View Full Version : CO HB19-1312 School Immunization Requirements
Colorado bill which tightens loopholes that allow parents to opt out of child vaccinations advances
https://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/360/colorado-bill-aims-to-tighten-loopholes-that-allow-parents-to-opt-out-of-vaccinating-children
The changes would not deny parents the ability to opt their children out of vaccinations but essentially creates more steps for them to go through. After the first year of going through the process, parents would be able to fill out an online form each year.
?This bill is about safety ? nothing less and nothing more,? he said.
This has everything we like: registration, continuous tracking, "public safety" overwhelming individual rights.
How many CO moms are about to get an education in the awesome power of the police state they've created? Story is right about our low MMR rate (88%) so it would seem a lot of parents are not vaccinating in the state.
We decided to vaccinate after reviewing/researching, but I think this is a deeply personal decision everyone has a right to make for their own children. What other medical interventions can the state compel a person to undergo?
I continue to find it odd that Libs state you have complete privacy rights to an abortion and "my body my choice" but those concepts don't apply when they perceive a collective benefit/consequence. It's almost like they aren't being intellectually honest.
If I am to be denied the right to eliminate "Typhoid Mary" to protect myself and my family, I damned well better have the right to vaccinate her ass.
We decided to vaccinate after reviewing/researching, but I think this is a deeply personal decision everyone has a right to make for their own children. What other medical interventions can the state compel a person to undergo?
I'm not so sure it's a "deeply personal decision etc. etc." to be honest, because of the facts and the situation at hand. I don't believe "rights" extend to ignorant risk to others lives, e.g. someone doesn't have a right to wave a loaded gun all around including at my family. Likewise, they don't have the "right" to willfully get newborns (mine) and their fellows infected with disabling or killer viruses, without good cause - e.g. for no benefit other than to "pet" their conspiratory world view and/or mental illness.
The issue with vaccines is they aren't perfect; their primary immunity comes from herd immunity (limiting a contagion spread to prevent epidemic infections). Have a lot of unvaccinated people in the "herd" and there is a tipping point where the vaccines no longer immunize a lot of people even who received them.
More importantly though, there are a lot of vaccines that you cannot give to newborns, or immuno-compromised people, including the measles vaccine (wait until one year). Do newborns have a "right" to life that is less significant than another parents "right" to be a fucking idiot? It is near impossible to isolate a newborn - 1 year old from unvaccinated kids and idiots at this point. Measles infection rates are rapidly rising now, after being wiped out of this country prior to the rise of Jenny McCarthy. Whooping cough, if anyone has ever seen it, is one of the worst things you could infect an infant with and imposes an unseen level of suffering on the child and their family.
The *only* defense against most viruses is a vaccine and herd mentality, and to protect the ones who legitimately cant vaccinate, the ones who can have to be. Even in all our advances, we have nothing else to fight most of these viruses with. People should have the "right" to opt-out with cause (immuno-compromised, etc.) but not because they are an utter moron, much like they don't have a right to be careless with firearms because they are a moron, it's not an excuse that should be recognized. I recognize you vaccinated yours, not attacking you, just don't believe people have the "right" to willfully get newborns and infants of responsible parents infected with disabling or killer viruses.
I'm not so sure it's a "deeply personal decision etc. etc." to be honest, because of the facts and the situation at hand. I don't believe "rights" extend to ignorant risk to others lives, e.g. someone doesn't have a right to wave a loaded gun all around including at my family. Likewise, they don't have the "right" to willfully get newborns (mine) and their fellows infected with disabling or killer viruses, without good cause - e.g. for no benefit other than to "pet" their conspiratory world view and/or mental illness.
The issue with vaccines is they aren't perfect; their primary immunity comes from herd immunity (limiting a contagion spread to prevent epidemic infections). Have a lot of unvaccinated people in the "herd" and there is a tipping point where the vaccines no longer immunize a lot of people even who received them.
[snip]
The bold part is the argument for gun control, FYI. Almost verbatim. Grabbers say the exact thing about "assault rifles..." No one needs them, they put the public at risk, 2A isn't absolute, etc...
Vaccines are not only imperfect (effective) but have risks, as does any medical intervention. Dispense enough doses of Tylenol and you'll eventually see risk. This is why people have to make the choice.
The autism link has been thoroughly discredited as was the Dr who published that initial study. Although I think there probably is a autism/environment link, I have yet to this proven.
Allowing the gov to compel the assumption of individual risk for collective reward is an interesting and slippery thing in any context. There is certainly good utility/benefit in vaccinating for the individual/parent too but this is an opinion. A good opinion, IMHO, and a consensus, but not absolute.
Closing the borders and screening would also be a good defense. Of course, that's out of the question because it would end the Great Replacement. We're seeing a lot of scary stuff...
https://www.thedenverchannel.com/lifestyle/health/aurora-mom-concerned-about-schools-response-to-tuberculosis-outbreak
Zundfolge
04-16-2019, 17:37
I have no problem with the state requiring children to be vaccinated if they wish for them to attend public schools. But that is the extent of the power the state should have in this matter.
I don't think this goes far enough. They should jail people who think the Earth is flat as well.
It doesn't matter to the newborn as this same government doesn't require the vaccinations of those entering the country illegally. Your chances of getting something from someone here illegally is a good if not more so than from an unvaccinated child.
Cause illegals and newborns are hanging out together at daycare?
ETA: I know what you're trying to say.
Although I think there probably is a autism/environment link, I have yet to this proven.
There is some studies showing a link to SSRI use in utero. How significant of a link, I can't say.
And it's not a direct comparison to "gun control" as there's a difference between responsible gun owners (only shooting bullets downrange at safe places) and irresponsible gun owners (shooting through trees into houses, etc.)
On the other hand, there is no responsible unvaccinated person, unless they segregate themselves from society entirely. Because you cannot see pathogens, and they will already be contagious before they even have symptoms, they don't have an ability "to be responsible". Even if you wash your hands, and avoid sick people, and you're very clean, you could still be shedding a virus at a time when you're around newborns or infants that will kill them, prior to you even being aware you're sick. (Typhoid mary comment on point).
It's more akin to people asking for gun control if your guns, in theory, could start shooting bullets at people without your awareness.
I have no problem with the state requiring children to be vaccinated if they wish for them to attend public schools. But that is the extent of the power the state should have in this matter.
This is probably the best way of handling it. You want access to gov education? Comply by the rules. Don't like the rules? Roll your own.
And much smarter than asking parents to register their human every year!
I'm sure the ACLU would sue over it.
There is some studies showing a link to SSRI use in utero. How significant of a link, I can't say.
And it's not a direct comparison to "gun control" as there's a difference between responsible gun owners (only shooting bullets downrange at safe places) and irresponsible gun owners (shooting through trees into houses, etc.) .
Not in your mind (or mine!), but this is what the Liberal believes. She believe guns are inherently dangerous and the risk to society outweighs any individual right to have one.
On the other hand, there is no responsible unvaccinated person, unless they segregate themselves from society entirely. Because you cannot see pathogens, and they will already be contagious before they even have symptoms, they don't have an ability "to be responsible". Even if you wash your hands, and avoid sick people, and you're very clean, you could still be shedding a virus at a time when you're around newborns or infants that will kill them, prior to you even being aware you're sick. (Typhoid mary comment on point).
It's more akin to people asking for gun control if your guns, in theory, could start shooting bullets at people without your awareness.
The part in bold... This is hoplophia and it's a real thing. There are grabbers who talk like this all the time.
