's your take on Amish SN dwellers ?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by crb3 on Wednesday May 08 2019, @06:53PM (21 children)
Your right to swing your religion ends at the tip of my nose; I'm subject to the same limitation. From where I sit, the Wiccan Rede, "An it harm none, do what thou wilt", is just the permission-phase mirror of the restriction-phase Galt's Law, "No one has the right to initiate the threat or use of force against another."
I'm all for forcing rabid fundamentalists to sit down and shut up when they try to enforce their book-worshipping delusions on me and mine. I'm usually courteous to door-to-door religion salesmen, but only on the first pass.
I'm not seeing that with the Amish: they live as they choose, leaving me to live as I choose, and that's how it should be. Other than their possible impact on herd-immunity, none of the Amish I've read about have come anywhere near infringing on my life.
Measles is potentially lethal to adults, so that's how it should be treated, as a deadly weapon. In this country we allow gun-ownership but impose stiff penalties on those who use them on others. I've read about at least one case where an HIV-positive person has been penalized for deliberately spreading that infection. An antivaxxer should be subject to the same sort of penalty for assault with a deadly biological weapon, times the number of cases for which that person is the proven deliberate vector. Proven innoculation, for those for whom the innoculation didn't take (herd-immunity is a game of percentages) should be safe-harbor protection from this penalty.
That's my opinion.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday May 08 2019, @07:05PM (9 children)
Ok, I'll spell it out : what are the odds that an Amish person is on SoylentNews ?
(I'm ok with with your opinion, but pointing out the whoosh that started 4 posts upthread)
(Score: 4, Funny) by JNCF on Wednesday May 08 2019, @08:50PM (2 children)
I read and post via carrier pigeons and an English acquaintance, you insensitive clod!
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday May 08 2019, @09:21PM (1 child)
I recommend training a woodpecker to send you replies in morse code straight onto the Buzzard's skull.
Higher bandwidth, cute factor, and less shit to deal with.
(Score: 3, Funny) by JNCF on Wednesday May 08 2019, @09:30PM
That's how I posted on The Old Site, but after years of woodpecker induced trepanation the quality of his posts degraded into what you see now and we decided to switch to the current method; my bandwidth is worse, but the overall comment quality between us has plateaued.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Thursday May 09 2019, @12:24AM (5 children)
Our family had some Amish friends up in Illinois. They did the dresses without buttons, stores without electricity, baked awesome pies, etc. But, their community leader, most strict of the clan, came around and gave us a horse-drawn carriage ride... on a carriage with properly inflated pneumatic tires: English air, as they call it in the community. When you ask "how can he do that?" the community members just shrug their shoulders and reply "I don't know."
The 50 shades of orthodox Judaism practiced on Miami Beach are another great example of individuals charting their own course between traditional religious practices and modern life.
Who's to say that an agnostic, non-church-going family can't develop their own philosophical views surrounding modern medicine and practice that within their own family as a "religious practice"? Do they have to go and recruit a certain number of cult members to join them? How many? How many do you think they could organize nationwide through an online community that meets through internet chat rooms and message boards?
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday May 09 2019, @12:53AM (1 child)
Vulcanized rubber tires are still a far cry from getting electricity, an ISP that serves people who usually refuse electricity, a working computer, and the desire to frequent such a wretched hive of scum and villainy as this place...
That's quite an amazing departure from what Amish typically is.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Thursday May 09 2019, @01:54AM
Same guy used the telephone on the pole just outside his property line to call the fire department (who arrived on English air, of course) when his field was burning.
I could see a solar powered tablet and "municipal" wifi creeping into the odd Amish home here and there...
We had Mennonite cousins who came to visit in the 1970s - they didn't have TVs in their homes, but it sure didn't stop them from watching ours 12 hours a day while they were visiting us.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Thursday May 09 2019, @02:53PM (2 children)
They can do that because, as you point out with the phone on-property and 911, the Amish are not "anti-technology". They also wear glasses and in many cases obtain modern medical care when required (all the members contributing to a community fund for such a purpose). The point being that the community establishes what the standards are for that community. If English tires were seen as a problem that member would be told to desist on pain of shunning, I would suspect.
So what prevents and individual family from deciding their own morals? In the case of vaccination I'd point out that the decision not to vaccinate affects not only that family, but the entire community. I'm not advocating for forced vaccination necessarily, but the question is what is the consequence to the family or their psyche for noncompliance? For "religious" exemptions there is a belief that genuine harm may result in an estrangement from God or being kicked out of heaven. What penalty does the freethinking family believe it will encounter by not complying with vaccines?
