SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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: 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]