Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by chromas on Monday June 17 2019, @01:12AM   Printer-friendly
from the multivac dept.

Anti-Vaxxers Defeated: NY Bans Exemptions as Doctors Vote to Step up Fight:

Anti-vaccine advocates received a blow in New York Thursday as state lawmakers banned non-medical exemptions based on religious beliefsā€”and there may be more blows coming.

Also on Thursday, the American Medical Association adopted a new policy to step up its fight against such non-medical exemptions. The AMA, the country's largest physicians' group and one of the largest spenders on lobbying, has always strongly support pediatric vaccination and opposed non-medical exemptions. But under the new policy changes, the association will now "actively advocate" for states to eliminate any laws that allow for non-medical exemptions.

"As evident from the measles outbreaks currently impacting communities in several states, when individuals are not immunized as a matter of personal preference or misinformation, they put themselves and others at risk of disease," AMA Board Member E. Scott Ferguson, M.D. said in a statement. "The AMA strongly supports efforts to eliminate non-medical exemptions from immunization, and we will continue to actively urge policymakers to do so."

The religious exemption ban in New York comes at a critical time. The state is at the forefront of a nationwide resurgence of measles, with active outbreaks that have sickened hundreds and splintered into other states.

"This administration has taken aggressive action to contain the measles outbreak, but given its scale, additional steps are needed to end this public health crisis," New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo said in a statement after signing the ban on religious exemptions. "While I understand and respect freedom of religion, our first job is to protect the public health, and by signing this measure into law, we will help prevent further transmissions and stop this outbreak right in its tracks."

Sudden outbreak of common sense?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Informative) by FatPhil on Monday June 17 2019, @07:41AM

    by FatPhil (863) <{pc-soylent} {at} {asdf.fi}> on Monday June 17 2019, @07:41AM (#856525) Homepage
    Let's say one infected person can infect 20 other people (typically whilst infected but not quarantined), for the sake of illustration.
    If 19 of those are immune, then only one new person gets the disease.
    If more than 19 are immune, each infected person infects less than one other person, and the disease dies out.
    If fewer than 19 are immune, each infected person infects more than one other person, and the disease grows.

    You may conclude that the level of vaccination neccessary to provide herd immunity is closely related to how infectious the disease is (and how long it can go undetected). The '20' and '95%' in the above example would be for highly infectious diseases.

    The above is obviously a simplification, the actual differential equations in the model are a little bit more complicated, as there are different reasons why one might be immune, not just through vaccination. (Natural immunity, or already had the disease, for example.)
    --
    Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Informative=3, Total=3
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5