Agree, there's no way to manage it. Another reason vaccines are smart--never being able to control exposure. We went through all these reasons when researching and made our decision.
Here's another story I found yesterday...
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/unaware-he-had-measles-a-man-traveled-from-ny-to-michigan-infecting-39-people/ar-BBVYpUY
Another story...
Israeli flight attendant in coma after getting measles
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/04/17/health/measles-israel-flight-attendant/index.html
The flight attendant, who works for El Al, the Israeli national airline, might have contracted the virus in New York, in Israel or on a flight between the two, Grotto said. Health authorities do not believed that she spread the virus to anyone on the flights.
[snip]Authorities believe that the flight attendant was vaccinated as a child, but the vaccine isn't perfect, and in her case, it didn't work.
I don't think this goes far enough. They should jail people who think the Earth is flat as well.
Wait. It's not flat?
Wait. It's not flat?
Pyramid shaped
Rucker61
04-17-2019, 20:18
Wait. It's not flat?
If it were flat, cats would have knocked everything off the edge already.
ChickNorris
04-17-2019, 20:41
If it were flat, cats would have knocked everything off the edge already.
Ha!
For fucks sake? Really? Are we really going here??? Fuck me.
For fucks sake? Really? Are we really going here??? Fuck me.
Alright, alright, I'll admit it. Earth is trapezoid shaped.
I'm talking about vaccines
I'm talking about vaccines
It’s not about vaccines.
It’s about gov trying to compel it in a state with low rates.
It’s not about vaccines.
It’s about gov trying to compel it in a state with low rates.
Couldn't it be low rates due to vaccines? And given the recent outbreaks in the US, I don't see a problem with it. Don't want to get vaccinated? Then stay out away from the public.
Compel it for public school. They have no current nor added way to compel it with this bill in general.
And this isn't a no victim item. Put those kids in school with my kid, and it's a risk to me and my family.
Comparing this to gun control is asinine. If you want to compare apples to apples, compare it to legalizing a game of blindfolded, point in random direction, Russian roulette. There are empty cylinders, and you have no idea if you are pointed in a safe direction or not. But you really have no control over it, you can't see, and you can't know if the cylinder is loaded.
Want to play that game on your own private acreage. Cool. Do it near my kid and I have problems.
Couldn't it be low rates due to vaccines? And given the recent outbreaks in the US, I don't see a problem with it. Don't want to get vaccinated? Then stay out away from the public.
Sorry ?low vaccination rate.? CO has a low rate as a state putting us at risk of outbreaks.
Yeah we are talking about that a lot on page 1.
Sorry ?low vaccination rate.? CO has a low rate as a state putting us at risk of outbreaks.
Yeah we are talking about that a lot on page 1.
Oh, I thought you meant low infection rate, my bad.
It’s going to be brutal if we get with anything.
When I was a kid, you had to get your vaccines if you went to public school. Then again, polio wasn't that far in the rearview mirror and our parents remembered. There were survivors that were regular reminders. Smallpox also left its mark around the same time. Vaccines were seen as life savers, not perceived risks without a scientific basis.
You want to send your kid to public school, they should be vaccinated. You want to home school or find a private school willing to assume the risk of an outbreak among unvaccinated kids, that's your choice.
When I was a kid, you had to get your vaccines if you went to public school. Then again, polio wasn't that far in the rearview mirror and our parents remembered. There were survivors that were regular reminders. Smallpox also left its mark around the same time. Vaccines were seen as life savers, not perceived risks without a scientific basis.
You want to send your kid to public school, they should be vaccinated. You want to home school or find a private school willing to assume the risk of an outbreak among unvaccinated kids, that's your choice.
I remember getting shots but I don't remember any drama about them or kids not having them. If that concerned existed in the 80s, I was ignorant of it.
I had another thought last night... The idea of clustering non-vaccinated kids in a confined area is probably a really bad one too. In some of these stories you see isolated innocents that were either controlled or vaccinated people served as a "break." Create a special school/community of unvaccinated kids and there would be no breaks, it would ripple through that entire community.
Play stupid games and all that??
In which case, could that be charged as child neglect? Leave a kid unattended in the bathtub, probably going to be ok. But consequences are steep when it goes wrong. That's why you don't do it, and get charged if something bad happens.
I don't see a lot of difference there. The kid has no choice, and if something bad happens that could have been easily prevented, should that be considered neglect? I dunno, but food for thought.
Play stupid games and all that??
In which case, could that be charged as child neglect? Leave a kid unattended in the bathtub, probably going to be ok. But consequences are steep when it goes wrong. That's why you don't do it, and get charged if something bad happens.
I don't see a lot of difference there. The kid has no choice, and if something bad happens that could have been easily prevented, should that be considered neglect? I dunno, but food for thought.
The kid has no choice because the parent is the patient and the patient has the right to evaluate risks and refuse treatments according to his/her own values and determination. I don't know how you criminalize this without creating a slippery slope. And I don't trust the politicians to put good boundaries on it.
In my perfect imagination world (that in reality, would probably result in the world being burned into a crisp and all nukes detonating), anyway...
1) I think it should be a threshold requirement to public school as others have said. If your parents can't prove immunization, your parents are SOL if they want to use the state babysitting service. (that's all US public schools are).
2) I think instead of any kind of child abuse or neglect, it should be a very steep chargeable offense of a new category, e.g. "Reckless dispersion of infectious agent" with both criminal consequences and civil liability that cannot be discharged in bankruptcy, with no defense of ignorance. Might make the vaxxers think twice. Spread measles to twenty people because you're a jackass? Yeah, that's probably the end of your financial well being, forever, just like it could be the end of someone's life (especially a young life). Would also apply to things like HIV positive people having unprotected sex w/o informing their partner.
I like #1. Zundfolge mentioned that on page 1. It really is the best idea because it does not compel or force it. If you're on the gov program you have to meet the gov standard(s).
I think #2 would be hard. For some cases it would be easy to trace but others? Going back to that stat I posed, 12% of CO kindergarteners are not vaccinated (MMR). That's 1 out of every 8. We probably come in contact with these kids often and a lot of that contact is casual; grocery store, parks, church, restaurants, etc...
I like #1. Zundfolge mentioned that on page 1. It really is the best idea because it does not compel or force it. If you're on the gov program you have to meet the gov standard(s).
So it's perfectly Ok for the goventment to state that if you're on Social Security, you can't own guns?
Do I understand your position correctly?
I'm just playing devil's advocate. Immunization is a really complex social/rights issue.
O2
I agree with the sentiment that access to public schools should require vaccination. Just to pay devil's advocate for a minute though, it seems to create a bit of a slippery slope argument. If the reasoning behind requiring vaccinations is really to prevent the spread of disease, why limit it's requirement to schools? There is nothing special about schools that helps or prevents the spread of disease. Just like we saw the outbreak from Disney recently. Requiring only for schools would seem like a half measure. [/EndDevilsAdvocate]
I thought vaccinations prevented me from contracting a disease I've come in contact with.
If i'm vaccinated, why do I care if other's are not?
So it's perfectly Ok for the goventment to state that if you're on Social Security, you can't own guns?
Do I understand your position correctly?
I'm just playing devil's advocate. Immunization is a really complex social/rights issue.
O2
Can I opt out of SS?
I can opt out of public education, and in fact do!
I thought vaccinations prevented me from contracting a disease I've come in contact with.
If i'm vaccinated, why do I care if other's are not?
Vaccines aren't 100% effective for all people. That's one of the misconceptions that I think amounts to dishonesty because the gov/medical community wants us to accept a conclusion rather than understand the complexity of it.
