Ban Kids that have not been vaccinated.

[ZenOps]

HrUYKKaUDHo

Yes?

[ExtraSlow]

Ban Kids.
Ftfy

[A790]

Yep.

[HiTempguy1]

Policy makes no sense. If a kid HAS been vaccinated, they won't get sick from unvaccinated kids.

https://kidshealth.org/en/parents/immunization-chart.html

In other words, those who WANT their kids to be protected will already have been immunized, and will be free and in the clear. So why would you ban unvaccinated kids? It doesn't solve anything. The parents have already accepted their kids getting sick is an outcome of their actions. So its not really a "ban on unvaccinated kids", its a punishment to parents who have chosen not to do so, aka a serious infringement on their parental rights.

[heavyD]

Well you can't bring peanut butter to school because a small percentage of kids are allergic to peanuts it probably makes sense to not be allowed to send non-vaccinated kids to school.

- - - Updated - - -


Policy makes no sense. If a kid HAS been vaccinated, they won't get sick from unvaccinated kids.

https://kidshealth.org/en/parents/immunization-chart.html

In other words, those who WANT their kids to be protected will already have been immunized, and will be free and in the clear. So why would you ban unvaccinated kids? It doesn't solve anything. The parents have already accepted their kids getting sick is an outcome of their actions. So its not really a "ban on unvaccinated kids", its a punishment to parents who have chosen not to do so, aka a serious infringement on their parental rights.

You are missing the point. If you have 10 non-vaccinated kids in a classroom and one of them gets the measles then you probably end up with 10 kids with the measles. It's basically the system protecting kids from their parents.

[HiTempguy1]

Well you can't bring peanut butter to school because a small percentage of kids are allergic to peanuts

A comparison would be the state forcing you to feed your kids peanut butter. Your analogy is a false equivalency.

I'm all for vaccinations, 100% (except iffy about the flu vaccine, simply because its effectiveness is shit as we've discussed elsewhere).

But saying that the state gets a say on what gets injected into your body (or your kids' bodies)? Hello 1984 :nuts:

Edit-
I am not missing the point at all. Those parents have accepted that risk as they are the ones that control consent for their child. Anything else is totalitarian and completely batshit insane.

[heavyD]

A comparison would be the state forcing you to feed your kids peanut butter. Your analogy is a false equivalency.

I'm all for vaccinations, 100% (except iffy about the flu vaccine, simply because its effectiveness is shit as we've discussed elsewhere).

But saying that the state gets a say on what gets injected into your body (or your kids' bodies)? Hello 1984 :nuts:

Edit-
I am not missing the point at all. Those parents have accepted that risk as they are the ones that control consent for their child. Anything else is totalitarian and completely batshit insane.

Banning non-vaccinated kids from public school isn't forcing anyone to do anything as they can home school or private school their kids. It doesn't matter if the parents have accepted it. We are discussing the health of the children not the intelligence of their parents.

[jltabot]

I think the premise of it all is based on protecting people who actually can't get vaccinated, even if they wanted to. I'd pissed to all hell if I had a newborn who got measles from someone who decided not to vaccinate and continued to infect the general public.

See the measles case here where that dumbass was going to mcdonalds. Much easier to contain if they're not allowed out in public.

[tonytiger55]

Policy makes no sense. If a kid HAS been vaccinated, they won't get sick from unvaccinated kids.

https://kidshealth.org/en/parents/immunization-chart.html

In other words, those who WANT their kids to be protected will already have been immunized, and will be free and in the clear. So why would you ban unvaccinated kids? It doesn't solve anything. The parents have already accepted their kids getting sick is an outcome of their actions. So its not really a "ban on unvaccinated kids", its a punishment to parents who have chosen not to do so, aka a serious infringement on their parental rights.

It does not work like that. Vaccines are not like a light switch.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=74&v=rAGHXMq9ttw

[Xtrema]

A comparison would be the state forcing you to feed your kids peanut butter. Your analogy is a false equivalency.

I'm all for vaccinations, 100% (except iffy about the flu vaccine, simply because its effectiveness is shit as we've discussed elsewhere).

But saying that the state gets a say on what gets injected into your body (or your kids' bodies)? Hello 1984 :nuts:

Edit-
I am not missing the point at all. Those parents have accepted that risk as they are the ones that control consent for their child. Anything else is totalitarian and completely batshit insane.

I don't know how your right trumps other people's right.

