California, like all the other states, requires children to be vaccinated before attending school. But the law allows exemptions for reasons of religion or "personal beliefs". The recent measles outbreak is causing some politicians to reconsider this approach. The San Jose Mercury News reports:
Two state senators said Wednesday they will introduce legislation to eliminate a controversial "personal belief exemption" that allows California parents to refuse to vaccinate their children.
"We shouldn't wait for more children to sicken or die before we act," Sen. Richard Pan, a Sacramento Democrat who is also a pediatrician, said at a Wednesday news conference. "Parents are letting us know our current laws are insufficient to protect their kids."
Pan is sponsoring the legislation with Sen. Ben Allen, D-Redondo Beach.
In Washington, D.C., California's two Democratic senators, Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, on Wednesday asked state health officials to go further and consider eliminating the "religious exemption."
Further information:
http://www.latimes.com/local/politics/la-me-pol-measles-vaccination-20150205-story.html
http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/04/health/california-measles-outbreak/
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Ryuugami on Thursday February 05 2015, @01:06PM
California's two Democratic senators, ianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer
Just a heads-up, someone a letter there. I think that's supposed to be Dianne Feinstein.
On an unrelated note, alliterative appellations are neat. You might say that the name "Barbara Boxer" has a nice ring to it.
I'll let myself out.
If a shit storm's on the horizon, it's good to know far enough ahead you can at least bring along an umbrella. - D.Weber
(Score: 2) by LaminatorX on Thursday February 05 2015, @01:28PM
Fixed, thanks.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 05 2015, @03:51PM
Better get it right, Feinstein loves the D.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by CirclesInSand on Thursday February 05 2015, @01:32PM
Objectively, public school is a violation of freedom of beliefs. It is a government institute dedicated to rewarding some beliefs, and punishing others. If you believe that the world is flat, prepare for some government judgement on that. Most people don't even consider it because they are raised in public schools and don't disagree with most of what is advocated there.
So it's hypocritical to give "personal belief" exceptions to public school vaccinations anyway. At least with a private school you could have a choice, although I don't know if California law requires the vaccinations for private schools as well.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by hoochiecoochieman on Thursday February 05 2015, @02:30PM
Thinking the world is flat is not a belief, it's madness. There are proper institutions for insane people, you know.
(Score: 4, Funny) by mendax on Thursday February 05 2015, @06:23PM
The state legislature?
Actually, for a change, the legislature is correct here. A personal belief exemption is utter madness.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by CirclesInSand on Friday February 06 2015, @03:35AM
It's not your place to tell other people that their beliefs are madness or not, especially not with the force of government behind it.
What about "the civil war wasn't fought over slavery"? Most people would consider that madness. How about "this author is a moron and there is nothing worthwhile to say about his writing"? That was my position for much of public school assignments.
Anything you believe is a belief. By definition. And the government should not be deciding what is madness and what is acceptable belief. By the abuses of history we observe this.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by hoochiecoochieman on Friday February 06 2015, @11:37AM
As in everything else, society is not a black-or-white thing. It's impossible for everyone to agree on everything. States have school curricula that teach what is generally accepted as reasonable by experts and society. It could be wrong, of course, but it takes more than a "belief" to challenge it. It's not a static process, it's dynamic and everyone can have a say on it, unlike the tyrannical monster people usually portray in their whining.
Believing the Earth is flat is completely unfounded. It's not up to debate and definitely not something that fits in a classroom.
All the time in this forum people bitch about school being some evil place where the government indoctrinates children. School could be better, but it's not like the detractors have a better alternative. I guess it's one more of the singularities of the US. If you hate your own society so much just dissolve it, declare the USA extinct and go back to hunter-gatherer lifestyle, where there's no big bad government to indoctrinate kids. Then anyone can teach his children stupidities like the Earth is flat or the Universe is 6000 years old and whatever other "beliefs" someone may have.
If someone thinks that school in Western countries is indoctrinating, they should move to Saudi Arabia and experience the joys of learning according to someone's "beliefs".
When I was in school I had lots of fun going against the established views in my school assignments. But I did it using rational and well-constructed arguments. Most teachers loved being challenged and were very happy when I destroyed their vision of the subject. Others were furious, but anyway just had to give me a good grade. Usually it was my colleagues who hated me for shaking things up, not the teachers. They acquired their sheep mentality at home, not at school.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Thexalon on Thursday February 05 2015, @03:03PM
You don't have to believe an answer in order to regurgitate it on a test. As my high school bio teacher put it (or something to this effect): "I know there are people here who will have personal beliefs that differ from the material that we're about to cover. Understand that I expect you to know this material, not that you necessarily agree with it. Evolution is a central idea of biological science, and I would be failing to do my job if you weren't at least familiar with the concept."
