The whole public school thing is just another measure of control, a way for the Federal Government to try and stick its nose into more states rights using money.
You really need to look into school vaccination requirements. School immunization requirements is on a State by State basis and not federally mandated.
In the U.S., the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates and licenses all vaccines to ensure safety and effectiveness. No federal vaccination laws exist, but all 50 states require certain vaccinations for children entering public schools. Depending on the state, children must be vaccinated against some or all of the following diseases: mumps, measles, rubella, diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, and polio.
So it puzzles m that the Slashdot consensus is so strongly in favor of mandatory vaccination while being ambivalent, at best, about the government tax and patent programs that fund biomedical research.
We already have vaccines that cover most of the airborne infectious diseases. This is a discussion on whether or not to require them for going to public schools.
By the way the Government does spend money on vaccine research. Also, vaccines can be patented.
It depends. The state I live in forces all home schooling to be done through a religous institution.
The only State that I can find that has that requirement ia Alabama. Even there there are a numer of "cover schools" that, while affiliated with a church, do not require religious teaching or declarations of faith. Here is one.
Something like 1 in a thousand cases in the years before vaccination was mortal.
Death is not the only issue. There is brain damage due to fever/encephalitis, lost income due to having to take care of a sick child, scars from the rash, etc.
If you're immune compromised, that sucks, but let's face it you are incredibly likely to die from something like the flu anyways.
There are some people who have descent immune systems but can not take vaccines. There are some kids who are allergic to the vaccines.
The massive amounts of public panic over that risk going up a few percentage points is completely unwarranted in my opinion.
Risk vs reward. The risk is extremely low and the reward might mean a meaningful life, or in some cases life at all. In know what most people choose. Those that don't can home school.
You have freedom of religion. You also have the consequences of that religion which could be not being able to send your kids to public school.
What is to stop someone from saying that their religion requires their children to carry and scatter peanuts everywhere they go? Should children of this religion be allowed in public schools even though their presence may, and probably will, kill other students?
It comes down to this a person's rights end where they cause damage to others.
The minute you start deciding what is a "real" religion, you've just gotten yourself into the religion business, and that is completely against the constitution.
The Bill of Rights states that the government can not discriminate based on religion. It says nothing about "cults", "spiritual beliefs", "strongly held beliefs", etc. It is up to the government and courts to define what a religion is. The thing is that if you want to claim your religion requires something you have the burden of proving your statements.
There are also States where "personal belief" is not grounds for exemption. That is the way I think things should. Exemptions based on science are valid. Exemptions based on "belief" are not.
Actually no, we all pay taxes for things we choose not to use. People without children still pay education taxes. People with cars still pay public transport taxes. There is no requirement to accommodate children of people who choose not to have them vaccinated.
that's why the US currently doesn't vaccinate against TB, while it is mandatory elsewhere.
Since we are talking about the US that is irrelevant.
HPV vaccination is morally objectionable to many people
I would say to a few people not "many".Also moral objections do not count.
Jacobson v. Massachusetts
This is a very old case, very specific and things have changed. First the precident is only applicable during an outbreak and only in the area of the outbreak. It also stated that someone could not be forced to be vaccinated but could be fined or detained.
Harlan deemed that the Massachusetts state punishment of fine or imprisonment on those who refused vaccines was acceptable but that those individuals could not be forcibly vaccinated.
Even your reference does not support forcible vaccination.
Evidently, what you're advocating is all about promoting cronyism and corruption and taking away the rights and choices of people whose views differ from the majority.
No, it supports a science based approach to protect the health of people in a large society over the small minded prejudices of a few people. There is no right to live in society and everyone has the right to live somewhere else.
If the virus has a high enough mutation rate to be distinct in one person, the defendant, it would mutate again in the next person infected, the plaintiff. Even if they matched there is a possibility that the virus from a third person mutated to a form similar to the defendant's. Sorry but there will always be reasonable doubt when dealing with unstable viruses.
You draw the line where it is obvious that the benefit far outweighs the risk.
Who determines whether a medical procedure is sufficiently benign so that the government can force you to undergo it?
The people who elect the officials.
But there are legitimate medical and/or non-medical reasons to object to other vaccines (e.g., HPV, TB).
