SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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 beliefs—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?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Monday June 17 2019, @11:59AM (3 children)
Mandatory child restraint car seats are this, IMO. Sure, they're better than adult seat-belts, but what are we really accomplishing with the law? People who comply with heavy physical restraints, 100% trained from a young age, oh, and a 0.01% reduction in early childhood deaths.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Monday June 17 2019, @04:43PM (2 children)
Saving lives? Preventing serious injuries??
Let's investigate that 0.01% number, shall we? Here's a CDC page on child deaths and injuries. [cdc.gov] According to the report on that page, about 44% of child deaths (age less than 19 years) are due to unintentional injuries. Out of that injury rate, motor vehicle accidents are the leading cause of death for kids above the age of 1. (For kids less than 1, suffocation is the leading cause of accidental death.)
Over 50% of childhood injury-related deaths ages 5-9 are motor vehicle related. 31% for ages 1-4 and 14% for kids less than 1 year old (suffocation is about 2/3 of accidental deaths for kids less than age 1, so it skews the other cause stats). Meanwhile, for every death in an auto accident, there are roughly 100 times as many serious injuries for kids. According to estimates I've found in various sources, death rates for kids properly secured in child car seats seem to be lowered by around 75% for children under age 4, and above 50% for children up to age 8. (Note that a full 43% of children [npr.org] who die in car crashes each year were not in a car seat or were improperly restrained in a car seat.)
So, let's put these numbers together. 44% of child deaths are due to unintentional injuries, and 50% of those deaths ages 5-9 are motor vehicle related, meaning roughly 20-25% of all deaths of kids in that age. If car seats/boosters for kids in the 4-8 range prevent 50% of deaths for that age group, I'm pretty sure that's a LOT more than 0.01%. For younger kids, the percentage and actual number of deaths from car accidents is lower, but if car seats are ~75% more effective in preventing death than no restraint in that age group, again, we're talking about a couple orders of magnitude greater than 0.01%.
I know your statement was probably intended as hyperbole, but car accidents cause a huge number of deaths each year. Child restraints are significant contributor to saving lives among young kids.
And by the way, I agree with you that adult seat belt laws are pretty stupid. If you want to die, you should be free to choose not to wear a seatbelt in your own car. I agree. Kids are a different matter. The state has a responsibility to step in and prevent children from harm from stupid parents, like those who would refuse to put their kid in a carseat because they nonsensically believe it would only reduce death rates by 0.01%...
(Score: 3, Funny) by Osamabobama on Monday June 17 2019, @08:45PM (1 child)
I'm sure the real reason is to reduce the government spending on disabled and incapacitated children. Probably also to ensure a larger pool of potential soldiers for the next great war. Bottom line, it's about the government's own interests.
\s
Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 18 2019, @04:29PM
I thought it was about being a rugged individual pulling himself up by the ballsacks.