And of course, stupid beliefs should be challenged. If somebody believes that elephants are painting their toenails red to hide in cherry trees (you've never seen an elephant in a cherry tree), they should be asked to check cherry trees for hidden elephants for a while.
Now, that's one issue when a belief is stupid and harmless, like the elephants-in-cherry-trees conjecture. In this case, those who chose not to vaccinate their kids are saying, in essence, "My completely unfounded belief is more important than your kids' life."
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by arashi no garou on Thursday February 05 2015, @03:15PM
As my high school bio teacher put it (or something to this effect): "I know there are people here who will have personal beliefs that differ from the material that we're about to cover. Understand that I expect you to know this material, not that you necessarily agree with it. Evolution is a central idea of biological science, and I would be failing to do my job if you weren't at least familiar with the concept."
My biology teacher had the same attitude, and he was atheist. I only knew he was that because I became friends with him outside the classroom; he kept it a closely guarded secret as we were smack in the middle of the Bible Belt. I really wish more teachers and administrators, atheist or Christian or Muslim or whatever, would adopt the same attitude. Learning the truth about how the universe and its inhabitants came to be via studying the sciences doesn't have to be mutually exclusive from belief in a higher power. Only those who use religion as a weapon to grow their power over the common man, and the common man who is swayed by that power, are the ones who fear scientific knowledge.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by CirclesInSand on Friday February 06 2015, @03:51AM
You don't have to believe an answer in order to regurgitate it on a test. As my high school bio teacher put it (or something to this effect): "I know there are people here who will have personal beliefs that differ from the material that we're about to cover. Understand that I expect you to know this material, not that you necessarily agree with it. Evolution is a central idea of biological science, and I would be failing to do my job if you weren't at least familiar with the concept."
Rather than your loved evolution, what if the position of the teacher was : "You don't have to believe in Christianity, but you do have to shout 'praise Jesus' every morning in front of the school". I think you might soon agree that "forced to advocate is a violation of freedom of beliefs".
And of course, stupid beliefs should be challenged. If somebody believes that elephants are painting their toenails red to hide in cherry trees (you've never seen an elephant in a cherry tree), they should be asked to check cherry trees for hidden elephants for a while.
Not by the government! If you have some business with them, or they advocate their position in a public forum, then by all means make demands of them. But you shouldn't be bringing force against someone just for believing something, no matter how much you disagree.
Now, that's one issue when a belief is stupid and harmless, like the elephants-in-cherry-trees conjecture. In this case, those who chose not to vaccinate their kids are saying, in essence, "My completely unfounded belief is more important than your kids' life."
Really? Is your belief in vaccinations based on anything other than popularity, peer pressure? Heroically bowing to popular opinion.
Public school violates freedom of association. When you start doing things like this, problems like "vaccinations" are inevitable. There is no solution to this problem because it is based on a violation of basic principle. Then when you add the word "belief" to the conversation, people get confused and try to work it out in terms of freedom of beliefs rather than the more relevant freedom of association (among other things).
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Friday February 06 2015, @04:17AM
Wrong analogy. The similar situation would be a test with the following question: "What are the basic tenets of Christianity?", which is a perfectly legal test question. My biology instructor wasn't grading at all on whether we believed in evolution, he was grading on whether we understood it. One can completely understand something without believing in it or agreeing with it.
That's where anti-evolutionists go wrong: They assume that knowing what evolution is necessary implies thinking unquestioningly that it's true.
It's based on the fact that doctors are paid to know about these sorts of issues, and universally believe vaccinations are a fantastic idea (and one of those doctors is my sister, who by available objective measures is among roughly the 1% smartest people in the country). It's based on the fact that vaccinations have been demonstrably effective for numerous diseases for decades (look at, for example, polio rates before and after the introduction of the DPT vaccine). It's based on the fact that the theory of vaccination is completely consistent with everything we know about how the human body deals with real viruses (the vaccine induces the development of the same antibodies that are produced to deal with the real disease).
Oh, and I nor anyone I know has ever gotten any disease we've been vaccinated against. Granted, we might just have never been exposed, but that's pretty consistent evidence.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by CirclesInSand on Friday February 06 2015, @04:51AM
What are the basic tenets of Christianity?
You do realize that thousands of years of war and torture and exodus have been waged over this question? That question has been asked by many public institutions and probably still is.
Historically that question is used as a heretic filter. I don't consider "grading" by public schools to be any different.