Newborns can't, and shouldn't (risk), be vaccinated until the recommended age.
This is why "herd immunity" is important.
Example of herd immunity thresholds (what it takes to create immunity) is here...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity#Mechanism
So CO is technically below the Measles HIT but above some of the other ones.
RblDiver
04-19-2019, 10:24
I thought vaccinations prevented me from contracting a disease I've come in contact with.
If i'm vaccinated, why do I care if other's are not?
My understanding (not a doctor nor did I stay in a Holiday Inn last night) is: Think of it more like a cup. You start at a regular 8 ounce cup. Someone gets sick near you, they start spreading the germs to those around them. You have 8 ounces of protection naturally, not a lot. Now, you go get vaccinated. Your cup is now a gallon jug, more protection. One person gets sick near you, you have enough protection to fend it off. However, if enough people around you still are using their 8oz, they get overwhelmed and start filling your cup as theirs overflows. You have protection, but as more and more around you get sick, eventually even your gallon jug will fill up.
Alternatively, think "fire resistant." Sure it'll resist fire up to a certain point, but if it gets hot enough long enough, even that will burn.
So, the govt can force me to be injected with a vaccine that may not be effective in my case, and may cause me to have a severe reaction up to and including death, and if I do suffer a bad reaction, I have no recourse with the medical provider, the vaccine supplier, or the govt? If I refuse, I face financial penalties and possible jail time (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-6940215/Three-Brooklyn-parents-refuse-vaccinate-kids-summoned-court.html)
I'm not OK with that.
You know, there are some people that have survived car accidents because they weren't wearing a seatbelt. I guess we should let kids not be belted into cars, because it could save their life someday.
Of course, the big difference between seatbelts and measles is if you don't wear a seatbelt, it's your own statistical risk you inherit, you pretty much only risk your own ass. (ETA: and yet, you can get cited for not wearing a seatbelt... hmm, shouldn't that be your right to be stupid?)
Sure, about 4 people have died in the US as complications from the measles vaccine in about the last 70 or so years, to my knowledge. So yeah, technically you can die from it. Your odds of dying from it are somewhere in the magnitute of 4/300,000,000. On the other hand, it's about the most infectious virus out there, and newborns can't be vaccinated (until 1YO). Unlike other pathogens, it doesn't dry out. Unlike other pathogens, it's not actually heavier than air. Someone with measles can display no symptom yet, yet they can fill the air with infectious pathogens that linger for hours long after they are gone, and they do it for many days. Unlike flu, you don't need to touch anything they touched. You just need to take a breath of air in a large, general area where they were to be infected, and your odds of dying from it after infection are somewhere around 1/100 (esp for high risk populations, e.g. the infants that cannot be vaccinated).
If you fail to get the point, I don't know what to tell you - it would make me wonder if your retirement planning is powerball tickets. Be pissed all you want, but this isn't a "rights" issue. People can get themselves killed all they want, but if you want to argue the "reckless spread of highly infectious pathogens" is a constitutionally protected right, by all means explain which one that falls under.
ETA: And I love people who think this is a religious thing, e.g. they are going to "666" you with a vaccine [LOL]. Just like "666" is credit cards, or bar codes, or blah blah blah, but much like every other oft quoted biblical saying by the masses, they haven't ever apparently read it. "Let he who has wisdom understand the meaning..." sadly, wisdom is in scarce supply. We use basically the same vaccine schedule that we've used since most all of your parents were getting vaccines (yes, it's been that long), and they didn't give two shits. They are made by private companies, and they are administered by private hospitals. It is so vital to use our entire brains, not just the RIGHT or LEFT hemispheres.
Helps to read actual studies and cite actual statistics.
https://physiciansforinformedconsent.org/measles-faq/
Helps to read actual studies and cite actual statistics.
https://physiciansforinformedconsent.org/measles-faq/
I glanced at it, and you mean "actual" statistics like:
Since nearly 90% of measles cases are not reported to the CDC, the result is a case-fatality rate of 1 in 10,000 for all measles cases. It is important to measure disease risks based on total measles cases, not just the 10% of cases that are reported.
Their explanation for that "statistic" is back-of-the-hand estimation of pre-vaccine estimations of estimations, and the rest of your link is equally as biased, if not more so, even admitting they cherry pick studies, etc, claiming unvaccinated kids carry no risk to immunocompromised kids, etc.
(ETA: Note they cherry pick from a fraction of a data set with the lowest mortality period, here's the actual stats:)
https://vaxopedia.files.wordpress.com/2018/01/physicians-for-informed-consent-propaganda.jpg
PS: The biggest reason for the cherry picked decline in 1955-1963 is that a good portion of the population had already had it in the previous 50 years (with much higher mortality), and was entirely immune, stopping epidemics from infecting most of those who were not in that limited time period they cherry picked. Not true for your anti-vaxxing Typhoid Mary's. Not even true for your vaccinated population.
Now, I recognize that your dissonance will make you automatically believe anything you see/read that is in agreement with your "moral" position, so I can see how your dissonance might mistake such a thing for actual research. You have to be pretty ignorant to think that in 2019, 90% of measles cases go unreported. I also recognize that you will go on, until the end of your life, clutching at these "facts" as hard as a flat earther.
https://vaxopedia.org/2018/01/15/measles-propaganda-from-the-physicians-for-informed-consent/
You pulled
You just need to take a breath of air in a large, general area where they were to be infected, and your odds of dying from it after infection are somewhere around 1/100 (esp for high risk populations, e.g. the infants that cannot be vaccinated). right out of your ass.
Actual studies I cited claim
Since nearly 90% of measles cases are not reported to the CDC, the result is a case-fatality rate of 1 in 10,000 for all measles cases. It is important to measure disease risks based on total measles cases, not just the 10% of cases that are reported. - orders of magnitude less then your uneducated estimate.
You then come back to cite studies that show
That roughly translates into about one death for every 1,000 cases, or a case-fatality rate of about 0.1%. still an order above your own guesstimate.
My previous point remains - people should read actual studies and statistics that are widely available before making a decision. As opposed to just taking the obviously uninformed word of a vaccine warrior on a gun forum.
In addition to studying the risk of contracting a disease and its consequences, I would hope people would study several sources of actual studies on the risks of different vaccines. I wouldn't take my word for it either - it is up to the individual - not the govt to make these decisions.
Oh, man you totally got me.. quoting actual CDC and JDC data...
The infant with measles will have an overall risk of a severe outcome (death, SSPE or encephalitis of 1:215). Similarly, the risk in an older child would be 1:379.
So yeah, my memory isn't perfect but I did clarify that as at-risk populations, I thought, although I could have phrased it better. It's not 1 in 100 it's 1:215 that are dead, or with complications that might as well be, my mistake, I apologize. (And really, is there an argument to make because it's 1:215 instead of 1:100? Same significance) And again, infants can't even be vaccinated which is pretty clear in my post.
Killing - or virtually killing - one in two hundred and fifteen infants to satisfy conspiratory nuts who recklessly distribute pathogens isn't a protected right. You've yet to point out which enumerated right that is in the BOR.
The reason why that statistic matters, by the way, is because they are 100% unvaccinated and immunocompromised. All an infant has to do to get measles is breathe a single breath of air that was in a general area around a measles positive individual, potentially many hours after they are gone, and whom could be asymptomatic. At that point, they have a 1:215 chance of being dead, or pretty screwed at best (corrected statistic).