References? BTW, there is only one state that required HPV vaccines and that is in high school. There is no requirement for TB vaccine anywhere in the US.
he US government can force anybody to get vaccinated,
Citation required.
The part that is wrong is that parents are required to pay for public schools regardless even if they disagree with public school policies, whether it is vaccinations or the curriculum.
Taxes are paid for a lot of things that are not used by individual tax payers. Case in point, people without children pay taxes for public schools even though they never send children there. People who own cars still pay for public transit even though they never use it. It is all about choice. It is the parent's option to vaccinate their children to the standard required to attend school. They also have the option of not vaccinating their children and not using public schools.
PS. Here are the vaccination requirements in the US
All of which is less that the risk of death/disease without vaccines. In 26 years there have been 3,540 cases compensated. That covers all vaccines. According to the CDC;
Before the measles vaccination program started in 1963, we estimate that about 3 to 4 million people got measles each year in the United States. Of those people, 400 to 500 died, 48,000 were hospitalized, and 4,000 developed encephalitis (brain swelling) from measles.
If you use those figures to calculate the effect of not having the vaccine over 26 years you get 78 million infections, 10,400 deaths and 96,000 cases of encephalitis. That is only one of the big three vaccines. That makes 3,500 cases seem like a very small number.
Vaccines are not completely safe but not having vaccines is less save by orders of magnitude.
My point is that they spend so much energy just trying to ram it down our throats that it does invoke some sense of suspicion as to the motives.
Maybe the motive is that it is a simple thing that saves people's lives and saving people's lives is very important.
You are basically saying "they are pushing too hard there must be something wrong". Pushing less could also cause people to think "they are not pushing very hard it must not be important". By requiring vaccinations for school attendance meets the criteria for importance while allowing staunch anti-vaxers to educate their children elsewhere.
Good health and hygiene is much more effective than any vaccine.
And we can all avoid cancer, transplants, AIDS, etc that compromise our immune systems. Also the recent outbreaks have occurred in areas where the incidence of non-vaccination has been high but hygiene has been good.
Which has no effect what so ever on the viruses in the air we breathe.
It was those practices which lead to the decline of infectious disease.
Possibly a decline but vaccines lead to a much larger decline.
not some government voodoo.
Would that be the "vodoo" that eliminated certain diseases from some countries?
The immunisation program has been quite successful. Cuba declared the disease eliminated in the 1990s, and in 2004 the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced that both the congenital and acquired forms of rubella had been eliminated from the United States.
We still get immunized because the disease can be imported from other countries.
That is a lot said by an AC with no references what so ever to support the claims. You also completely ignore the fact that measles outbreaks are occurring in areas that have a high incidence of non-vaccinations.
The people clamoring for them that think they are "pro-science" are the most cringe worthy. People who have never opened up pubmed and searched for info on a topic should stop looking down on others.
That is called a slippery slope argument and therefore invalid. Lets not do something we know will save lives now because something else might or might not happen in the future that may cause problems. Sorry but that is flawed logic.
Are you seriously trying to equate being poked in the arm with a small needle a few time with giving up a kidney? They are many orders of magnitude different. Calling it a medical procedure sound ominous but it is a very minor medical procedure.
Undergoing medical procedures to help other people should be voluntary.
Vaccines are not required but they are required to attend school. You can refuse to vaccinate your child and educate them somewhere else.
force people to take actions that are detrimental to themselves but beneficial to others.
Getting one's kid vaccinated is not detrimental to themselves or their kids. It has been proven many times that the total risk for required vaccinations is far below the risk of dying for one of the diseases.
But can we force people to pay more taxes for biomedical research into infectious disease?
No because there is no proof that throwing money at diseases will cure them while there is profe that immunizing will save lives.
The consensus view on Slashdot seems to be that vaccines are good and that taxes are bad. But, to me, at least, such views seem inconsistent.
It is not inconsistent because vaccines have been proven to save lives while higher taxes have not.
A parent can sit through all the discussions you want, disregard them, and make a stupid decision based on their opinion. Informed stupidity is still stupidity. The only exemptions should be medically based.
True but you can control some of it. Vaccines and herd immunity have been shown time and time again to reduce the spread of certain diseases and save people's lives.
Where are we gonna draw the line?
Where a few small acts have been proven to save the child's and/or someone else's life.
