Slashdot Mirror


Australia To Ban Unvaccinated Children From Preschool (newscientist.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from New Scientist: No-jab, no play. So says the Australian Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, who has announced that unvaccinated children will be barred from attending preschools and daycare centers. Currently, 93 percent of Australian children receive the standard childhood vaccinations, including those for measles, mumps and rubella, but the government wants to lift this to 95 percent. This is the level required to stop the spread of infectious disease and to protect children who are too young to be immunized or cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons. Childcare subsidies have been unavailable to the families of unvaccinated children since January 2016, and a version of the new "no jab, no play" policy is already in place in Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland. Other states and territories only exclude unvaccinated children from preschools during infectious disease outbreaks. The proposed policy is based on Victoria's model, which is the strictest. It requires all children attending childcare to be fully immunized, unless they have a medical exemption, such as a vaccine allergy.

20 of 281 comments (clear)

  1. GOOD. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Wonderful. Good on ya, Australia. Outside of very uncommon medical situations, there is no damn reason for anything less than this. It's a goddamn embarrassment that there are fracking measles outbreaks in the 21st goddamn century, much less that they're getting larger and occurring with increased frequency.

    Vaccines save lives. Full stop.

    1. Re:GOOD. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The best thing about this comment? It is both completely true and delightful idiot bait.

      Come forth! Reveal your ignorance! Bask in your self-righteous stupidity! Expose your selfishness to the world!

      Vaccines save lives. Are they perfect? NOTHING is perfect. But they're damn good.

      Your risk of a SEVERE vaccine reaction is still FAR LESS than your risk of "rare" complications of the infections they protect against.

      And just for disclosures sake, my child JUST got her MMR and chickenpox today. And it's a relief, since I actually have to worry about these diseases now, thanks to the jerkoffs raging about how they "don't work" or moaning about "adverse reactions."

      You want an adverse reaction, you selfish bastards? How about pneumonia from measles? How about measles encephalitis or meningitis? How about sterility from mumps?

      NONE of that happens with the vaccines. And if it wasn't for people like you (yes, you. You know exactly who you are) Measles and Mumps would be in the next best thing to the ash-heap of history.

      Vaccines save lives. Even more importantly, they protect against profound injury and disability.

      Get your damn kids vaccinated, cowards.

    2. Re:GOOD. by flopsquad · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This.

      As a parent, I get how easy it is to be absolutely paralyzed by fear of $everyBadThingEver happening to your child. I still have no sympathy for those who subject their own children and everyone else's to the very real threat of deadly, preventable diseases because of thoroughly discredited nonsense.

      You're not allowed to put uranium in your kid's lunchbox because you mistakenly believe it emits Healing Jesus Waves; you shouldn't be able to send your kid to school with (even the potential of) active measles virus because you mistakenly believe the not-mercury in vaccines is going to give her autism.

      Your freedom to believe post-truth pseudoscience bullshit ends at the point where it endangers my child's safety.

      --
      Nothing posted to /. has ever been legal advice, including this.
    3. Re:GOOD. by Michael+Woodhams · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Vaccines can be used to eradicate measles, we just haven't tried.

      Vaccines have eradicated smallpox and are on the verge of eradicating polio (42 paralysis cases worldwide last year, so far this year we're running at 1/3 of last year at the same time, 3 vs 9 cases.)

      In terms of eradication, smallpox had everything going for it: an effective cheap vaccine, no animal reservoir, obvious symptoms, and the political/social will to make it happen (because it was such a terrible disease.) By comparison, polio can circulate without obvious symptoms, making it hard to eradicate.

      Measles eradication has everything going for it that smallpox did, except for the will. People who think measles vaccines are dangerous should campaign for measles eradication. Their children will get the vaccine, but their grandchildren and every later generation until human extinction will not.

      --
      Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
    4. Re:GOOD. by Imrik · · Score: 5, Informative

      You seem to be confusing vaccinations working with vaccinations providing complete immunity. Vaccinations work, in that they greatly reduce the chance of catching the disease. If more people are vaccinated the effectiveness is even greater per herd immunity.

    5. Re:GOOD. by aXis100 · · Score: 3, Informative

      You are free to not be vaccinated, but please piss off somewhere that you cant endanger society.

      It's questionable not vaccinating your kids, because competent scientific evidence shows that they are an order of magnitude safer than the risk of the diseases they are protecting agianst. When you frame it like that, non-vaccination is negligence and we legislate against other forms of child negligence.