For illustration sake, lets pretend it is exactly 1/1000 people that die when the measles mutates and fully evades vaccines. Casualties in CO could be expected to approach 6,000 before it ran it's course, if we assume full penetration of the population, which as measles is about the most virulent thing out there, is going to be pretty close.
Now, lets just look at 0-12 months. At the actual CDC rate, it would be 325 infants in Colorado every year either dead, with SSPE, or with encephalitis with full penetration of the virus (mutated or not, they aren't vaccinated) - which would, in fairness, eventually substantially subside with herd immunity of the survivors limiting breakouts. Note encephalitis and SSPE on an infant can often produce lifetime retardation - they are serious brain inflammation that causes a lot of damage.
Meanwhile, in 2018, there were 584 total fatalities in CO from car accidents, of which a tiny minority were 0-12mo old.
Most measles cases are reported, btw, because it is so freaking contagious that unreported people cause local breakouts, which inevitably hit the CDC. To go unreported, it has to burnout quickly thanks to herd immunity, which most states no longer have. CO is 88%, it needs ~ 95% to reliably burnout.
Meanwhile, in 2018, there were 584 total fatalities in CO, of which a tiny minority were 0-12mo old.
Perhaps your memory failing you again?
https://www.childrenscolorado.org/conditions-and-advice/parenting/parenting-articles/measles-in-the-news/
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), in the U.S. there were 86 cases in 2017, 120 in 2017, and 349 cases in 2018. From 2014-2018 Colorado has had one case of measles each year.
^ 584 total fatalities in car accidents, sorry, supplied for comparison. Definitely didn't read as intended. I'll edit the post to fix that.
Keep in mind it's not just fatalities we're talking about here. Rates of non-fatal, life-altering complications and disabilities can result even with something as seemingly trivial as measles. The complications from encephalitis alone are pretty frightening.
The ability to decrease fatalities post-infection is likely related to our advances in medicine/sanitation/tech. That's all good stuff IMHO!
Grant H.
04-20-2019, 13:57
I'm surprised by the number of folks on here that are okay, even in favor, of what is being proposed...
This isn't even remotely constitutional...
On a side note, an entirely new type of vaccines will be coming out after completing FDA approval along with a new type of medicine. The first one is a universal flu vaccine which has already been developed, tested, and works.
These come from the most groundbreaking advancement in medicine in the last 100 years: AI unlocked protein folding through crowdsourced CPUS (home computers and cell phones). We've never been able to make custom proteins before because we couldn't get their folding down - which is incredibly, impossibly difficult, and those molecules are so critical to all of medicine, we've always had to rely on whatever we can find in nature.
Now, they can look at something like a flu virus - which in any mutation, still has consistent features, specifically certain shapes in the arrangement of the virus. And they noticed a special shape on the flu virus that is unique to it. So, they made a custom-folded protein that would fit that shape like a key, and it works quite simply - protein attaches to any flu virus, making the flu virus too big to enter cells. So, one shot, perfect flu immunity without actually having to necessarily "train" your immune system, although I'm sure it "learns" off the protein attached inactive virus just fine if you do get exposed.
This will also end up being a big deal for cancer treatments down the road and all other kinds of medicine.
Now, sSould the universal flu be required or other low-level ones like the HPV? Nah. Just the long - used highly infectious vaccines or highly dangerous diseases, with civil and criminal liability for reckless dispersion of dangerous pathogens if you get others sick and refused the vaccine. So sure, refuse to get vaccinated, but if others get sick because of you, it better ruin your life as much as it does theirs.
I'm surprised by the number of folks on here that are okay, even in favor, of what is being proposed...
This isn't even remotely constitutional...
With respect to your opinion, can anyone argue the why, of that claim? I'm still waiting to hear how the constitution or interpretation of it protects against vaccines or addresses it in any way towards being "a right". Court rulings go back a long, long time establishing certain gov't abilities with regard to public health concerns (not talking healthcare). This is nothing like a 1A or 2A issue.
Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166-67 (1944): <-- US Supreme Court
[a parent] cannot claim freedom from compulsory vaccination for the child more than for himself on religious grounds. The right to practice religion freely does not include liberty to expose the community or the child to communicable disease or the latter to ill health or death.
^ That's the conflict in a nutshell.
Although I think forced vaccinations are the least of our concerns (am I repeating myself?). There is nothing that stands in the way of gov being able to force things that are objectively against our individual best interests once we are sufficiently disarmed.
ETA: I started the thread because I thought it was interesting to watch the people who demand a gov boot on my throat for their collectivist interests, about to have their individual rights steamrolled as well.
^ That's the conflict in a nutshell.
Although I think forced vaccinations are the least of our concerns (am I repeating myself?). There is nothing that stands in the way of gov being able to force things that are objectively against our individual best interests once we are sufficiently disarmed.
ETA: I started the thread because I thought it was interesting to watch the people who demand a gov boot on my throat for their collectivist interests, about to have their individual rights steamrolled as well.
The point of the 2A is exactly that, and the observation is true of any government in history. With sufficient power, there is little that stands in the way of gov't imposing its will absent the threat of any retaliation.
I do fail to see how this has ever been a "gov boot on a throat for collectivism", though. At no stage in our history has the gov't manufactured or been a real part in delivery of these vaccines - save for isolated incidents and it's stockpiles of certain things (anthrax, smallpox vaccines, etc.) and the gov't has never forcibly vaccinated anyone in quantities, nor will it ever, to my knowledge (outrageous isolated research being the exception) While people act like this is a 2A right's issue... what is your consequence for not vaccinating?
1) You can't have your child in public school, but you could in theory home school.
2) .... uh, nothing else.
Where's the gun owners going rabid about any Dick Tom and Steve being able to open carry in their kid's school? Anyone? Bueller?
So far the only record I've seen of anyone being penalized are in small epidemic areas subject to fine only.
What about speed limits, is that collectivism to not want people driving 95mph down residential streets? Bear in mind, speed limits are enforced more than any mandatory vaccine requirement - that would get you fined and arrested. If this threshold is the definition one has for collectivism, we're already the U.S.S.R.
Pathogens are invisible, and people fear needles / have ingrained borderline superstitions from culture. That's what the difference it outrage really boils down to. Can't see the risk, can see the pokey thing.
It very much feels like a fundamental rights issue, like 2A, to me.
Forcing vaccinations would be collectivism, no matter what the gov states is a government or collective interest. It defies reason that it could be viewed any other way because if individuals are not choosing it, then it clearly isn't a demonstration of individual free will but collective force.
In this case the force brings something that is widely perceived to be positive but there is nuance in the perception of compelling a person to do something in vs against his best interest. Plenty of statists will happily support a measure to compel people to do something in their own best interest even at the expense of liberty (e.g. 18th Amendment) but they pave the way for gov to force things against our best interests as well absent any moral "stops" once that authority is given. When the perception flips they howl, like Boulder moms right now, but they made it all possible.
Boulder mom supports me being disarmed. Maybe she thinks it's good policy (greater good), maybe she wants gov to force me to live a certain way to her advantage (fear?). Maybe she consciously supports gun control to disarm her political opponents (revolutionary liberal). Either way, the power structure she built in gov will turn out to be less of a scalpel and more a grenade.
The boot on the throat is everything you see CalforniaEast obsessed with: taxes, gun control, oil and gas regulation (property rights), etc... All of this starts with the voters giving politicians that mandate to claim what doesn't belong to gov for some greater good.