All you are doing with your change of question is moving the goalpost. It went from "what is the nature of evolution" to "what do people believe is the nature of evolution". It could be moved further to "what do people believe that people believe is the nature of evolution". You seem to advocate that "you just have to know" is different from "you just have to believe", but it really isn't.
What if a student answered "evolution manifests a small variations in species, but not in any large variations from one species to another". There are people who believe this. It is not appropriate to use government money and force to tell people that one is right and that one is wrong. That is exactly what public school does. The idea "punished for understanding differently" is somehow acceptable while "punished for believing differently" is not acceptable -- this might *feel* good, but logically it is no different.
I leave with a favorite quote of mine from Thomas Jefferson:
Let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.
(Score: 5, Funny) by Buck Feta on Thursday February 05 2015, @01:32PM
> requires children to be vaccinated before attending school. But the law allows exemptions for reasons of religion or "personal beliefs"
So its mandatory, unless you don't want to do it.
- fractious political commentary goes here -
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 05 2015, @02:05PM
You should get vaccinated. However, I like the idea you are allowed not to. But that is as far as I take it. I like the idea. I however, encourage everyone I know to get them.
"Some motherfucker's always trying to ice skate uphill" -Blade
I think that sums it up best. Why are you trying to make your life harder? The things these shots protect against are no joke. They can cripple your kids. My father is half blind and has limited mobility in his left arm because of one of them.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Ethanol-fueled on Thursday February 05 2015, @03:09PM
This is measles, not polio, dipshit.
What the summary doesn't mention is that the infection originated from an unvaccinated foreigner.
But sure, another fearmongering excuse to push big pharma's shit on everybody else, just like we should bomb the shit out of those evil Libyans and Syrians because terrorists and pedophiles lurking around every corner.
Goddamn, some of you motherfuckers are dense.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Thexalon on Thursday February 05 2015, @03:28PM
Measles can cripple and kill kids. It's also spread much more easily than polio - non-symptomatic people are contagious, and measles is airborne, while polio is fecal-oral transmission. So yes, it's a serious problem.
And if the 50 people or so at Disneyland who ended up sick had been vaccinated, maybe 1 of them would have caught it, and we'd have a much smaller problem.
So yes, you are dense, crying conspiracy when the evidence of a public health problem from a belief in anti-scientific nonsense is staring you in the face. Also, MMR isn't patented anymore, so the profit margins on it are not likely to be very high due to the threat of cheaper generic competition.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 05 2015, @03:39PM
This is measles, not polio, dipshit.
What do you think my father had? OHHHH thats right measles. You fucking think its a joking matter? Big pharm? Really? You are worried some 'big company' is making money? I do not think you quite understand the scope of how bad these things are. You are arguing over a 20-30 dollar shot. Free if you have insurance as they cover the cost as they do not want you to get it and pay even more money.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=measles+blindness [lmgtfy.com]
Measles is not a disease of the skin. It is an infection in your nervous system (like chicken pox). Guess what a good portion of your eyes are? Permanent scar tissue on the optic never causes blindness.
We went as a society from nearly eliminating it to talking about it again. That is going backwards.
just like we should bomb the shit out of those evil Libyans and Syrians because terrorists and pedophiles lurking around every corner.
Ah I see you just want to argue by changing the subject. Good try but ...
Goddamn, some of you motherfuckers are dense.
Yes, yes you are quite dense.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by The Archon V2.0 on Thursday February 05 2015, @07:22PM
> Why are you trying to make your life harder? The things these shots protect against are no joke.
Because they didn't grow up in a world where those things were a big deal - because they were vaccinated. People worry about the stuff on the news, even when they shouldn't. Some dude goes nuts and kills a family of six before killing himself? They're going to get scared of random family murder even though it's not common and the one guy they can prove did it recently can't possibly do it to them.
If I got a syringe and filled it with gasoline and cow urine and put it on the market as terrorism vaccine, I suspect I'd get takers, even from the thimerosol-stains-my-aura level antivaxxers. Hell, maybe especially from them.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by ikanreed on Thursday February 05 2015, @03:21PM
Right, but there other legal mandates where there's a threshold of evidence for personal beliefs, that go above and beyond just saying it.
Conscientious objection, for example, often requires you to produce witnesses that establish your strong pacifist background, and misrepresenting that is felony perjury. You can't just go "Oh, I think war is dangerous" and opt out.
Since both herd immunity and war have the same personal sacrifice for collective good thing going on, it's not unreasonable to hold them to the same standard.
(Score: 5, Informative) by linuxrocks123 on Thursday February 05 2015, @08:22PM
Since both herd immunity and war have the same personal sacrifice for collective good thing going on, it's not unreasonable to hold them to the same standard.