Some kids have legitimate health reasons why they can't survive cancer.
Cancer is not a communicable disease and it has not been proven that throwing money at it will ever make it so.
A lot of kids injure themselves tripping over their own shoelaces.
Injury is not death. Another issue is that lack of safety equipment does not put other kids at risk of death.
Vaccinations are a great thing, but this argument sticks in my craw.
You whole argument seems to be about where to draw the line. Sure they are arbitrary but it is a decision based on science, the ability to do it and the impact it has on society. The only negative impact I can see to vaccination is taking away the ability of a parent to send an un-vaccinated child to school. That is a very small price to pay for herd immunity.
Now, don't get me wrong, I'm all about vaccinations and feel that anti-vaxers are idiots, but I'm a little leery of government making health decisions for my kids.
You are also making health decisions for the kids around your kids.
If the government can tell your kids what vaccinations they must receive, what's next?
The things you mention are just unrealistic. Any government who tried any of thet would be out of office next election. The thing is that if a small percentage of the kids who can be vaccinated do not it increases the danger to those who can not be vaccinated. Most people understand that and no government would be voted out of office for requiring vaccines in schools. The government can mandate what is required for your kids to go to school. If you don't vaccinate you need to school your kids elsewhere. You have that choice.
Where do you draw the line?
The line is easy to draw. It is where your health choices effect other children who do not have that choice. Those children being the ones who can not be vaccinated. It is similar to the peanut ban in most schools. It is a choice whether or not to bring peanuts but it is not a choice to be allergic to peanuts.
Once you draw that line, why can't it be crossed or moved?
It can be moved by more information. If crossed the consequences are not being allowed in schools, daycares, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
The whole public school thing is just another measure of control, a way for the Federal Government to try and stick its nose into more states rights using money.
You really need to look into school vaccination requirements. School immunization requirements is on a State by State basis and not federally mandated.
In the U.S., the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates and licenses all vaccines to ensure safety and effectiveness. No federal vaccination laws exist, but all 50 states require certain vaccinations for children entering public schools. Depending on the state, children must be vaccinated against some or all of the following diseases: mumps, measles, rubella, diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, and polio.
A better analogy would be taking peanuts to school. Some kids who are allergic to peanuts may die.
So it puzzles m that the Slashdot consensus is so strongly in favor of mandatory vaccination while being ambivalent, at best, about the government tax and patent programs that fund biomedical research.
We already have vaccines that cover most of the airborne infectious diseases. This is a discussion on whether or not to require them for going to public schools.
By the way the Government does spend money on vaccine research. Also, vaccines can be patented.
It depends. The state I live in forces all home schooling to be done through a religous institution.
The only State that I can find that has that requirement ia Alabama. Even there there are a numer of "cover schools" that, while affiliated with a church, do not require religious teaching or declarations of faith. Here is one.
Something like 1 in a thousand cases in the years before vaccination was mortal.
Death is not the only issue. There is brain damage due to fever/encephalitis, lost income due to having to take care of a sick child, scars from the rash, etc.
If you're immune compromised, that sucks, but let's face it you are incredibly likely to die from something like the flu anyways.
There are some people who have descent immune systems but can not take vaccines. There are some kids who are allergic to the vaccines.
The massive amounts of public panic over that risk going up a few percentage points is completely unwarranted in my opinion.
Risk vs reward. The risk is extremely low and the reward might mean a meaningful life, or in some cases life at all. In know what most people choose. Those that don't can home school.
My child doesn't have measles, so explain to me why you don't want them in school?
Because you child can have measles and be contagious for days before the rash shows up.
You have freedom of religion. You also have the consequences of that religion which could be not being able to send your kids to public school.
What is to stop someone from saying that their religion requires their children to carry and scatter peanuts everywhere they go? Should children of this religion be allowed in public schools even though their presence may, and probably will, kill other students?
It comes down to this a person's rights end where they cause damage to others.
The minute you start deciding what is a "real" religion, you've just gotten yourself into the religion business, and that is completely against the constitution.
The Bill of Rights states that the government can not discriminate based on religion. It says nothing about "cults", "spiritual beliefs", "strongly held beliefs", etc. It is up to the government and courts to define what a religion is. The thing is that if you want to claim your religion requires something you have the burden of proving your statements.