You can come up with dozens of examples that just don't quite fit like the speed limit, this is working towards compelling a medical intervention that has some level of personal risk which makes it very different and complex. Just like the Social Security gun control example didn't work because (for now) you can still opt out of public education (although you can no longer take your money with you) but you can't opt out of SS. I can choose not to drive a car and I can obey the speed limit if I do drive without any individual risk. I can also choose at a later time to disobey the speed limit should I find the collective's morality problematic or creates greater personal risk than noncompliance.
With that Takata airbag tho... Yikes.
But none of that works with the complex vaccine issue.
The goal of gun control is to ensure we can never disobey or create a balance of force which I think makes it unique with very few appropriate comparisons. Probably why the defense is #2 in the BoR.
But none of that works with the complex vaccine issue.
I might agree with you if warrants were executed from judges, police came down, held you down, and a FDA doctor stabbed a syringe into your arm. Some posters here seem to believe that. I might also be inclined to believe you if the risk of receiving a vaccine was in any way shape or form, mathematically equal to, or greater to the risks of not having received the vaccine. But no, nobody is compelling it by force of any kind. It is enforced less than seatbelts and speeding, save for one exception: Public Schools.
A Public School is a government institution paid for by tax dollars. Considering that for a moment, now lets also consider that the students are not age of majority and cannot make their own decisions when attending a public school. And lets also consider for a moment, that Schools are already the worst petri dish your family can be exposed to, coupled with the fact that vaccines are only truly successful when they reach "herd" levels of immunity. So if it is justified to enforce seat belts - for your safety, why is it not justified to say "you can't let an un-vaccinated student attend this government school", where not only is the risk greatest - by far - but the people attending lack any choice to be there, and it's a government owned institution on top of it.
However, let's take the opposite approach for a second. Lets say, nobody can suggest you should get a vaccine, it's entirely a personal choice, enumerated as the 158th libertarian amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Nobody could disagree with anti-vax propaganda. And if the herd isn't vaccinated anyway, why bother getting stabbed? What do you think the vaccination rate would honestly be for many of our most deadly of diseases?
I might agree with you if warrants were executed from judges, police came down, held you down, and a FDA doctor stabbed a syringe into your arm. Some posters here seem to believe that. I might also be inclined to believe you if the risk of receiving a vaccine was in any way shape or form, mathematically equal to, or greater to the risks of not having received the vaccine. But no, nobody is compelling it by force of any kind. It is enforced less than seatbelts and speeding, save for one exception: Public Schools.
Can you describe the mechanism that prevents this from being that slippery slope? I know that's unfair because I'm asking you to provide a negative in a way, but there really is a lot here to take in and a lot of examples how gov could force this (and worse) because collectivists perceive a benefit.
And if refusing vaccines is "child abuse" then yes, all of that could happen to a child.
Here's a story that broke a few years back about MA taking custody of a teen because there was a disagreement between doctors on a treatment plan. I think we did a big thread here about it. They ended up making her worse and delayed her treatment!
https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2016/02/25/family-of-justina-pelletier-sues-boston-childrens-hospital
A Public School is a government institution paid for by tax dollars. Considering that for a moment, now lets also consider that the students are not age of majority and cannot make their own decisions when attending a public school. And lets also consider for a moment, that Schools are already the worst petri dish your family can be exposed to, coupled with the fact that vaccines are only truly successful when they reach "herd" levels of immunity. So if it is justified to enforce seat belts - for your safety, why is it not justified to say "you can't let an un-vaccinated student attend this government school", where not only is the risk greatest - by far - but the people attending lack any choice to be there, and it's a government owned institution on top of it.
Yup, that's probably the best way to do it. Courts have ruled some civil liberties don't apply in public school.
It again means there's an opt out. So if that opt out prevents the state from hitting HIT, this hasn't solved any problems, but it has concentrated unvaccinated children in clusters of private schools/homes.
However, let's take the opposite approach for a second. Lets say, nobody can suggest you should get a vaccine, it's entirely a personal choice, enumerated as the 158th libertarian amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Nobody could disagree with anti-vax propaganda. And if the herd isn't vaccinated anyway, why bother getting stabbed? What do you think the vaccination rate would honestly be for many of our most deadly of diseases?
I honestly think it would be the same in CO before this ramp-up which coincides with what they are doing in California which is why it's an issue. Let's be honest, Dems aren't smart or nearly as altruistic as they claim to be. They are preparing their service economy workers for globalism.
---
According to Kevin Lundberg's email (to which I can't link!!!), 1312 passed the House.
1. Historic Turnout for Committee Hearing
The House committee hearing for HB-1312 was historic. Never have I seen that many people come out to testify against one bill. 600 signed up to testify, almost all were adamantly opposed to these new restrictions on immunization exemptions. It was impossible to determine how many tried to come to the hearing as several rooms were used to seat everyone. The hearing went until after 4:00 AM the next morning.
The result? As I said on my Facebook page: the Democrats were stone-deaf. After rejecting all meaningful amendments the bill passed on a party-line vote.
The party-line piece is interesting because Kevin Priola (R) was a sponsor. Don't know if he removed his support or not.
I don't think it is a "slippery slope" at all, because if it was it would've already slipped. Broad, nationwide vaccine requirements to enter public school go back to at least 1922, with the first (Mass) going back to 1850. Inoculation requirements go back to the late 1700's. I know I had to be vaccinated to enter public school, and that's quite awhile ago too.
@ the year 2000, nobody would be arguing your points. Vaccination was required to enter public school, absent rare exemptions. Then came along the blond bimbo with debunked science, and all the sudden politicians were scrambling to loosen regs to appease the nuts. Now, the science has long, long ago seen the light, and the anti-vax crowd is now held in the same regard as the flat-earth crowd. Nevertheless, they are rabid- foaming at the mouth NUTS. AFAIK The regulation is simply moving it back closer to the pre-debunked science mandate, and the sky is falling, why? If the anti-vaxxers had any legitimate basis in argument, I could see justification for giving them a cookie, but their platform is top-down, full of crap. And in 97 years of court battles over vaccine school requirements (that have always held it's not "freedom" to infect others) it's never slipped into anything else.
I'd have to re-read all the posts, but my argument IIRC wasn't "child abuse" it was simply that "refusers" should be held liable (criminally and civilly) if they spread dangerous pathogens and do not otherwise have good reason to have not been vaccinated. Don't get vaccinated and never get sick? Not as big of a problem. It's a bit silly to say they shouldn't be responsible for the ramifications of their decisions, though; much like being reckless with a firearm usually results in prosecution only when you discharge it - and usually even then, when it causes damage/hits someone. If someone's an anti-vaxxer and their decision gets their neighbors infant killed, I'm fully on board with it ruining the anti-vaxxers life to the same extent - including jail and permanent, lifetime financial ruin. But sure, if someone is scared of a needle, they can risk it, if they so choose. That would be my preference. But that doesn't even exist, no, you just can't attend public school without a vaccine unless mommy or daddy fills out a form more frequently saying they are nuts. Prior to 2000, you wouldn't be on school grounds AFAIK.
"Progress" hasn't been a constant and physical control of people has been limited (again thanks to 2A). Lay the legislative foundation of medical choice being the gov's business and it will indeed get slippery. Way too much incentive for it not to. Add in disarmament where faceless/nameless bureaucrats can make these decisions and use the force of gov.
I was saying all some parties have to do is call a thing "child abuse" and all of the things you said won't happen will happen to a person. Those could be real consequences.
avandelay
04-22-2019, 10:28
The slippery slope is what they can keep adding to the mandatory 'list' of vaccinations. As I read it they are making the flu vaccine mandatory in this bill. The same vaccine that can be 90% ineffective because they guessed poorly on which strain would be most active. This is bad law.