This is not the same thing at all. The standards for refusing vaccination for your children should be much, much higher. Getting vaccinated isn't a "personal sacrifice". Unlike serving in a war, getting yourself vaccinated is an action that is most definitely in your own self-interest. Moreover, these people aren't refusing to get themselves vaccinated. They are refusing on behalf of their children, who lack capacity due to their age. Society should not treat your decision to do the right thing for yourself the same as your decision not to do the right thing for someone in your charge.
Framing this as "parents' rights" should be the first clue this is bullshit. Parents don't have "rights" over their children. Our system of civil liberties doesn't support anyone having a "right" over anyone else's life. Parents have responsibilities to their children. The state just leaves parents alone far as their children go in most circumstances because it's expedient: biology dictates most people have an affection for their children and are therefore motivated to the right thing by them. The state can, should, and does take away parents' "rights" when parents prove to be such dipshits that their children are off without them. Not spending $20 on a harmless shot that can save your kid's life because Jenny McCarthy told you not to is pretty deep into dipshit territory.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Thursday February 05 2015, @08:36PM
Let's say that I agree with you on all but some minor technicalities that lead to how I phrased it.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Friday February 06 2015, @12:42AM
Oh yes they do, including but not limited to medical decisions. Under our system of laws, the only real rights kids have independent of their parent or legal guardian are: enough food to not be legally malnourished, water, a safe home to live in, and some kind of schooling (kids notably do not have a right to health care independent of their parents - if their folks are uninsured, not in Medicaid, and don't enroll the kid in SCHIP, tough luck!). In some states, there's also a rule that kids under a certain age (10 or so) must also have at least nominal supervision from somebody older than a certain age (14 or so) at all times in case of emergency. Kids periodically die because their parents refused treatment for appendicitis and other very treatable ailments for religious reasons, and courts have ruled that those parents have the right to make that decision for the child.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2, Informative) by linuxrocks123 on Friday February 06 2015, @01:10AM
Wrong: https://www.thesullivangroup.com/risk_resources/refusal/refusal_2_refusal.asp [thesullivangroup.com]
Even children of Jehovah's witnesses get blood treatment, unless they're considered mature enough to refuse on their own.
I'm sure some children have died because a hospital or physician misunderstood the law. I'm even more sure children have died because a judge overruled a physician seeking to protect a child from parents' stupid-but-not-obviously-stupid decisions about the child's welfare. But, when that happens, it's simply a mistake on the relevant party's part.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by LaminatorX on Thursday February 05 2015, @01:36PM
I'm shocked that this waiver policy was ever even a thing. I remember a conversation I had with a Christian Scientist I knew in high-school wherein she bemoaned having to get vaccinated in spite of her faith in order to attend school. I put it to her thusly, "Even if we assume for the sake of discussion that your practices are at least as effective as medicine, are they instantaneous? You do still get sick. Could you promise our classmates for whom the shots didn't take that you wouldn't infect them before you had a chance to handle it your way?"
She wasn't thrilled, but she understood. As she was in school with me, her parents must have found it a reasonable compromise as well. Hopefully it won't take a polio outbreak for that compromise to become policy once again.
(Score: 5, Funny) by hoochiecoochieman on Thursday February 05 2015, @02:32PM
What do vaccines have to do with being a Christian? There were no vaccines when Jesus was alive and, as far as I know, he never mentioned them.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by LaminatorX on Thursday February 05 2015, @02:54PM
The Church of Christ, Scientist [wikipedia.org] is a fascinating religion. Having first learned about it from my old friend and having done a fair amount of reading since, it strikes me as a lot of Gnostic ideas about becoming closer to God by transcending the illusory material word re-imagined through the lens of 19th-century American Protestant thought.
They don't see medical practices as evil or sinful, but rather as a distraction from spiritual development. If you use material means to solve an illness, you may feel fine, but are still mired in the illusion. If OTOH you can achieve a state of spiritual conciousness that reflects the divine All-in-all, not only will the illusory material ills be as nothing, but you will have become closer to transcendence. (Or something like that, this is my second-hand interpretation.)
Bear in mind as well that this philosophy arose at a time when modern medicine was weak sauce and often harmful quackery. Bed rest surrounded by prayerful loved ones was likely as good or better a restorative approach compared to much of the contemporary medical practice.