This sig for rent.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday May 09 2019, @03:17PM (1 child)
The primary fear driving anti-vax families is neurodevelopmental abnormalities potentially induced by elements of modern life that have, among other things, driven an increase in the rate of autism spectrum diagnoses from 1/10,000 to ~1/50 in the last 2 generations - with risk much higher than 1/50 clustered in vaguely identifiable groups.
Religious fear of God was driven by things that people didn't understand: earthquakes, plagues, hurricanes, venereal disease... I'd submit that modern science is doing about as good a job explaining Autism at the moment as it was explaining syphilis in ancient Egypt. For about 20 years now "science" has been shrilly defending vaccines as innocent in the Autism epidemic, but without a plausible and actionable explanation of what is causing the epidemic, I'm not surprised that a significant portion of the population rejects the current dogma.
We didn't reject all vaccines for our children, but we did reduce the schedule significantly. Things like polio and tetanus are definitely up to date, but the whole spectrum of 22 recommended? No thanks. Our family is clearly at significantly elevated risk for ASD, and as such we have taken other steps such as moving out of Houston to a less industrialized environment, and reducing exposure of our children to things like pesticides, etc.
Unfortunately, fad-thinking is a feature of human societies - including religions. So, for every family with legitimate concerns taking concrete actions, when a fad catches on there will be several others with less reason to make changes making similar and even more extreme changes.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Thursday May 09 2019, @04:46PM
Interesting. I wouldn't describe science as shrill defending vaccines against autism claims. It was someone representing science as a physician who brought the question to the mainstream. The issue was studied quite intensively and it is on the basis of those studies over anecdotal evidence that science defends vaccination and that no link to autism can be found. If tomorrow more scientific evidence is brought forward it will also be examined in turn. But in the meantime people taken invalidated data and representing it as genuine might cause such a reaction.
But risks are always being studied, and guideline change is warranted as either risks change or better understanding is developed - for an idea of this history of CDC's [cdc.gov] various statements about vaccines. The key thing is that when changes occur either in the vaccines, the understanding of the disease as it effects vaccination, or both that information is published. Where the sharp end of medicine does fail is in representing the real risks of vaccination against the benefits of receiving the vaccines. The fear might be that calling attention to the risks may cause people to ignore the bit where the benefits outweigh those risks. But the real problem is that since science tends to work primarily by via negativa (proving that something isn't, rather than proving what is). Or perhaps more accurately it is easier to prove something is false rather than proving something true. Thus vaccination can be proven to not cause autism, while the underlying cause(s) are not yet proven. Causation usually comes about only after all other possibilities which can be conceived are ruled out, and even then there can be doubt that our understanding isn't perfect.
I think the disease count is now 26 different vaccinations available (although there certainly are ones like Rabies that aren't routine and Anthrax which is given only in certain circumstances). Adenovirus, Anthrax, Cholera, Diptheria, Hep A, Hep B, HIb, HPV, Influenza, Japanese Encephalitis, Measles, Meningococcal, Mumps, Pertussis, Pnemococcal, Polio, Rabies, Rotavirus, Rubella, Shingles, Smallpox, Tetanus, Tuberculosis, Typhoid, Varicella, Yellow Fever according to here [cdc.gov].
And yes, you illustrate very effectively why an absolute one-size-fits-all-no-exceptions policy isn't good, either. At the same time (and as you already know), they only work effectively if the point of herd immunity is reached, so society does have an interest in trying to ensure that refusals are kept down. No real answers, only observations.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday May 08 2019, @08:06PM (10 children)
I totally agree with this, vaccinated or not, if you have the Measles and you don't follow isolation protocol as instructed by healthcare professionals, you should be liable for damages caused by your actions.