For those interested in some of the ethical considerations for refusal:
https://www.ncbcenter.org/resources/frequently-asked-questions/use-vaccines/#refuseVacc
http://cogforlife.org/catholicguide.pdf
You guys get your TB shots?
Border Patrol releasing thousands who were exposed to diseases like tuberculosis
https://www.conservativereview.com/news/border-patrol-releasing-thousands-exposed-diseases-like-tuberculosis/
And then there's this new one no one is even talking about...
There are other mystery viruses whose origin is unknown, but one has to wonder if illegal immigration is the culprit. Beginning in August 2014, right after the influx of Central American teens, there was an outbreak of enterovirus D68, a respiratory illness, which many experts increasingly believe to be the cause of Acute Flaccid Myelitis (AFM), a mysterious polio-like disease that causes paralysis but starts out as what appears to be an innocuous cold. Health experts still say the cause is unknown, but it’s awfully suspicious that this disease did not appear until the latter part of 2014, right after the Central Americans started coming. 2014 is a benchmark year for those who follow immigration policy.
Over 550 Americans have contracted AMF since 2014, 90 percent of them children, according to the CDC, whereas the disease wasn’t even tracked before that. The enterovirus D68, milder compared to AMF, was barely on the radar for decades, yet from mid-August 2014 to January 15, 2015, there were 1,395 confirmed cases. It’s hard to identify a more potent variable being introduced into the equation right around that time than the influx of tens of thousands of Central Americans under the worst conditions.
hollohas
05-01-2019, 16:31
It's is absolutely a right for people to decide if they and their children are or aren't going to get vaccinated. The question is if kids who are unvaccinated should get access to public schools, and IMO they should. Unless there is a documented outbreak. Then, the state should have the ability to force those kids to stay home.
I don't see any reason to restrict public access to anything when there isn't a outbreak. Hell, unvaccinated kids have been attending public schools for decades without any major issue.
The state should largely stay out of this altogether. In reality, I think this entire issue is going to sway the public and there is no doubt in my mind that the number of unvaccinated children is going to be reduced dramatically now.
And that's how freedom is supposed to work. People make their own choices. When it turns out they made a bad choice, many of them will correct it on their own.
It's is absolutely a right for people to decide if they and their children are or aren't going to get vaccinated. The question is if kids who are unvaccinated should get access to public schools, and IMO they should. Unless there is a documented outbreak. Then, the state should have the ability to force those kids to stay home.
I don't see any reason to restrict public access to anything when there isn't a outbreak. Hell, unvaccinated kids have been attending public schools for decades without any major issue.
The state should largely stay out of this altogether. In reality, I think this entire issue is going to sway the public and there is no doubt in my mind that the number of unvaccinated children is going to be reduced dramatically now.
And that's how freedom is supposed to work. People make their own choices. When it turns out they made a bad choice, many of them will correct it on their own.
You're suffering from shifting baseline syndrome. Because you don't remember things being any different, then you assume that there has never been an issue. There aren't outbreaks because people are vaccinated.
hollohas
05-01-2019, 16:43
If you want to compare apples to apples, compare it to legalizing a game of blindfolded, point in random direction, Russian roulette. There are empty cylinders, and you have no idea if you are pointed in a safe direction or not. But you really have no control over it, you can't see, and you can't know if the cylinder is loaded.
Want to play that game on your own private acreage. Cool. Do it near my kid and I have problems.
Oh give me a break. Awfully dramatic. Kids have been going to school unvaccinated for decades without issues. There no doubt unvaccinated people have created an outbreak now, but statistically, having unvaccinated kids in school has been an insignificant risk.
Don't get me wrong. I believe in vaccines and my young kids are up-to-date on shots and always will be. I also believe not vaccinating children is irresponsible. But to say unvaccinated kids being around your kids is as dangerous as you suggest is just not backed up by the facts.
hollohas
05-01-2019, 16:58
Should public schools also require flu vaccines every year for every kid in attendance?
BladesNBarrels
05-01-2019, 17:04
Just tuned in.
I don't know when vaccinations to go to school became optional.
In the 50's when I was in "grade school" in Salt Lake City, the whole school population was part of the testing of the Polio Vaccine.
Half the population were vaccinated with the vaccine, and half were the test group that got a vaccination, but without the vaccine.
The next year after the vaccine was accepted, the group in the test group got vaccinated again with the real vaccine (Yep, I was one of those.)
There wasn't a choice, other than leaving, that I was allowed.
And yeah, after mandatory vaccinations of all school kids, Polio disappeared for a long time.
hollohas
05-01-2019, 17:36
You're suffering from shifting baseline syndrome. Because you don't remember things being any different, then you assume that there has never been an issue. There aren't outbreaks because people are vaccinated.I'm not shifting anyting. I'm suggesting we keep things the pretty much the way they are
I knew kids in school in Colorado who were unvaccinated. (They were proud of it). So I know it's been 30 to 40 years that unvaccinated kids have been allowed in Colorado public schools. How many outbreaks have there been in that time? I don't think a few isolated outbreaks over the period of 30 to 40 years is enough reason to change the requirements for attendance to public school.
For an active documented outbreak absolutely protections should be put in place until that outbreak has cleared up. Schools already know which children have been vaccinated and which are unvaccinated. During the higher risk levels associated with an active outbreak the unvaccinated children should be required to stay home. That's a no brainier that isn't a general over reaction that affects people when the risk isn't as high.
[snip]
And yeah, after mandatory vaccinations of all school kids, Polio disappeared for a long time.
That's one of the ones coming back now in a slight different form (posted some of this info on page 6 from a different source)...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/adambarsouk/2018/10/17/pittsburgh-helped-cure-polio-now-something-like-it-is-back-in-town/#1855c66e66c8
Strikes me as completely ridiculous that we imposed the risks of an intervention (vaccine) on children*, to eradicate a disease, only to have open borders globalism resurrect that disease. What was the cost and risk for?
Yes, this may not be the Polio we knew, but it might be an evolution of the Polio we would have known without vaccination and we're seeing anyway. TB is the same animal from my understanding.
* at the time we had no idea what the long term risks would be, like just about anything that takes time to study.
Follow the money
Panic over 704 measles cases, silence over 59,500 flu deaths (https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/05/panic_over_704_measles_cases_silence_over_59500_fl u_deaths.html)
Despite hyperventilated reporting on 704 cases of measles, there has been silence over this year's flu season that already hospitalized 630,000 and killed 59,500 Americans.
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reported that from January 1 through April 26, there was a total of 704 confirmed cases of measles and no deaths across 22 states.
Gun ownership is a disease that can only be cured by banning kids whose parents own guns from public schools...
The stupid is getting so thick in here you'd swear a soccer van full of boulder moms is trolling up in hizzle. The ONLY legitimate argument posted by any anti-vaxxer here was Cav's, in posting a potential ethical objection to the source of virus producing cells... and it's a long stretch, but at least it's actually based in fact - certain vaccines have some of their development started in a very old batch of cells that e.g. originally was cultured from lung tissue taken from an aborted fetus. That's a legitimate argument. Does it present a religious object? A stretch, but arguable to certain strict orthodox types. Even then, SCOTUS ruled there is no "right" to religious objections here, but hey, at least it's actual science, actual facts.
The rest of peoples objections? Beyond frivolous. Beyond fallacious.
#1) It's not a right, never has been, never will be, been answered by a thousand courts. Just because you keep say something is a "right", like the "right not to be offended" doesn't actually make it "a right". Willful negligence is not a right, and the US Supreme Court answered your question specifically as to vaccinations as far back as 1922 and has reiterated itself many, many times. BY ALL MEANS post some case law to support your argument; otherwise sit down and shut the fuck up. OOOPS, does me saying that offend the soccer moms "right" not to be offended too?