(Score: 2, Disagree) by mendax on Thursday February 05 2015, @06:33PM
Seeking medical help a distraction from spiritual development? Perhaps. Certainly, having a positive attitude can help the body in healing itself, but only rarely does the body rid itself of something like cancer. The only "disease" that I know that comes from a lack of spiritual development is addiction, or so those in Twelve Step programs believe, and I believe it as well.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 2) by opinionated_science on Thursday February 05 2015, @06:10PM
i ran out of mod points, otherwise I would have flagged this as "Funny", or possibly "Insightful".
;-)
(Score: 3, Flamebait) by hoochiecoochieman on Thursday February 05 2015, @02:28PM
Parents who don't vaccinate their children are child-molesters. In this case it's even more serious, because they are not only molesting their own children, but all others that come in contact with them.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Entropy on Thursday February 05 2015, @03:01PM
You gotta watch out for those "Mollesters". I guess this perhaps has implications
for intelligence/vaccination and how you got sick as a child?
(Score: 2) by hoochiecoochieman on Thursday February 05 2015, @03:18PM
What the fuck are you talking about?
(Score: 1, Disagree) by Entropy on Thursday February 05 2015, @03:26PM
Mollester isn't spelled correctly. It also implies a sexual exploitation.
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by hoochiecoochieman on Thursday February 05 2015, @03:43PM
Yeah, I noticed it. English is not my first language.
And what does that have to do with my intelligence and childhood diseases?
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Thursday February 05 2015, @04:29PM
In the original post, "molester" is correctly spelled. Molest does not only mean sexual exploitation:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/molester [reference.com]
So I'm pretty confused here by the "correction".
(Score: 2) by hoochiecoochieman on Thursday February 05 2015, @05:16PM
It's sadly funny that my original post got modded Flamebait but the ad hominem troll got away unscathed.
Maybe the moderation system needs some more tuning. Either that, or my trust in mankind is too optimistic.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Entropy on Thursday February 05 2015, @05:17PM
Molest has a incredibly different meaning in common speech than it does in the dictionary. While I'm aware of
both definitions if you accuse someone of being a molester it's highly unlikely anyone would interpret it as "pester or harass (someone), typically in an aggressive or persistent manner." but instead "assault or abuse (a person, especially a woman or child) sexually."
Implying that someone is going to "assault or abuse (a person, especially a woman or child) sexually." by not getting them a flu shot is absurd. While some vaccines
are good, others are nearly useless or harmful... but none should be characterized as molestation.
The spelling error I just poked a bit of additional fun at for good measure.
(Score: 2) by hoochiecoochieman on Thursday February 05 2015, @06:55PM
Well, maybe it's my understanding of English, but since other people here interpreted it differently from you and you keep insisting, I guess it must be some Freudian thing you have...
I'm very curious to know about those "harmful" vaccines, maybe you know better than all those doctors and scientists.
For the majority of cases, flu is mild, but in a significant percentage of cases it's deadly. However I've never heard or known about a flu vaccine causing problems to anyone. One of my kids nearly died of one of those "mild" diseases, so you can go fuck yourself and your theories.
I guess the innuendo about my child diseases and their effect on my intelligence were also very fun and for good measure. They were fun, but only for you. Guess it's that Freudian thing.
(Score: 1) by Entropy on Thursday February 05 2015, @07:21PM
If you insist..Feel free to google "child molest" and see what you get.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 06 2015, @07:41AM
"Parents who don't vaccinate their children are child-molesters."
It's neglect, not molestation. Yes, your grasp of English is a bit off.
(Score: 1, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 05 2015, @02:36PM
People who go unvaccinated infect others who are unvaccinated.
Those who are vaccinated are uninfected. The rational population is safe.
Maybe we should bring back small pox.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 05 2015, @02:38PM
Except for the fact that vaccinations are about 95% effective.
So you are saying that 5% should just suck it up even though they did the right thing.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by LaminatorX on Thursday February 05 2015, @03:06PM
That's the kicker. They're not just putting their own children at risk, but also random folk for whom the vaccines didn't take, people with weak immune systems, infants too young to be vaccinated, and so on, adding up to millions of vulnerable folk nationwide. Whatever right they have to manage their children's health, they have no right to endanger others.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Immerman on Thursday February 05 2015, @03:28PM
Quite. And then there's the fact that the *only* reason people are even considering not having their kids vaccinated is because they're getting the benefit of herd immunity. But here's the kicker: vaccines *aren't* completely safe - a tiny percentage of people ill have potentially crippling or even fatal reactions to them. Much better than the alternative of having these diseases ripping through the population on a regular basis, but there is a very real risk involved. And that means the anti-vaxers are claiming the benefit of herd immunity without making their children take the same risks as everyone else.