      Finally, no-one has ever said vaccines are 101% safe. There are risks and vaccine injury is real, but rare. We accept this risk because it is statistically far better off for society, and we have set up support programs for the occasional individual who suffers a serious adverse reaction.

      Finally, reality shows strong evidence in support of the general safety of vaccines. Anyone who tells you otherwise is completely full of shit, and is most likely part of an over-privileged echo chamber.

    6. Re:GOOD. by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So how is Big Vax managing to hide all of the kids running around in polio braces? The walls full of iron lungs? All of the kids rendered sterile by mumps? All of the horrible pox scarring?

      Measles, mumps, rubella, chicken pox, none of these are 'benign.' They're much more survivable, nowadays, due to much better palliative care, but it's also like saying that compound fractures or traumatic intestinal rupturing are 'benign' nowadays because they're not the instant death sentences they were a hundred years ago.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    7. Re:GOOD. by Rakarra · · Score: 5, Funny

      Diseases are an eco-system like any other. How many times have we tried messing with an eco-system just to have whatever unwanted species we got rid of being replaced with something even worse (often rats).

      What you have just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone on this site is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

    8. Re:GOOD. by nbauman · · Score: 3, Informative

      The "fatal car accidents" is not because people don't use a seat belt. It is because the seat belt DOES NOT WORK.

      If it actually worked, only the un-seatbelted people would die .... but that is not the case.

      I just looked up this citation yesterday, the classic study which explains exactly how seat belts work. Bohlin found that only the un-seatbelted people died in accidents below 60mph.

      http://papers.sae.org/670925/
      Paper #: 670925
      Published: 1967-02-01
      DOI: 10.4271/670925
      Citation: Bohlin, N., "A Statistical Analysis of 28,000 Accident Cases with Emphasis on Occupant Restraint Value," SAE Technical Paper 670925, 1967, doi:10.4271/670925.
      Author(s): N. I. Bohlin
      Pages: 14
      Abstract: The value of the three-point safety belt has been evaluated by a statistical analysis of more than 28,000 accident cases, which concerned mainly two cars only and in which 37,511 unbelted and belted front-seat occupants were involved. The safety harness concerned is the Volvo three-point combined lap and upper torso harness with a so-called slip-joint. The average injury-reducing effect of the harness proved to vary between 0 and 90%, depending on the speed at which the accident occurred or the type of injury. Unbelted occupants sustained fatal injuries throughout the whole speed scale, whereas none of the belted occupants was fatally injured at accident speeds below 60 mph. Slight injuries only, mostly single rib cracks, bruises, etc., caused by the safety belt were reported in some cases. The three-point belt proved to be fully effective against ejection out of the car. Almost all cars involved were equipped with safety belts, of which, however, only 26% on an average were used. The frequency of use increased with the age of the occupants.

  2. Excellent by kqs · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is a great idea. I'm sad that kids with stupid parents cannot get into school, but it's not worth risking all of the other kids, especially those who cannot get the vaccine due to medical reasons.

  3. Story links to ANTI-VACCINATION NETWORK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    This is a great idea. I'm sad that kids with stupid parents cannot get into school

    This is to do with day care for pre-schoolers, I don't think we are at the stage where we are going to stop kids attending school. Even the link in the above story to the Australian Anti-Vaccination Network --a link to the AVN ... FFS editors, how about here instead?! --doesn't make that claim.

    The Federal policy in force at the moment is the "no jab, no pay" policy, meaning that parents of unimmunised children are not eligible for childcare related tax rebates etc.

  4. Re:Banning children of uneducated parent from scho by GumphMaster · · Score: 4, Informative

    This is not a ban from primary or secondary schools, only pre-school and day-care facilities where the concentration of children with less developed immunity is high.

    --
    Patent litigation: A doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction... in which everyone seems willing to push the button
  5. Re:Banning children of uneducated parent from scho by Mashiki · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Around here kids are banned from school(primary and secondary) if they don't have up to date immunization records, or a reasonable reason to why they're not immunized(i.e. severe reactions). Considering the absolute shit that happened a few years back with multiple measles, mumps and rubella, not to mention whooping cough outbreaks, it's nothing but a good option.

    If there'd been a chickenpox vaccine when I was a kid, I would have taken it. 2 weeks of absolute shit, and it nearly killed my one sister(who spent 6mo in ICU). All because some little shit stain and their parents decided that it was a good idea to have their kid out in public while infectious.

