Slashdot Mirror
Bill To Require Vaccination of Children Advances In California
mpicpp sends the latest news on California legislation that would eliminate exemptions for vaccinating school children. A bill that would require nearly all children in California to be vaccinated by eliminating "personal belief" exemptions advanced through the State Legislature on Wednesday, though it still has several hurdles to clear. If approved, California would become one of only three states that require all parents to vaccinate their children as a condition of going to school, unless there is a medical reason not to do so. Under the bill, introduced after a measles outbreak that began at Disneyland, parents who refuse vaccines for philosophical or religious reasons would have to educate their children at home. The legislation prompted a roiling debate in Sacramento, and last week hundreds of people protested at the Capitol, arguing that it infringed on their rights and that it would unfairly shut their children out of schools. Last Wednesday, the legislation stalled in the Senate Education Committee as lawmakers said they were concerned that too many students would be forced into home schooling. This Wednesday, however, the bill passed that committee after its authors tweaked it, adding amendments that would expand the definition of home schooling to allow multiple families to join together to teach their children or participate in independent study programs run by public school systems.
The legislation prompted a roiling debate in Sacramento, and last week hundreds of people protested at the Capitol, arguing that it infringed on their rights and that it would unfairly shut their children out of schools
For the moment let's set aside fair vs unfair, and just take their claim at face value. This action is unfair for the purpose of argument.
That said... I fail to see what exactly their problem or complaint actually is.
This small group of people are arguing for the legal right to unfairly engage in germ warfare while attempting to murder other school children and even some adults. The argument is this is perfectly acceptable and should be a protected right.
So with that, these people clearly have NO problems with unfair choices being forced on everyone else, as that is the legal right they are demanding.
So why complain when they get their wish, and we "unfairly" shut their children out of school?
If they have no moral or even legal issues with (their) unfair choices being forced on people (us), why do they complain why the court states there is no moral or legal issues with (our) unfair choices being forced on people (them)?
It has already been established that unfairly infecting other children at school is not only acceptable but should be a legal right, so clearly it is also both acceptable and should be a legal right to unfairly kick their children out of school, exactly as these parents are marching at the capitol to demand.
Obviously the correct answer is that the hypocrisy is strong in these people - it just still somehow amazes me to this day such people don't realize that hypocrites are exactly what they are being.
I hate that we have to legislate instead of educate people about vaccinations. Pretty sad that people listen more to Jenny McCarthy than they do medical doctors. I suppose given that, this legislation is a necessary evil.
The evidence for measles vaccines, the only one I actually looked into, sucks. Where is the blinded RCT used to initially establish it's long-term effectiveness (or any)? Where is the paper where they account for the >90% disagreement between clinician diagnosis and lab test? What was the adoption rate of these lab tests over time? Why is it so easily accepted that the different lab tests only agree in the case of null results (which can be due to sample degradation)? Where is the paper where they account for the reduction in popularity of measles parties (if people stop spreading a disease on purpose the incidence rate should drop by some large magnitude...)?
I don't claim the measles vaccines do not work, only that anyone claiming to know is lying to themselves. The evidence is extremely tenuous. So can I have a "scientific exemption"? Someone with academic training needs to write a proper review of all this measles vaccine stuff, here are some places to start:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17609829
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2134550/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17609829
http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/189/Supplement_1/S4.full
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1843609/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22336803
> Last Wednesday, the legislation stalled in the Senate Education Committee as lawmakers said they were concerned that too many students would be forced into home schooling.
Or even worse, that they found that they liked it. The problem with making something a condition of participating in a government institution is the risk that significant numbers will discover they do fine without it.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
The issue isn't whether or not you risk your kid's life, it's whether or not you risk the lives of other people's kids, and others who can't be vaccinated, and whether or not the taxpayer is going to foot the bill when you kid's sick.
That's total BS. There's always some small portion of the population who can't handle the vaccine (like the egg-allergic guy above), or for whom the vaccine just plain doesn't work. They do just fine in school. Being allergic to eggs is not a major problem for a schoolkid, and doesn't make them more susceptible to other diseases. None of this was a problem in years past, thanks to herd immunity: with ~97% of the kids immunized, the disease just never popped up in civilized society, and everything was great. We almost forgot about measles until recently because of the effectiveness of these immunizations, even though not 100% of kids were immunized. But now, with all the idiotic anti-vaxxers, measles is back.
No, that's not really the way it is. There are many reasons why someone can't be vaccinated. Being immunosuppressed is only one of them. Egg allergies are rather more common, and school represents little danger to a kid who is allergic to eggs.
Plus, the number of kids who can't safely be vaccinated is small enough to not break herd immunity. The number of kids whose parents are idiots is much, much larger. As the recent measles (and whooping cough) outbreaks have shown.