Frankly I find it sickening that someone would claim the protection granted by millions of people risking the lives of our children, while they huddle in cowardice and refuse to do their own part. I can understand and even approve of granting an exemption if their child is going to face a much higher risk of complications than ours, but letting us put our children on the front lines while they cower in safety behind us? How dare they.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by hoochiecoochieman on Thursday February 05 2015, @05:20PM
The risk of catching crippling or even fatal diseases is a lot higher than the risk of vaccines. So, I fail to see what risks you're talking about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 05 2015, @05:29PM
He's saying a risk associated with the vaccine exists. However, anti-vaxers are (or have been) able to get the benefit of herd immunity. So, their kids both don't get measles and don't risk side effects. That is cowardly and selfish.
Obviously, this is one of the situations where 1 person can win on both scores, but 50% of the people just screw everything up. But that doesn't change that that 1 person is an asshole, even if no one else is affected.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by hoochiecoochieman on Thursday February 05 2015, @07:01PM
You're seeing it backwards.
Even if the number of anti-vaxxers was not enough to disrupt herd immunity, the risk of not vaccinating would be higher than that of side-effects. So, it's not so much cowardly and selfish, it's mostly just plain stupid.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Thursday February 05 2015, @08:52PM
It's also cowardly and selfish because they aren't figuring the odds the same way you are.
Personally, I don't think children without vaccination should be allowed to attend public school. Let them solve the problem however they want to. I *do* consider it child abuse, but I also consider the costs of having the state mandate some particular solution to be higher than leaving it up to the parents. (In costs I'm more concerned with increasing government power than monetary costs, though those, of course, would also be present.)
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 February 05 2015, @03:39PM
I was up to snuff on all my shots and got measles in 4th grade.
-- gewg_
(Score: 5, Insightful) by SecurityGuy on Thursday February 05 2015, @04:34PM
Measles vaccine is 97% effective. I don't know why people bother saying it didn't work for them. We actually expect it not to work for 3% of people who get it. In a country of 300,000,000 people, we expect it not to work for 9 million people. Giving it to 300,000,000 people and having 291,000,000 of them become immune to measles is really pretty great. Sure, 100% would be better, but 97% has been enough to make measles vanishingly rare in .us until people stopped getting vaccinated.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 05 2015, @10:38PM
Oh, I'm not complaining or blaming anyone or siding with the anti-vaxxers.
I'm saying that even when you do everything right yourself, things can go wrong and you are still subject to herd immunity or lack thereof.
Ignoring|avoiding the measures that we have known for a century are most effective is just spitting into the wind.
Statistically, pooh-poohing the science certainly won't -improve- your chances of living to a ripe old age in good health and it selfishly endangers others.
-- gewg_
(Score: 2) by hoochiecoochieman on Thursday February 05 2015, @05:13PM
This post is not funny, it's WRONG. Go read about herd immunity and stop propagating this nonsense.
If it was true, I'd have to objection to anti-vaxxers. It would be a self-correcting problem.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 05 2015, @03:11PM
People refuse vaccinations for their kids because they worry their kids might react to it in ____ way. But vaccines are not meant to stop any particular person from getting any particular disease. They are meant for society as a whole to avoid epidemics and pandemics. If you get the vaccine, are exposed and then don't get the disease, that's a happy byproduct.
Interestingly to me, schools are the same way. They aren't meant for the enrichment of individuals, they are meant for society to pass along the knowledge to survive and (hopefully!) progress. That an individual is rewarded more for having taken education is somewhat by design but nevertheless a happy accident.
So yes, I wonder precisely why parents have the right to refuse vaccination and still allow them to go to school.
(Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Thursday February 05 2015, @04:25PM
Interestingly to me, schools are the same way. They aren't meant for the enrichment of individuals, they are meant for society to pass along the knowledge to survive and (hopefully!) progress. That an individual is rewarded more for having taken education is somewhat by design but nevertheless a happy accident.
If you have to cripple your people in order for your society to exist, then IMHO you are doing it wrong. It should not just be a "happy accident" that the individuals of your society are "enriched".
(Score: 4, Insightful) by WillAdams on Thursday February 05 2015, @03:46PM
Will they allow self-certified ophthalmologists[1] to allow kids to opt out?
1 - http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-rand-paul-tried-to-lead-an-eye-doctors-rebellion/2015/02/01/010994da-9cd6-11e4-a7ee-526210d665b4_story.html [washingtonpost.com]
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 05 2015, @05:53PM
I find it amusing that everyone seems to think it is acceptable that the government gets to decide what to inject into your children.
One day they might have a cure for whatever makes you unique, and they are going to give it to you.
I'm not saying that we shouldn't vaccinate, I'm saying it has to be a choice.