There are also States where "personal belief" is not grounds for exemption. That is the way I think things should. Exemptions based on science are valid. Exemptions based on "belief" are not.
But it does not require you to educate your children at public schools. They van be educated at home or a private school. That is your choice.
What religion has a ban on vaccinations and do you truly belong to that religion?
Actually no, we all pay taxes for things we choose not to use. People without children still pay education taxes. People with cars still pay public transport taxes. There is no requirement to accommodate children of people who choose not to have them vaccinated.
The issue is that some diseases are contagious before symptoms become apparent.
Determined by who?
Doctors and scientists
Benefits and risks for who?
Society as a whole.
you are advocating mob rule
It is also called democracy.
that's why the US currently doesn't vaccinate against TB, while it is mandatory elsewhere.
Since we are talking about the US that is irrelevant.
HPV vaccination is morally objectionable to many people
I would say to a few people not "many".Also moral objections do not count.
Jacobson v. Massachusetts
This is a very old case, very specific and things have changed. First the precident is only applicable during an outbreak and only in the area of the outbreak. It also stated that someone could not be forced to be vaccinated but could be fined or detained.
Harlan deemed that the Massachusetts state punishment of fine or imprisonment on those who refused vaccines was acceptable but that those individuals could not be forcibly vaccinated.
Even your reference does not support forcible vaccination.
Evidently, what you're advocating is all about promoting cronyism and corruption and taking away the rights and choices of people whose views differ from the majority.
No, it supports a science based approach to protect the health of people in a large society over the small minded prejudices of a few people. There is no right to live in society and everyone has the right to live somewhere else.
BTW, A reference means an actual link.
If the virus has a high enough mutation rate to be distinct in one person, the defendant, it would mutate again in the next person infected, the plaintiff. Even if they matched there is a possibility that the virus from a third person mutated to a form similar to the defendant's. Sorry but there will always be reasonable doubt when dealing with unstable viruses.
So where do you draw the line?
You draw the line where it is obvious that the benefit far outweighs the risk.
Who determines whether a medical procedure is sufficiently benign so that the government can force you to undergo it?
The people who elect the officials.
But there are legitimate medical and/or non-medical reasons to object to other vaccines (e.g., HPV, TB).
References? BTW, there is only one state that required HPV vaccines and that is in high school. There is no requirement for TB vaccine anywhere in the US.
he US government can force anybody to get vaccinated,
Citation required.
The part that is wrong is that parents are required to pay for public schools regardless even if they disagree with public school policies, whether it is vaccinations or the curriculum.
Taxes are paid for a lot of things that are not used by individual tax payers. Case in point, people without children pay taxes for public schools even though they never send children there. People who own cars still pay for public transit even though they never use it. It is all about choice. It is the parent's option to vaccinate their children to the standard required to attend school. They also have the option of not vaccinating their children and not using public schools.
PS. Here are the vaccination requirements in the US
All of which is less that the risk of death/disease without vaccines. In 26 years there have been 3,540 cases compensated. That covers all vaccines.
According to the CDC;
Before the measles vaccination program started in 1963, we estimate that about 3 to 4 million people got measles each year in the United States. Of those people, 400 to 500 died, 48,000 were hospitalized, and 4,000 developed encephalitis (brain swelling) from measles.
If you use those figures to calculate the effect of not having the vaccine over 26 years you get 78 million infections, 10,400 deaths and 96,000 cases of encephalitis. That is only one of the big three vaccines. That makes 3,500 cases seem like a very small number.
Vaccines are not completely safe but not having vaccines is less save by orders of magnitude.
My point is that they spend so much energy just trying to ram it down our throats that it does invoke some sense of suspicion as to the motives.
Maybe the motive is that it is a simple thing that saves people's lives and saving people's lives is very important.
You are basically saying "they are pushing too hard there must be something wrong". Pushing less could also cause people to think "they are not pushing very hard it must not be important". By requiring vaccinations for school attendance meets the criteria for importance while allowing staunch anti-vaxers to educate their children elsewhere.
You have no idea what you are talking about.
Good health and hygiene is much more effective than any vaccine.
And we can all avoid cancer, transplants, AIDS, etc that compromise our immune systems. Also the recent outbreaks have occurred in areas where the incidence of non-vaccination has been high but hygiene has been good.