    --
    Om, nomnomnom...
  6. Pathetic by RobinH · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In my Grandparents' generation, the recruiting posters said, "your country needs you" and people signed up to fight in a *war* to protect their families and communities, and many of those people didn't come back. Now we simply ask that you get a couple tiny jabs to protect your family and community from some of the most terrible diseases imaginable, and people think there's too much risk. Yes, there's a *tiny* risk, but you still choose to drive little Johnny all over town to soccer practices and birthday parties, putting your precious cargo at far higher risk of death from a car accident than any risk from the vaccine, and then there's the fact that your child is now much more likely to get those diseases. It's literally ridiculous.

    --
    "I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
  7. Critical thinking by dschnur · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm one of those *few* parents who had a child that was allergic and could not be vaccinated against one of the more virulent diseases. Fortunately, when she was older she outgrew that allergy and is now current on all her vaccinations. As a parent, sending my daughter to school where others CHOSE to not vaccinate their children thereby risking exposing mine to something nasty was a hard thing to do. I felt like I was living in the dark ages where being a part of any group could be anywhere from bad to a death sentence.

    We might say that the parents who decide not to do the right thing are simply "dumb," or, as I called them, "*(!^*(&^!*%**'s." Time has taught me otherwise. In the US and elsewhere, many people aren't taught or don't remember basic scientific method. They have no idea what the difference is between doubting what they have been told, and actually engaging in critical, productive, thinking. STEM is important, but perhaps we should require those who can't handle it to take something more akin to STEM lite. Barring that, penalties for parents who refuse to take care of *OTHER PEOPLES CHILDREN* shouldn't be frowned upon. IMHO.

  8. Re:Banning children of uneducated parent from scho by hoofie · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's not uneducated parents that are the problem. It's a lot of middle-class mothers who are totally convinced by the pseudo-science and rubbish that's peddled on the internet and by "Wellness" gurus. Australia seems to be infested with them.

    Someone has just been hammered for this.

    The Paleo Diet is alive and well here, pushed by a chef who somehow has become a dietary-science expert and made a mint from pushing books that contain dangerous pseudo-diets.

    We also seem to be very susceptible to charlatans spruiking special-cancer treatments that do nothing but give false hope, drain someone's bank account and leaves them dead quicker.

  9. Re:Banning children of uneducated parent from scho by lgw · · Score: 5, Interesting

    You can't deny nearly a fourth of the kids from education. Of course the Republicans here want to do that since they're anti-science and support mandatory vaccinations.

    Arrest the parents for child endangerment. The foster homes will get the kids vaccinated and they'll get an education. No reason to tolerate child abuse.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  10. Re:Banning children of uneducated parent from scho by hey! · · Score: 5, Interesting

    In my experience it's not necessarily uneducated parents. Uneducated parents, if they have access to a pediatrician, are apt to follow his or her advice. It's educated parents who question, and the miseducated ones question and come up with bad answers.

    What we are looking at in the anti-vaxxer movement is Emersonian self-reliance run amok. We've succeeded in teaching a generation not to put blind trust in authority figures, but without an interest in STEM for its own sake and with limited critical thinking skills, they have no choice but to turn to alternative authorities, individuals who embody everything that should be feared in an authority: deviousness, venality and ruthlessness.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  11. Re:Banning children of uneducated parent from scho by hey! · · Score: 4, Interesting

    However, after educating myself on this specific topic, the only question I have is, "why pull the individual vaccines from the market if they work?"

    Because nearly all parents are going to opt to vaccinate for measles, mumps AND rubella, and combining them means you give your kid two doses of vaccine instead of six.

    Why not leave them as an option for parents who prefer that approach?

    Because the market of parents who'd prefer to give their kids six vaccine doses rather than two is too small to profitably serve.

    They took away the proven safe alternatives that had worked for decades.

    Actually, that's not true. MMR was introduced in 1971, and by now has a much longer safety record than the individuals vaccines it replaces: Attenuvax (Measles, 1961), Mumpsvax (1967), and Meruvax (Rubella, 1969).

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  12. Re:Ya know what? by PeterM+from+Berkeley · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You a troll? This guy didn't say "I got mine screw you". He served the community by taking a risk and getting himself and his kids vaccinated. That's the exact opposite of "got mine screw you".

    What he's saying is, "I contributed to the public safety at some small risk to myself and mine, SCREW the people too selfish and cowardly to do the same!"