If you are anti-choice, then please stop complaining about the nanny state we live in, it was created for and by you.
(Score: 4, Touché) by MrGuy on Thursday February 05 2015, @07:08PM
Either you favor complete freedom to make any choice you want, or you favor total government control over every choice we are capable of making. Those are the only two choices.
There's absolutely no reasonable middle ground where some choices are constrained (for example, a choice to opt out of a proven effective societal scheme to prevent horrible epidemic disease) but others are allowed. So much as contemplating any restraint on free choice is advocating a total government takeover of all our decisions.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 05 2015, @09:40PM
Only a Sith believes in absolutes.
Of course there are middle grounds. Such as, "yes, you may opt out of receiving the vaccine for a fee of $1000 which will fill the health dcepartment's coffers." (Or pick any other amount you'd like higher than the vaccine administration cost which will serve as a deterrent.) Or, "You may opt out of the vaccine. Get the disease and we will have the right and obligation to strictly quarantine you until you are no longer contagious."
My apologies for the whoosh surely to follow, but I know there are people who believes exactly in what the parent proposes.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 06 2015, @03:41AM
Yes, lets make it even easier for rich people to do whatever the fuck they want, while everyone who's not a millionaire has no choice in the matter.
Why the fuck do so many people try to make money, something concentrated into the hands of very few people, the answer to everything?
(Score: 1) by Arik on Friday February 06 2015, @01:32PM
You should focus on convincing people to vaccinate voluntarily, or just shut up and leave the job to people that are better at it than you are.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 06 2015, @06:16PM
Quite the emotive language you are using there, wouldn't you say? Are you really trying to draw a parallel between a shot with a hypodermic needle and rape?!? When I was a little kid I had to be forced by my parents and my doctor to get my vaccinations. While it was traumatic at the time, I survived and now I'm a better person for it. Frankly, to equate this with rape would be laughable if it weren't so offensive.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 05 2015, @07:11PM
Not decide, advise. That's a big difference. We would do well to listen carefully to what the experts are advising us to do. This does not mean you shut off your brain and do whatever you are told. But when all of your objections are answered and you still don't want to do the right thing just "because you can't make me!" then we are not dealing with reasonable people. Also, why the hell people are taking the advice of a former playboy playmate over the advice of medical experts is anybody's guess.
Yeesh! It's disappointing that I even need to explain this here on SN.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Arik on Thursday February 05 2015, @09:19PM
If I want advice on my health I will ask my doctor, not the legislature, thanks.
"But when all of your objections are answered and you still don't want to do the right thing just "because you can't make me!" then we are not dealing with reasonable people."
So anyone who evaluates the issue and disagrees with you is damned unreasonable, and using force against the unreasonable does not mean you are deciding for them?
Clearly you are at least as unreasonable as those you oppose.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 05 2015, @10:08PM
Well, technically, the ones doing the advising are doctors working for three-letter agencies such as CDC and NIH. Take off your tinfoil hat and consider: is everyone who works for the government suspect in your eyes?
I stand by what I wrote before. If all your objections have been answered and you are still refusing to do what is necessary for public health then, yes, you are being "damned unreasonable".
Oh, FFS! Are you really that thick? The "unreasonable" thing which is being asked of them is to vaccinate themselves and their kids. Note that this "unreasonable" request is something which is proven to save lives while presenting minimal risk to them or their children. All of the objections I have seen from the anti-vaxxers are based on discredited research or profound misunderstandings of basic science or outright superstition. At what point would you decide that there is no substance to their objections and they really should do what is best for themselves, their kids, and the general welfare of the rest of the community?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 06 2015, @12:56AM
"At what point would you decide that there is no substance to their objections and they really should do what (you think is best for them, and to hell with what they think or want.)"
At no point. A civilized society simply does not treat people like that, or allow them to be treated like that.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 06 2015, @03:45AM
So you're an advocate of allowing scizophrenics and people who vividly hallucinate to easily buy firearms or drive vehicles. Who cares that they could kill other people? They should be free to do whatever they want and nobody else should be able to tell them what to do!
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 06 2015, @03:54AM
Where did you get this idea that anyone is saying "to hell with what they think or want"? Their objections have been answered. There is little to no substance to their objections. It is all based on either a discredited research article, major flaws in understanding of science, or superstition. The only thing left for them is a "philosophical objection" based on a flawed understanding of individual liberty.
In a civilized society, we learn to cooperate for the common good. If you find this odious, go find a deserted island to live on.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 05 2015, @10:54PM
Start by counting the number of people who suffered|died because of smallpox|polio|measles|et al before the work of Edward Jenner|Jonas Salk|Samuel Katz|et al and compare that to the numbers in the 1960s and '70s when vaccinations had become routine.