The law eliminates religious and philosophical exemptions, not medical exemptions. Unless your allergy to eggs is a philosophical stance, you'll be fine.
Yes, I know that. The point is that people like me won't be protected by herd immunity, which is why we need the law. So I can go outside without being worried that I'll die because someone's little snowflake couldn't tolerate a needle.
Real programmers use "copy con program.exe"
If an unvaccinated child dies, can the parent who has denied their child a vaccination be prosecuted for child endangerment?
Maybe that's what it'll take to end this virus of ignorance.
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
Isn't questioning the efficacy of the vaccine a bit moot at this point? It's well-established that the rate of measles occurrences has declined by more than 99% in the US since the prevaccine era. No doubt, there are several contributing factors (e.g. decrease in measles parties, as you said), but there's no way to account for that change absent the consideration of the vaccine (e.g. measles was endemic before measles parties were a thing, so it likely isn't that measles parties are gone). Suggesting the link is "tenuous" seems rather disingenuous. It's possible the vaccine may not be effective to the degree people claim it's effective, but suggesting there's even a possibility that it's not effective at all is rather absurd.
Just a reminder about constitution and the rights that provide for citizens, the catch here, ALL CITIZENS, including the wee ones. Children are not pets and most certainly are not the possessions of parents. Children are citizens with the full right of protection of all other citizens (just not all of the responsibilities), including protection from those people recognised as the guardians of those children. So yeah, just like all other citizens expect to be protected from the bad decisions of others so children are entitled to that same right.
If you personally want to decide whether some one else gets an inoculation or not based upon beliefs, get a pet and not a child. As it stands the whole community decides for the benefit of not only the community but the individuals within that community who gets inoculated, when those individuals have the right of protection but not the mature responsibility to decide for themselves.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Stop signs are great. I won't dispute that. I stop at stop signs, but I have followed a different schedule than the one recommended and I reserve the right to refuse specific stop signs (Because who really needs that stop sign in a construction area where there aren't any other cars? Crashes at stop signs are also hardly ever fatal for that matter)
It is up to drivers to decide what is right for their own car with regard to stop signs. Driving decisions are difficult and not always cut and dry. I refuse to give up the right of anyone deciding what is appropriate for their car in this regard, because bad driving decisions live with you forever.
So if a driver doesn't want to have to stop at stop signs, that's a-okay with me. I stop at stop signs, so I've done everything that I personally can do to protect myself. I can't protect everyone from everything and I don't expect other drivers to protect me either. I can only do what I can, and the rest is up to chance in the end.
Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
You live in this society, you fucking bet it's your job. Either do it or get the fuck out.
Yes, yes it is. There isn't much where I'll agree with claims of "people should sacrifice for the common good", but contagious diseases are damn clear. Plus, the sacrifice is minimal and the benefit huge.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Bravo, California! This state led the way in recognizing the second hand harm of cigarette smoke. Hope they do the same with antivaxer idiots.
...last week hundreds of people protested at the Capitol, arguing that it infringed on their rights and that it would unfairly shut their children out of schools.
Cry me a river, you morons. Your stupidity in unfairly infringing on the rights of others to not die of completely preventable diseases.
No, it really isn't. You have a warped sense of right and wrong if you feel it is justified to force vaccinations on others for your own health benefit.
It's part of the social contract. If someone feels that it isn't their civic duty to take the proper vaccinations required and demanded of them for their part in protecting society, Then it's not the community's job to allow these people to live in our cities, hold claims to land, conduct trade, or access or public roads or other venues.
Such rights only exist under the civilized society, AND if you choose to live in the civilized society, then you MUST take every obligation that comes with that choice --- that choice is only available if you also are to pay your taxes, and respect the well-being of other people, for example: by not killing them, or robbing from them, BUT, also, taking the required steps to see that you are not making them sick or putting their lives at risk through your own negligence.
Failure to receive the minimal recommended and required vaccinations is negligence.
It's no different than creating a humongous unreasonable fire hazard in your backyard, and claiming you have no duty to prevent it from catching your neighbor's house on fire; that just aint so..
Such people who would refuse vaccination for no provable and rationally justifiable medical reason --- can and should then be put into quarantine or deported / removed from civilized areas, with steps taken to ensure they stay out until they agree to vaccination.
You have to be very careful with Penn and Teller, they have a strong libertarian bent and they seem to frequently fail when researching issues that involve their politics. I wouldn't trust them on issues like second hand smoke that they are likely to view as "government interference". It tends to make them derp out and present a weak one-sided case as if there were no valid counter-arguments. Personally, I stopped watching "Bullshit" after a few too many political shows where they left me disappointed with their half-assed, one-sided, "facts".
Fanatically anti-fanatical