On the other hand, just because your papers aren't up to date, countersigned by the appropriate tax collectors, should not be a reason to ban you from public spaces, air travel, etc.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by JNCF on Wednesday May 08 2019, @09:04PM (2 children)
Man, that's a real catch 22 if school/work doesn't accommodate your non-attendance. Even if they're legally supposed to, that isn't always the case on the ground. I hate to admit this, and I felt bad about it everytime, but I've totally shown up for work at a food service job while sick to the point of having thrown up earlier in the day. I always informed my managers and tried to get the shifts covered by co-workers, but ultimately I sometimes had to decide between potentially getting people sick or continuing to have a job, and I selfishly chose to continue having a job. I did eventually discover that the employer would actually give me the shift off on short notice whether or not it was covered if I conveyed that I had been throwing up in a permanent company-wide message rather than through private communication directly to managers, probably due to fear of lawsuits, but there was a learning curve.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday May 08 2019, @11:56PM (1 child)
School around here has always allowed 10 days per year unexcused absence, and something like the measles would get a doctor's note excusing the absence.
Work, YMMV, laws schmaws, local management can still screw you over for staying home one day that they think you shouldn't have.
When I worked as a fry cook, my first duty of the day was to go scrub the dumpster... food services shouldn't put people at disease risk, but their management are such bottom feeders most of the time that they just make crap up as they go along, and rarely do they care about anything they haven't been specifically threatened with firing for by _their_ management.
Does your state have "employment at will"? Most do now, I think. The essence of that law is: They can terminate you at any time for any reason or no reason at all, and you can leave at any time with no prior notice. Kinda sucks for you, if you need a job, and all management has to do if they don't like anything you've done is wait a sufficiently long period before making up some BS downsizing, fresh blood on the crew or whatever excuse to terminate you essentially for no reason - but, it really was because you got sick and made them come in on their day off.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by JNCF on Thursday May 09 2019, @12:36AM
Yup. They didn't fire me for it, though. I always made it clear that I was willing to come in. If I hadn't been willing to come in, and hadn't left the decision up to them (albeit in a manner that was transparent to the whole company), they might have. I didn't phrase it as "this is a threat," it was more like "hey can anyone cover my shift tonight? I've thrown up three times so far today and don't want to contaminate coworkers or customers, but if nobody can pick it up I'll be there."
(Score: 2) by sjames on Wednesday May 08 2019, @10:13PM (6 children)
A lot of us probably have no idea where documentation might be found. My vaccination was decades ago and the last time proof was needed, I was 6 years old.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday May 09 2019, @12:15AM (5 children)
No papers, no entry to a hospital as a sales rep. And, I'm cool with that: high risk area for you and others.
Schools are trying to establish themselves as a high risk area, which they are to an extent, but since attendance is mandatory there should be some leeway for the whole freedom of religion/philosophical lifestyle choice thing that the colonists left Europe over in the first place. If you're not vaccinated and there's an epidemic going around, they notify you and more or less demand you stay home, which, as rare as actual epidemics are, sounds like a good thing to me. If you are infected, vaccinated or not, you should stay away from public spaces where people, vaccinated and not, are vulnerable to the disease you are presently carrying.
But, for _od's sake, these things are relatively rare... like Hurricane strike on the Gulf Coast rare - f'ing deal with it when it happens and stop with the idea that you can build hurricane proof cities directly on the coast, ain't gonna happen at any budget that anybody is willing to pay. Beef up the building codes? Maybe... I kinda like the island approach where you build a plywood shack on the beach, enjoy the _uck out of it for 20 years until the hurricane hits, then rebuild it after the storm passes, for a net cost much lower than trying to build a "hurricane proof" structure there that's only really going to withstand a slightly stronger storm, but still be toast in a direct F5 tornado strike no matter how you build it, short of in the style of a root cellar, which isn't too common on beachfront property.
To stretch that analogy over to vaccines: science says they're a good bet overall - and, all else being equal, I'd go with that. However, if, for whatever reasons rational, divinely inspired, or learned from nude models on the shopping channel, citizens of this country truly believe that they are, overall, better off without some or all of their vaccines, that's a cost-benefit analysis out there in the range where I think they should be able to make that call. They're not infected, there's not presently an epidemic raging through their city, and that's likely to be true for 20+ years in most places. When there's a problem with them, or the people in their town, take proper mitigation, quarantine... if that's too much of a PITA for your life and you think vaccines are better for you (and/or your minor children), go for it, vaccinate and take your chances when the epidemic strikes, that's a rational choice - just like the "hurricane proof" structures, it's still no guarantee.