It's amazing how many folks do a lousy job of teaching|learning history.
...statistics too.
-- gewg_
(Score: 4, Insightful) by hoochiecoochieman on Thursday February 05 2015, @07:26PM
People's choices are always constrained inside of what society considers acceptable.
In this particular case, some people's "choices" can cause terrible harm to innocents around them.
It's also not your choice to drink and drive a car.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Pessime on Thursday February 05 2015, @07:51PM
And how dare the government take away my choice to eliminate all people who are willing put other people's children at risk! It should be my choice and my choice alone.
/s
(Score: 3, Interesting) by TheGratefulNet on Thursday February 05 2015, @08:18PM
I'm mostly all for individual freedom and I hate government meddling.
but this is NOT about governments. its about science, superstition, stupid jenny whats-her-name and a bunch of conservatives who refuse to listen to actual medical doctors, and the WHOLE medical profession!
I know my government lies to me. unless proven otherwise, they are assumed to be liars.
but this is NOT about government. I don't distrust the medical community, overall.
and when social health is at stake, your 'religion' does not get to override OUR general health. your invisible sky wizards and false gurus are doing ACTUAL HARM and there has to be zero respect for loons who try to take our society down.
this is not debatable any more than trying to debate the cow jumping over the moon.
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 1) by linuxrocks123 on Thursday February 05 2015, @08:38PM
I find it amusing that everyone seems to think it is acceptable that the government gets to decide what to inject into your children.
Because it should be up to you instead? Why should you have more of a right to decide what to put in your children than the government? Your child's not your slave; your child is an individual with rights, including a right to autonomy, but without the capacity to use those rights, so you're the default choice for guardian. The government can and does take that guardianship away from you if you screw up too bad. As it should.
Your child has a right to live and grow up, and society should protect that right for your child. If you want to kill your kid and deny him a right to life, that's not okay. If you want to play Russian roulette with your kid's life by not vaccinating him, that's not okay either.
One day they might have a cure for whatever makes you unique, and they are going to give it to you.
This is a strawman if there ever was one. Yeah, evil governments will be evil. That would suck. But your scenario of an evil government that somehow respects "parents' rights" is not something with much historical precedent. After all, Germany had Hitler Youth, USSR had some Communist youth organization, etc. Totalitarian governments won't limit themselves to individuals 18+.
(Score: 2) by fadrian on Thursday February 05 2015, @06:30PM
Good.
That is all.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Joe Desertrat on Thursday February 05 2015, @07:48PM
Are we doomed to repeat cycles every few generations? In an age where information is far more available than ever before there is no real excuse for believing we do not need vaccines. A few of you might be old enough to remember quarantines, people with a limp from polio, outbreaks that kept large numbers of kids home from school, etc. Polio, measles, rubella, whooping cough, and more. People who were born after maybe the mid-sixties have no memory of this because, for the most part, of vaccinations. I was thrilled my nieces and nephews had almost zero risk of catching any of these diseases, yet here, in 2015, they are making a comeback. You can whine about nanny states and minuscule risks of reactions to vaccines all you want, there are times when the benefits are so obviously greater that to allow non-compliance is simply not a proper choice.
(Score: 1) by aXis on Friday February 06 2015, @12:55AM
Yeah, unfortunately I think that is how it will go. A whole bunch of anti-vaxxers are going to end up with dead or injured kids, and will suddenly do an about-face whilst wailing in grief and guilt. It's a crappy situation for all involved but ultimately neccesary due to human stupidity.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 06 2015, @04:40AM
I was born in 1963 and I remember what that was like. Back in the 1970s and 1980s there were still plenty of people who carried around the life-long scars left behind from diseases like polio. And I did get the mumps when I was a kid, and let me tell you, it was not fun. I remember my whole body aching from head to toe for several days. It's unfortunate that the next generation will apparently have to learn the hard way why vaccination is so important. My question is where are the grandparents of these little kids? Why aren't they educating the parents about why vaccination is so important? Have they all just completely forgotten? It seems to me that if ever there were an occasion when the grandparents could offer some useful insight this would have to be it.
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Saturday February 07 2015, @02:01AM
My question is where are the grandparents of these little kids? Why aren't they educating the parents about why vaccination is so important? Have they all just completely forgotten? It seems to me that if ever there were an occasion when the grandparents could offer some useful insight this would have to be it.
They were cut off from advisory input when they suggested giving the little monsters a spanking when they misbehaved.