CO HB19-1312 School Immunization Requirements

[Irving]

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]

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]

Should public schools also require flu vaccines every year for every kid in attendance?

[BladesNBarrels]

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]

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.

[Skip]

[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/adambar.../#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.

[davsel]

Follow the money

Panic over 704 measles cases, silence over 59,500 flu deaths

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.

[Eric P]

Gun ownership is a disease that can only be cured by banning kids whose parents own guns from public schools...

[FoxtArt]

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

[FoxtArt]

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.