On the other hand, anyone who knows they have measles, mumps, or any other highly contagious potentially deadly disease and goes out to spread it in public on purpose... that's a crime just as violent as firing a gun into the air on New Year's Eve, and the perpetrator should be held responsible for actual damages caused by their negligent actions.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by sjames on Thursday May 09 2019, @09:14AM (4 children)
You mis-understand. I did have all of my vaccinations, I just have no idea where a piece of paper proving it might be, it was decades ago and I was too young to be responsible for the safekeeping of paperwork at the time.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 09 2019, @01:15PM
The back of your original birth certificate most likely. That is where mine is anyway.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday May 09 2019, @02:51PM (2 children)
There are titer tests for many of the vaccines, and if you don't produce an adequate titer you probably needed a booster shot anyway.
And, there we go again - if vaccination proof becomes mandatory (outside specialized professions), do we really want to haul out every person who can't find their paperwork, force them to submit blood for testing, force them to get booster shots (when recommended by "science"), etc.? To me, that's the logical extension of all this mandatory childhood vaccination stuff, what about the under-vaccinated adults?
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by sjames on Saturday May 11 2019, @09:17AM (1 child)
Sure, but I'll bet the people who don't want to take my word for it also don't want to cough up for the tests.
It was required to start school. I started (and completed) school. So the proof must have existed decades ago.
To be complete, I did not get vaccinated for Rubella since by the time the vaccine was commonly available, I already had immunity the hard way.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday May 11 2019, @12:56PM
That's not really proof, your parents could have exempted you - even back in the 1970s when it wasn't all over the news, it still happened.
You might be surprised... When we go to the county health clinic to get our Tetanus shots, the fee is really small, like $5, and I think that can be waived if you tell them it's a hardship for you.
I'm not crying conspiracy here, but there are interests out there who would happily pay for the whole population to be vaccinated for free, at least for those vaccines that are no longer IP protected and making big $$$ for their creators.
I agree with the current structure that makes it a more inconvenient PITA to get the exemption paperwork than it is to get the shots. Human nature, shots are painful, trips to the doctor/clinic to get shots are inconvenient (and somewhat costly), if all you had to do to exempt yourself/your kids was go online and check a box - that would lead to a public health crisis for no better reason than laziness.
On the other hand, if people believe in this decision strongly enough to go through more inconvenient PITA to get the exemption... at least that's passing some kind of "do they really believe, or are they just being lazy / protecting their kids from the pain of the shots?" threshold.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 3, Funny) by JoeMerchant on Thursday May 09 2019, @12:18AM
Eh, I keep the WiFi router outside the house, on the telephone pole - that makes it O.K.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 5, Interesting) by bob_super on Wednesday May 08 2019, @04:40PM (12 children)
> Philosophical beliefs? Personal beliefs? That has even less weight (to me) than religious beliefs. (and I do have religious beliefs)
Their opinions should take a back seat to their social duties.
> How about for scientific reasons. There might actually be a few children who should not be vaccinated for legitimate scientific reasons.
Should be the only valid reason, but it has been abused already (San Diego, IIRC)
Some people have suggested requiring two separate doctors to give a medical exemption to a kid (not much of a burden if you're really deadly allergic), and monitoring exemptions to verify whether people go doctor-shopping.
> As for religious beliefs, if that could even be allowed, then qualify it to traditional longstanding religions that can be shown
> to have an actual long held belief that would clearly apply to vaccinations.
Nope. None. Nada. Nyet. Non.
What you believe has no say in my society's disease control, when reviewed and proven science says otherwise. I don't care if your favorite book tells you to go shit in the town's water tank. Go build your own city far from us if you want to live by your rules. We'll follow the rules which have saved millions of lives.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday May 08 2019, @04:47PM (7 children)
I was trying to narrow it severely so it wasn't convenient for just anyone to claim.
Not all people believe as you do. It's just a fact. I try a little bit to see things from another POV, sometimes.
That said, I tend to agree with you. I cannot say I am aware of a genuine religious objection to vaccines. Especially if the objector would allow other use of needles such as an IV, blood transfusion, other types of shots, etc. If there is a genuine religious objection somewhere, I would be interested to be made aware of it.
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Wednesday May 08 2019, @04:54PM (6 children)
The last thing we need is the government stepping in to say what is and is not a valid religion.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday May 08 2019, @04:58PM (4 children)
I have mixed feeling on that one. I want to definitely agree. But then people can make a pretense of a new religion, without any genuine belief, for political or other goals.
But I would agree, I suppose, despite the way it could be trolled.