Remove the vermin which spread disease
Vermin do not spread measles, mumps or rubella.
teach people to wash their hands.
Which has no effect what so ever on the viruses in the air we breathe.
It was those practices which lead to the decline of infectious disease.
Possibly a decline but vaccines lead to a much larger decline.
not some government voodoo.
Would that be the "vodoo" that eliminated certain diseases from some countries?
The immunisation program has been quite successful. Cuba declared the disease eliminated in the 1990s, and in 2004 the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced that both the congenital and acquired forms of rubella had been eliminated from the United States.
We still get immunized because the disease can be imported from other countries.
I hate to break this to you but Batman is fiction.
That is a lot said by an AC with no references what so ever to support the claims. You also completely ignore the fact that measles outbreaks are occurring in areas that have a high incidence of non-vaccinations.
The people clamoring for them that think they are "pro-science" are the most cringe worthy. People who have never opened up pubmed and searched for info on a topic should stop looking down on others.
Prove you have and quote your sources.
That is called a slippery slope argument and therefore invalid. Lets not do something we know will save lives now because something else might or might not happen in the future that may cause problems. Sorry but that is flawed logic.
Mandatory kidney transplants?
Are you seriously trying to equate being poked in the arm with a small needle a few time with giving up a kidney? They are many orders of magnitude different. Calling it a medical procedure sound ominous but it is a very minor medical procedure.
Undergoing medical procedures to help other people should be voluntary.
Vaccines are not required but they are required to attend school. You can refuse to vaccinate your child and educate them somewhere else.
force people to take actions that are detrimental to themselves but beneficial to others.
Getting one's kid vaccinated is not detrimental to themselves or their kids. It has been proven many times that the total risk for required vaccinations is far below the risk of dying for one of the diseases.
But can we force people to pay more taxes for biomedical research into infectious disease?
No because there is no proof that throwing money at diseases will cure them while there is profe that immunizing will save lives.
The consensus view on Slashdot seems to be that vaccines are good and that taxes are bad. But, to me, at least, such views seem inconsistent.
It is not inconsistent because vaccines have been proven to save lives while higher taxes have not.
A parent can sit through all the discussions you want, disregard them, and make a stupid decision based on their opinion. Informed stupidity is still stupidity. The only exemptions should be medically based.
You cannot eliminate all risk in life.
True but you can control some of it. Vaccines and herd immunity have been shown time and time again to reduce the spread of certain diseases and save people's lives.
Where are we gonna draw the line?
Where a few small acts have been proven to save the child's and/or someone else's life.
Some kids have legitimate health reasons why they can't survive cancer.
Cancer is not a communicable disease and it has not been proven that throwing money at it will ever make it so.
A lot of kids injure themselves tripping over their own shoelaces.
Injury is not death. Another issue is that lack of safety equipment does not put other kids at risk of death.
Vaccinations are a great thing, but this argument sticks in my craw.
You whole argument seems to be about where to draw the line. Sure they are arbitrary but it is a decision based on science, the ability to do it and the impact it has on society. The only negative impact I can see to vaccination is taking away the ability of a parent to send an un-vaccinated child to school. That is a very small price to pay for herd immunity.
Now, don't get me wrong, I'm all about vaccinations and feel that anti-vaxers are idiots, but I'm a little leery of government making health decisions for my kids.
You are also making health decisions for the kids around your kids.
If the government can tell your kids what vaccinations they must receive, what's next?
The things you mention are just unrealistic. Any government who tried any of thet would be out of office next election. The thing is that if a small percentage of the kids who can be vaccinated do not it increases the danger to those who can not be vaccinated. Most people understand that and no government would be voted out of office for requiring vaccines in schools. The government can mandate what is required for your kids to go to school. If you don't vaccinate you need to school your kids elsewhere. You have that choice.
Where do you draw the line?
The line is easy to draw. It is where your health choices effect other children who do not have that choice. Those children being the ones who can not be vaccinated. It is similar to the peanut ban in most schools. It is a choice whether or not to bring peanuts but it is not a choice to be allergic to peanuts.
Once you draw that line, why can't it be crossed or moved?
It can be moved by more information. If crossed the consequences are not being allowed in schools, daycares, etc.