#2) Innoculation requirements go back to the 1700's in both the US and GB. Innoculations were made from nasty stuff, but the disease outbreaks were worse.
#3) Immunization requirements to enter school go back as far as 1855 (Massachusetts) and were widespread, being largely applicable nationwide before 1922.
#4) It's also not your "right" to get your own children killed. Again, willful negligence towards other's "right to life" is not a constitutional right.
#5) Measles specifically cannot be provided to any newborn infant, the schedule is at 12 months. One in 215 infants exposed to measles will either die, or suffer traumatic swelling of the brain resulting (usually) in lifetime complications such as blindness, retardation, or deafness.
#6) Do you think it's your "right" to expose 0-12month olds of other parents a 0.5% chance of death or retardation? Serious question.
#7) Do you think it's your "right" to expose your own 0-12 month old a 0.5% chance of death or retardation? Serious question.
#8) All it takes to be exposed to measles is to breath one breath of air in the general vicinity of where someone once was who was contagious, up to several hours ago.
#9) There is no treatment for these viruses besides immunizations/innoculations. If you are not immunized, there is essentially no better treatment today than what we had in 1950.
#10) It's not a slippery slope, as it's been required longer than all your great grandparents have been alive.
ETA: Funny thing is you NEVER hear anti-vaxxers wanting personal responsibility for their decisions such as I've suggested (criminal penalties for reckless spread of pathogens, +civil liability that cannot be discharged in bankruptcy). NOPE, if "germs" existed, you could see them buggars. They want their cake (ignorance) while wanting to be immune from any possible consequences. You could say they want to be immunized from any possible fallout as "a right"... ironic, isn't it. The world is flat, also, have you seen the horizon? It's not a circle. /thread
PS: Once the universal flu vaccine is FDA approved [which I discussed earlier], I definitely think it should be part of the required vaccine schedule to enter public schools.
Existing flu vaccines are so frequent and often ineffective that there should be some choice insofar as that is concerned. The universal is a game changer, though, and as soon as the science was available they committed it to preventing those 59k/year deaths.
Kids do have an actual right to live, and to grow up, despite the "rights" of their parent(s) to substantially increase their risk of death. Oh, wait, parents don't have that right, we covered that.
Firehaus
05-02-2019, 06:42
PS: Once the universal flu vaccine is FDA approved [which I discussed earlier], I definitely think it should be part of the required vaccine schedule to enter public schools.
Existing flu vaccines are so frequent and often ineffective that there should be some choice insofar as that is concerned. The universal is a game changer, though, and as soon as the science was available they committed it to preventing those 59k/year deaths.
Kids do have an actual right to live, and to grow up, despite the "rights" of their parent(s) to substantially increase their risk of death. Oh, wait, parents don't have that right, we covered that.
Why do we need a flu vaccine thats at best, only 20-40% effective?
https://www.precisionvaccinations.com/baloxavir-marboxil-s-033447-treats-influenza-and-b-one-day-one-dose-reports-shionogi-co
https://www.wsj.com/articles/drug-that-promises-to-kill-flu-in-a-day-approved-in-japan-1519387247
https://www.webmd.com/cold-and-flu/news/20180226/drug-that-kills-flu-in-one-day-approved-in-japan
https://www.sciencealert.com/japanese-company-claims-experimental-drug-kills-flu-virus-in-a-single-day-influenza-shionogi-baloxavir
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Good news is that the bill is laid over and will not be considered this year.
https://twitter.com/DenverChannel/status/1124048333717299202
So it was a big of enough public safety concern to override individual liberty but not important enough to get a vote? Sounds like the Dem majority was going to feel some heat on this. The GOP is effectively irrelevant in this session.
You guys get your TB shots?
[snip]
You guys get your Hepatitis shots?
Colorado reports 52 cases of hepatitis A amid outbreak
https://www.thedenverchannel.com/lifestyle/health/colorado-reports-52-cases-of-hepatitis-a-amid-outbreak
Colorado Department of Public Health Environment said Thursday that the outbreak has affected people experiencing homelessness and those with substance-use issues, along with individuals who are incarcerated and the contacts of those at-risk.
Another head scratcher. Forcibly vaccinate the kids but you still have these pockets of fringe. Can the concerned public health advocates deal with this?
CaliforniaWest has the same problem in every major city. They have spent millions power washing shit of sidewalks and sanitizing. I thought our cold climate would help, but nope.
Maybe I'm looking at it differently, but when I read about outbreaks, it's telling me that regardless of the rules, people aren't getting vaccinated.
Strikes me as completely ridiculous that we imposed the risks of an intervention (vaccine) on children*, to eradicate a disease, only to have open borders globalism resurrect that disease. What was the cost and risk for?
Democrat votes, of course.
Colorado Department of Public Health Environment said Thursday that the outbreak has affected people experiencing homelessness...
Just get them homes and they won't be at risk.
[facepalm]
Good news: you usually recover from Hep A, it's not lifetime.
Bad news: Unlike the lifetime ones, you can get it from contamination, e.g. food service worker scratches his ass at mickey-D's and touches your fries. I forget if the shot required for food service/medical (I think so?) but then again, it's totally their right to say no and keep their job.
Ah yup, didn't remember that right. Reporting requirements for Hep A in food service (and prohibition from working infected), not vaccination (never worked good service myself). Luckily it seems like a shitty, but not too fatal disease so meh, I'll still have my ass-fries.
Twice in my lifetime that I can remember, the food service worker that was infected was preparing salads. The fries are probably OK. [Coffee]
Why do we need a flu vaccine thats at best, only 20-40% effective?
https://www.precisionvaccinations.com/baloxavir-marboxil-s-033447-treats-influenza-and-b-one-day-one-dose-reports-shionogi-co
https://www.wsj.com/articles/drug-that-promises-to-kill-flu-in-a-day-approved-in-japan-1519387247
https://www.webmd.com/cold-and-flu/news/20180226/drug-that-kills-flu-in-one-day-approved-in-japan
https://www.sciencealert.com/japanese-company-claims-experimental-drug-kills-flu-virus-in-a-single-day-influenza-shionogi-baloxavir
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'm not talking about traditional flu shots. There are apparently at least three different designs of a universal at various points in trial. (I only knew of the one) at any rate, you would probably be looking at 75% + effectiveness even year to year and a schedule more like a tetanus shot (once a decade). That, yeah, I would support.
I've worked in the food industry several times and I can't ever remember having a conversation about reporting disease.
Why was the anti-vaxxer's two year-old crying?
He was having a mid-life crisis.
BladesNBarrels
05-03-2019, 10:40
Always the Navy way!
When I was doing an around the world "good will cruise" on a Destroyer in the 60's, every pay day you would get shots while waiting in line for your pay.
If you didn't sign up to get paid and left your pay on the books, the Corpsman would hunt you down and make it really hurt.
Democrat votes, of course.
Well I'm pretty sure Boulder moms killed this bill. Seems to be a contradiction in their ideology.
The Dems aren't listening to the freedom crowd and frankly don't need any GOP support. Given that the bill had a GOP sponsor, the support must have been so weak that is mitigated any "bipartisan" support.
Always the Navy way!
When I was doing an around the world "good will cruise" on a Destroyer in the 60's, every pay day you would get shots while waiting in line for your pay.
If you didn't sign up to get paid and left your pay on the books, the Corpsman would hunt you down and make it really hurt.