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Thexalon on Wednesday May 08 2019, @05:28PM (1 child)
An interesting case in point has to be the Satanic Temple [thesatanictemple.com], who are an officially recognized church, but also very political in nature. Their main role has been, every time Christian right-wingers try to put religion into the public sphere, to say "Great, that means we can put our religion into the public sphere! Finally!" Frequently, the Christian right-wingers respond with something along the lines of "Wait, no, we didn't mean that, just our religion!" and change their minds about the policy.
The best part is that they have actually produced materials for these projects like:
1. A statue of goat-faced Baphomet with 2 kids gazing adoringly at him, which they used to successfully stop laws permitting religious displays in the Oklahoma and Arkansas state capitols, and was cool enough to get copied by the Netflix show The Chilling Adventures of Sabrina.
2. After School Satan, a club that uses public school buildings to gather motivated kids and teach them to employ critical thinking skills and scientific methods.
3. The Satanic Children’s Big Book of Activities, a short booklet that encourages young readers to be inclusive with their peers.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday May 08 2019, @07:57PM
That is a good example, I was aware of, but wasn't thinking of at the time I posted.
And of course, their political activism is their right.
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday May 08 2019, @10:02PM (1 child)
I wonder why Scientology always springs to mind?
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday May 09 2019, @02:07PM
A sci-fi religion. Created by a sci-fi author. Over a bet that he could start a new religion.
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday May 08 2019, @05:26PM
> The last thing we need is the government stepping in to say what is and is not a valid religion.
There's a First for that. You can believe whatever you want.
BUT you should never expect preferential treatments or exceptions of any kind from the state based on whatever it is you believe.
Deal ?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by JNCF on Wednesday May 08 2019, @04:59PM (2 children)
You do understand that people try this and eventually get encroached-upon by your militaristic society, right? I'm not aware of Native American or Mormon anti-vaxxer movements, but if such movements did exist would you give those people exemptions based on the fact that they actually did exactly what you are suggesting many generations before you suggested it, and were subsequently invaded by your government?
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday May 08 2019, @07:53PM (1 child)
I suppose a wall could be built.
(ducks, hides under desk)
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 3, Touché) by JNCF on Wednesday May 08 2019, @09:53PM
Somehow I doubt that you bureaucracy-loving-big-government-types are actually willing to grant Utah independence if they build a wall around the state. Maybe my skepticism comes from that time you invaded them and forced them to live under your laws ever since? I dunno, I'll have to
thdrink on it.(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 09 2019, @02:22AM
I have anti-vaxxer friends who also happen to be atheists.
For them, it was honest to 'god' civil disobedience to protest the profiteering of big pharma. They see the vaccines as a govm't mandated money grab.
Some people can be so reasonable in some ways, and simply have no sense at all in others. Thus, laws...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 09 2019, @10:44PM
Why? Why are nonreligious strongly-held beliefs inferior to religious strongly-held beliefs? Your strongly-held beliefs only matter if you believe in a magical sky daddy? Religious people shouldn't be afforded more rights than nonreligious people, which they de facto are when religious exemptions to laws are granted; that is unconstitutional.
So people of certain religions would have more rights. That is unconstitutional.
I mean, what if I have a long-held religious belief that I can murder people? Why are these religious exemptions granted in some cases, but not others? Either the behavior is bad or it is not, and if it is harmful, then it shouldn't be allowed for anyone. On the other hand, if the behavior is not harmful, then it should be allowed for everyone. Simple, and it requires no unconstitutional religious exemptions.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 08 2019, @04:19PM (28 children)
Why does everything have to be a lie when it comes to the government. Why can't they just admit that the immunity due to stuff like measles from the vaccines is waning and now there are tens of millions of adults (and growing) who have lost their immunity in the US alone. As this group of "susceptibles" grows to be an ever larger percentage of the population we will see giant epidemics. It is a basic prediction from SIR models. Basically, even with no waning immunity we would get this epidemic eventually. The basic SIR model goes:
Birth --r0-> Susceptible ---r1-> Infected --r2--> Recovered
That is what happened naturally, but now due to waning immunity we also see:
Recovered --r3--> Susceptible
So this is going to happen much faster. The only way out is:
1) Totally eradicate the virus before this happens
2) Give all these adults a booster vaccine
Desperately trying to vaccinate that last 1% of children may slow it (this also reduces susceptibles), but is not going to save them.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 08 2019, @04:38PM (21 children)
I love the mods on this site.
If I post facts and scientific predictions it gets modded down, even if I include sources for everything (which is why I don't bother anymore).
If I post anti-Trump/capitalism nonsensical jabbering it gets left alone or even modded up.
(Score: 5, Informative) by bob_super on Wednesday May 08 2019, @04:47PM (3 children)
I didn't mod you, but I would guess it's because your not-incorrect statement about the danger of waning immunity, is here totally out of place.
The numbers are pretty clear that the communities affected are essentially unvaccinated ones, plus a number of vaccinated-but-sick that doesn't stand out statistically given the known performance of the vaccine.
Yes, immunity can wane in some vaccines (got your booster shots?), and mutations can negate the effects of vaccines.
But neither of those is at play here.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 08 2019, @04:58PM (2 children)
This is has nothing to do with my point. My point is that we are hearing all this frantic "vaccinate everything" news because they know an epidemic (caused by bad vaccination policy) is coming *in the future* amongst the adults with waned immunity. They are just trying to delay this until they retire/etc. They = whoever at the CDC and pharma corporations is responsible for this stuff.
(Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 08 2019, @05:13PM (1 child)
there is no point arguing with these state socialist authoritarian scum. they are intellectually dishonest.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 08 2019, @05:38PM
agree. socialism in one country has a track record of decaying back to capitalism.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DannyB on Wednesday May 08 2019, @04:49PM (2 children)
Mods are not consistent. I can post anti-Trump jabbering and get modded Troll. Maybe it is just the content of the jabbering. Or the mods. Or both.
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 1) by JNCF on Wednesday May 08 2019, @10:23PM (1 child)
This, completely. A community-run moderation system is going to be inconsistent, especially with a relatively small pool of users (I feel like HN, for all the problems it has, is generally more consistent about moderation just due to numbers -- the anti-troll culture, lack of a cap, requirement to have 500+ aggregate upvotes before downvoting, and inability to downvote replies to your own comments probably all factor in as well, but that doesn't mean I like all of these qualities). Complaining about it is a bit silly, I care more about stimulating ideas and discussions than I do about collecting made-up karma points. When it's a result of admin actions, as in the case of aristarchus' occasional karma deaths, I'm a bit more understanding and at least appreciate that light is being brought into a dark corner of the system I would not otherwise be aware of, but when it's actually community moderation you should just keep posting and let the system sort itself out. If users in aggregate don't want to see your posts, it makes sense for them to not show up by default; if a given user wants to see posts from low-rated users, they can. I turned off the karma bonus for this comment, but you should all mod me off-topic anyway :)
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday May 09 2019, @02:06PM
Well said.
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by HiThere on Wednesday May 08 2019, @04:51PM (6 children)
When your fact are carefully selected and slanted, then you deserve to be modded down.
While you model is, moderately, correct, it ignores the fact that everyone will eventually die of something, so the timeline is important.
You *could* have made your case stronger by presenting evidence the the immunity from vaccination is weaker than the immunity from actually catching the disease. This may be correct, I'd need to investigate. Your solution that everyone should have a second vaccination is, indeed, the correct answer, unfortunately unlike some immunities, the immunity to measles lasts long enough that it's not clear that it can be expected to wear off within a person's lifetime. It is, however, known that sometimes it does. And it's really unfortunate that the test for the strength of the immunity has such a high failure rate. So while people *should* *eventually* have a second vaccination, it's not clear when they should have it.
As a result the best choice is to have everyone immunized so that it can't spread when introduced. And to attempt to avoid it being reintroduced. But immigration quarantines are expensive and annoying to everyone, so they aren't used, which allows incipient cases to slip through.
An additional problem, of course, is that the vaccine isn't 100% effective (neither is having had the disease!!). So the critical percentage of vaccination is higher than it would be in the ideal world. This is *not* a surprise, as things are almost always imperfect.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 08 2019, @05:11PM (5 children)
I've posted this before:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15106101 [nih.gov]
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22966129 [nih.gov]
If since 1963 about 95% of people in the US got vaccinated, 97% of vaccinated get acute immunity, and 92% of them are still immune 30 years later, how many adults without immunity are in the US now? I get ~30 million.
And this will be an underestimate since some people with a positive blood tests will still get ill, some were vaccinated more than 30 years ago (but we have no idea if the waning accelerates with age), and the rate of waning seems to be increasing with time due to loss of "natural boosters".