Corpseman (hehe) are also good at giving sock advice.
But yes, we had shots for things that I'm sure are well beyond the civilian schedule/recommendation.
GeorgeandSugar
05-03-2019, 14:24
Like any aspect of life, there are risks and rewards.
Vaccinating your child from these childhood diseases and now in some cases adult onset childhood diseases is a fine line between personal liberties and public health safety.
If your child is vaccinated no real concern. However, the unvaccinated risk serious complications or possibly death.
Listening to my grand parents talk about smallpox, polio, diphtheria etc... and those in their community who were impaired, injured or died is a humbling experience. These diseases were feared, because there was not much that could be done, but supportive care.
Choices have consequences. The bigger question do some parents really understand the risks?
Measles, whooping cough and mumps have been in the news in recent years. Measles requires a community at large to have an immunization rate of 90-95% to provide effective herd immunity. As these rates decrease so does the rate of increase disease in the community.
Measles vaccination is quite effective.
What has not been addressed is the number of influenza deaths this season: approximately 59,000. Influenza is a little different infection and the vaccine effectiveness varies due to genetic changes that occur each year with the viruses that are predicted to be circulating.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-as an aside, those over 50 may want to consider Shingrix. The first of two hurts for a few days, the second of the two is a bit worse. Having known someone that contracted shingles, I'll take the painful few days rather than the disease.
I had shingles when I was in college. I'm under the impression that means I won't get it again.
I had shingles when I was in college. I'm under the impression that means I won't get it again.
Shingles was on you, and now you're on shingles. #BeTheAlpha
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBkVCpbNnkU
I realize this is anecdotal on its own, though I’ve heard so many similar anecdotes at this point that I’m unconvinced they are, together, able to be hand waved away.
One of the families at church have a HS senior who desired to go on a mission trip to Peru. She had to get the typhoid vaccine. Within a minute of receiving the vaccine she started having a reaction. Doctor’s office shuffled them out in a hurry. She now has adult onset asthma, previously never having any issues of that sort. So instead of just risking the typhoid and resultant treatment, she now has a lifelong condition seemingly brought on by a rather needless vaccine.
I'm pretty sure I know (of) one of the 1-9 who died from the MMR vaccine. That doesn't mean I'd ever suggest anyone not get it. There are plenty of anecdotal cases of side effects; but if you take the vaccines away, the disease effects are of an order of magnitude 1000 times worse or 1000 times more prevalent.... and we only avoid infection through herd immunity. Sure, 1% or 5% of the herd refusing vaccination has little effect; but why should everyone else have to bear the burden of their collective immunity? What makes them "superior" to enjoy that "right" which is only available because everyone else is providing them collective immunity? If enough people opt out, then the ancient diseases start to return, and the anti-vax argument becomes invalid... so it's really in this slim margin of superiority [it's their right not to vaccinate -because they probably won't get sick- only because it's not everyone else's right not to vaccinate] that there even is an argument.
Typhoid mortality even today is still around 1-2%. It's not in the U.S. only because of our treated water conditions. Going to South America without immunity to that seems like a bad idea to me. For perspective, the mortality rate based on registered motorcycles is 6 deaths per 10,000 motorcycles/year; and people consider motorcycles to be "risky". Now it's impossible to say "would she have gotten typhoid without the vaccine" because we lack a crystal ball, much even less "would she have died". The latter especially is unlikely; but in the balance, a part of the population experiencing side effects is better than a much larger part of the population experiencing devestating side effects of the respective disease(s), including several deaths.
Just because I love this thread so much, I'm bumping it with a story I saw today.
Jessica Biel Comes Out as Anti-Vaxx Activist, Joins Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to Lobby Against CA Vaccination Bill
https://www.thedailybeast.com/jessica-biel-comes-out-as-anti-vaxx-activist-joins-robert-f-kennedy-jr-to-lobby-against-ca-vaccination-bill
Story is kind meh but you get the point... The people who consistently advocate for more government are the most vocal about this.
https://www.tmz.com/2017/02/17/justin-timberlake-donald-trump-media/
https://images.tmz.com/2017/02/17/0217-justin-timberlake-hillary-clinton-jessica-biel-photobooth-4.jpg
The article or the picture?
New York ends religious exemptions for vaccines (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/new-york-ends-religious-exemptions-for-vaccines/ar-AACQl9j)
New York is requiring all schoolchildren to be vaccinated, even if parents have religious objections.
Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed legislation Thursday that removes nonmedical exemptions from school vaccination requirements. The law goes into effect immediately, his office said.
The move, which comes despite opposition from anti-vaccination activists and religious freedom advocates, puts New York alongside other states that do not allow nonmedical exemptions: California, Mississippi, West Virginia and Maine.
"The science is crystal clear: Vaccines are safe, effective and the best way to keep our children safe. This administration has taken aggressive action to contain the measles outbreak, but given its scale, additional steps are needed to end this public health crisis," Cuomo said in a statement Thursday.
"While I understand and respect freedom of religion, our first job is to protect the public health and by signing this measure into law, we will help prevent further transmissions and stop this outbreak right in its tracks," he said.
Cuomo signed the bill immediately after the Legislature passed it; the Senatevoted 36-26 and the Assembly voted 77-53. The bills were introduced in January.
"We are dealing with a public health emergency that requires immediate action," state Sen. Brad Hoylman, sponsor of the Senate bill, said during the vote.
New York has become the epicenter of a measles outbreak in the United States that is now in its ninth month. More than 800 people in New York have become sick, and New Yorkers have infected people in four other states.
This year, 1,022 measles cases have been confirmed in 28 states, marking the greatest number of cases reported in the country since 1992 and since the measles virus was declared eliminated in the country in 2000, according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The states that have reported cases to the CDC are Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Mexico, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, Tennessee, Virginia, and Washington.
Most of the cases in New York have been in Orthodox Jewish communities In Brooklyn and Queens with low vaccination rates.
Health authorities in New York say they've faced formidable challenges to quell the outbreak: anti-vaxers who specifically targeted the state's ultra-Orthodox Jewish community, bombarding them with lies that vaccines cause autism.
New York ends religious exemptions for vaccines (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/new-york-ends-religious-exemptions-for-vaccines/ar-AACQl9j)
[snips]
Most of the cases in New York have been in Orthodox Jewish communities In Brooklyn and Queens with low vaccination rates.
I think we discussed this earlier. Libs have no problem goring someone else's ox but not their own. The Orthodox are fairly conservative and don't help Libs win elections.
But when a group of Boulder moms said "no" they killed this bill here in CO. The only reason Biel is speaking out is because they will listen to her in CA.
The religious "exemption" is probably going to give them the most legal heartburn.
I'm still seeing the "my body, my choice" hypocrisy and the "medical privacy" angle.
---
Meanwhile, this is fine...
5,200 people in ICE custody quarantined for exposure to mumps or chicken pox
https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/14/politics/mumps-chicken-pox-quarantine-ice/index.html
Nearby Lib got the word to agitate and posted this on the Hellsite (NextDoor)...
https://imgur.com/F8oUegS.jpg
Comments are lit!!! [LOL]
Site he posted is interesting though and has some cool data to play with...
https://www.cohealthdata.dphe.state.co.us/Data/Details/899902
https://imgur.com/ZF7jXT9.jpg
It's hard to see a common thread here.
There are certainly lower rates amongst the fruit and nuts peoples of Colorado. The rural southeast, which I would expect has less access to care, had pretty high rates. The dot in Pueblo is interesting--that's a three range/group jump!
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.