In the past the vast majority of people without immunity were children (~ 10 million right now). This is no longer the case. The children are no longer the main population at risk. And measles is supposed to be much worse in adults (but I have never seen data on this).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 08 2019, @05:46PM (1 child)
Is there any reason we can't make these vaccines once every 5 or 10 years then like tetanus?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 08 2019, @06:33PM
Its easier and cheaper to just get measles once with similar risk of complications as long as you are well nourished, etc.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Thursday May 09 2019, @04:25AM (2 children)
The problem is those antibody assays aren't that accurate in predicting immunity to future infections. I went in to get a second vaccination, and they told me not only that they didn't think I needed one, having had measles already, but that the test for immunity level was not that reliable. They'd do it if I requested, but they didn't think it was that useful.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 09 2019, @04:52AM
Those same tests are used to "confirm" cases of measles. There are tens of thousands of suspected cases every year, and the vast majority are being called "measles like illness due to unknown virus" instead of measles based on those tests.
I could also believe that those cases are all measles (which they are according to the pre-vaccine definition of measles based solely on clinical symptoms). The continued clockwork seasonally of measles in the US suggests it is still circulating same as ever. In a couple weeks measles will drop from the news and we won't hear about it again until the winter.
https://image.ibb.co/iM5f4S/Measles_Cases_By_Week.png [image.ibb.co]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 09 2019, @05:00AM
And look at this: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22966129 [nih.gov]
People who had measles 10-15 years before the others got mmr (Group 4) still have antibody levels 4x higher. No one who got measles ~1970 had a problem with waning antibodies, but 15% of people who got mmr in 1982 had undetectable levels 20 years later.
So if you had measles, you are probably fine.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 08 2019, @05:01PM
Bitching about moderation = more moderation.
(Score: 4, Informative) by janrinok on Wednesday May 08 2019, @05:22PM (1 child)
I've checked the moderations that you have received to ensure that you are not being unfairly penalised and I'm afraid that they do not back up your statements. You have been modded down (for various reasons 9 times), modded up 16 times (including 'Insightful' and 'Informative'), and 78 times you have finished with a moderation of '0', which is the starting position for ACs. Whether the latter have been higher and lower before settling at 0 I cannot tell.
I know it can seem as if one is unfairly modded more often than it actually is (I have exactly the same problem) but I would say that the moderations that you have received are actually more positive than negative. Now I haven't gone through each of your comments to see whether the moderations were deserved or not (there are over 100 comments!) but I would suggest that you keep doing what you are doing as most of your comments seem to be accepted by the community.
I'm not quite sure why you would post nonsensical jabbering if that is your own view of it though... :)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 08 2019, @06:35PM
Thanks.
1) Sometimes I read some nonsense elsewhere I think is funny and post it here to remember it
2) To see what response it gets from this community
(Score: 4, Insightful) by NewNic on Wednesday May 08 2019, @05:50PM
So get a login and don't post as AC.
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 08 2019, @06:23PM (2 children)
There is little purpose in attempting to communicate with the denizens of the almost hivemind here. Unless it amuses you, perhaps.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday May 08 2019, @09:33PM (1 child)
Hive mind? I don't see that. We have several incorrigible independent thinkers here. We have a conservative camp and a progressive camp. You can find posts supporting luddites, and more posts condemning luddites. You really can't accuse Soylent of being a hive mind. If we all thought alike, there wouldn't be discussions with hundreds of comments. There are plenty of echo chambers on the internet, but Soylent isn't one of them.
(Score: 3, Funny) by deimtee on Thursday May 09 2019, @02:01AM
We all agree. We are all individuals. We are not a hivemind.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 08 2019, @04:52PM
Interesting speculation, but still a speculation until proven.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday May 08 2019, @06:03PM (4 children)
Like we had in 1960, before there was ANY vaccine for measles? The world spun on, and will do so in the future, with or without mass vaccination / immunity.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 08 2019, @08:11PM
No, an order of magnitude bigger. Like 10 million instead of 800k cases in a year. And mostly adults who have jobs and stuff too.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 08 2019, @10:14PM (2 children)
Here is US population data and some data from Rhode Island for measles cases by age from 1858-1923. I combined this with US population data from 1963 (original link is broke: http://www.census.gov/popest/data/national/asrh/pre-1980/PE-11.html) [census.gov]
Derived from table 3:
Measles In Providence, R. I., 1858–1923 Charles V. Chapin, M.D. American Journal of Epidemiology, Volume 5, Issue 5, 1 September 1925, Pages 635–655, https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a119686 [doi.org]
If nearly everyone got measles (which everyone assumes) then the cumulative sum of the percentage of cases would be very close to the proportion of people who already had measles (and were immune) by age. Then the number of susceptible people nSus is just 1 minus that value multiplied by the population at each age.
By taking the sum, we see in total there would be ~ 20 million susceptible in the US at any one time, or about 10% the total population. Right now, I estimated [soylentnews.org] due to waning immunity, etc there are ~30 million adults who are now susceptible again, in addition to however many children there are (I would guess ~10 million from a couple million infants with waning maternal antibodies and then 90-95% vaccinated amongst the older ones) . That is about 12% of the US population.
As the percent of susceptibles continues to grow the epidemic becomes more and more likely, and a bigger proportion of susceptibles are going to be going to work, etc commingling with each other.
This is a totally new scenario, nothing like it was before.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 09 2019, @02:08AM (1 child)
It's a bit like wildfires. If you have regular scrub fires they don't get too big. If you start suppressing fires, the leaf litter and dead wood builds up, and then when you finally get a fire, it is huge.
Vaccination is a like trying to clear the deadwood by having very small fires. It doesn't clear as well as an actual fire, and there is a hidden buildup of fuel. (Waning immunity)
I can see the argument against vaccination making some sense, but a better idea is to vaccinate again. Put it on a 20 year cycle and be done with it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 09 2019, @03:04AM
20 years is probably not frequent enough if the waning rate is increasing to 4% of vaccinated people losing immunity every 5 years. But anyway clearly they do not want this solution for some reason.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 08 2019, @04:47PM
Maybe the measles problem is not a religious one at all. With the obviously antisemitic affinity of measles outbreak in current epoch, virus able to ignore classic vaccination and selecting its targets at the same time by genetic markers is suspected to be synthetically manipulated.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 08 2019, @04:57PM (10 children)
The Vaccine Injury Compensation Board has paid out Billions to families that have been devastated by vaccines... Not entirely "safe".
The USS Fort McHenry has been quarantined for months due to an outbreak when every member of the military is fully vaccinated and kept up to date. The infection continued to spread even after booster shots were administered... Not entirely "effective".
Choose for yourself. Risk subscribing to vaccinations and a lifetime of booster shots every few years for the hope of possible partial immunity or get the measles as a kid and enjoy real lifetime immunity.
My body. My choice.
(Score: 3, Touché) by DannyB on Wednesday May 08 2019, @05:03PM (2 children)
Would you have the same opinion about Polio?
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday May 08 2019, @08:12PM (1 child)
Polio != Tetanus != Measles != Rotovirus != HPV etc. etc. etc.
There should be unbiased information on each, and a right to choose. This binary society "in or out" "vaccinated or not" "R or D" "paper or plastic" is really frustrating.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 08 2019, @08:45PM
Agreed. Unbiased information and honesty would lead to informed choices, but instead what do we get from the medical community but cover-ups after lies after more cover-ups. Silencing of dissenters, hysteria and censorship means NO TRUST. So the state resorts to brute force? Fuck that! No fascist vaccinator will get near my family. Ever.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 08 2019, @05:18PM
How will you die of cancer if you don't let these agents of death shoot you up with it? How will your kids get cancer when they are so young? How will they be brain-damaged so they can't be too independent and represent a threat to the government? Just take your shot, slave!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 08 2019, @05:28PM
MV Freewinds
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 08 2019, @05:50PM
Or get measles as a kid and get permanently impaired vision or blindness, or get pneumonia or encephalitis. The only thing vaccines are likely to cause are adults.
(Score: 2) by NewNic on Wednesday May 08 2019, @05:54PM
An outbreak of mumps (probably, it's not certain).
The mumps vaccine is only 88% effective after the normal two doses.
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Wednesday May 08 2019, @06:00PM (2 children)
And where is your evidence that the actual disease confers substantially greater immunity than vaccines? Much less lifetime immunity, which is virtually unheard of for any disease.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 08 2019, @08:28PM (1 child)
Do you have any evidence anyone ever got the measels twice?
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Thursday May 09 2019, @02:14AM
That would be difficult to prove either way. It is such an article of faith that I have heard of doctors claiming that if the current disease is measles, the earlier disease must have been mis-diagnosed.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.