[msommers]

Absolutely yes.

[max_boost]

support

[Mitsu3000gt]

Only a few posts in this thread aren't hidden, which tells me the anti-vax crew has probably arrived :rofl:

[heavyD]

I don't know how your right trumps other people's right.

I guess it boils down to;

"I have the right to choose that my children experience measles." vs "I have the right to protect my child from measles.". I know which right I support.

[LilDrunkenSmurf]

It does not work like that. Vaccines are not like a light switch.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=74&v=rAGHXMq9ttw

I essentially came to point out the same thing. I'm for this. Ban them from all public places.

[spikerS]

I support vaccines 100%, however, I do not support forced medical procedures against a person's will.

Might as well sanction forced sterilization of the mentally handicapped, circumcision, genital mutilation, etc...

I am firmly lower-mid middle class, and I can tell you right now, I can't afford private schooling, and I certainly can't homeschool my kids. So to avoid breaking the law, I am now forced to immunize my kids (this is rhetorical btw).

Remember when everyone thought smoking was a cure all? or cocaine? I am just saying, taking away their right to choose is a bad one.

[msommers]

Might as well sanction forced sterilization of the mentally handicapped, circumcision, genital mutilation, etc...



None of those line items infect the public.

[spikerS]

None of those line items infect the public.

still forced medical procedures.

[HiTempguy1]

It does not work like that. Vaccines are not like a light switch.


You know what, I'll be the first to admit that I learned something today. Herd immunity has never been explained to me like that, nor is it referenced in that way in most news articles. The articles usually say "by being vaccinated, it prevents the spread by limiting infection". What they don't say is that vaccination isn't 100% effective, therefore you are still at risk. I always thought, in general, vaccination had very HIGH rates of effectiveness (well over 95%+) apparently its only 85% on the low end to 95% on the high end. And the reasoning is not even that the vaccine didn't "work", its that the patient did not respond to it. So while they've been "vaccinated", there is no protection.

I still stand by the parents rights as to whether their kids get vaccinated or not. But I certainly can get behind (or at least understand) not allowing kids into public programs that haven't been vaccinated. Home schooling is allowed, as are private education systems, so their needs would still be met.

Edit-

still forced medical procedures.

Absolutely. And I still stand against it. Now if you have all of your privileges (not rights) curtailed in society due to your decision, it was your decision. As long as rights aren't infringed upon, it's a necessary evil we have to accept as a free society.

[msommers]

still forced medical procedures.

If you think that sterilization of the mentally handicapped, circumcision, genital mutilation is on the same playing field as forced vaccinations, something literally to service a huge public health issue...we will never agree on this.

[spikerS]

If you think that sterilization of the mentally handicapped, circumcision, genital mutilation is on the same playing field as forced vaccinations, something literally to service a huge public health issue...we will never agree on this.

I am not saying it is. What I am saying is that people are advocating for a forced medical procedure and taking away people's rights.

[msommers]

Reminds me of the seatbelt debate when it first came mandatory.

[spikerS]

Reminds me of the seatbelt debate when it first came mandatory.

1) Seatbelts are not a medical procedure
2) Driving is a privilege, not a right, and so if you want to drive or be a passenger in a vehicle, you have to follow the rules.
3) If you are against seatbelts, you don't have to ride in a vehicle. There are other transportations options that don't have seatbelts, like buses, or you could be like my father who actually had a doctor's note as to why he couldn't wear a seatbelt. He still got tickets, but he also got them thrown out.

[msommers]

I got us off topic, my bad.

We won't agree. The end.

[dirtsniffer]

Damn gen x'ers I tell ya

[heavyD]

I am not saying it is. What I am saying is that people are advocating for a forced medical procedure and taking away people's rights.

Come on man it's a legitimate health concern and nobody is forcing it. People that don't have their kids vaccinated simply have less options than vaccinated kids because of the health concerns associated with not getting vaccinated.

[90_Shelby]

I do not support forced medical procedures against a person's will.....
........I am now forced to immunize my kids (this is rhetorical btw).



.....What I am saying is that people are advocating for a forced medical procedure and taking away people's rights.

You believe that people should have the right to prevent forced medical procedures, that could be life saving? In other words, you are ok with the results of these recent cases, where parents let their children die because they felt that they knew best, when it came to the health and wellness of their child.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/tamara-lovett-holistic-medicine-trial-1.3869951
https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/alberta-couple-wants-cash-and-charges-dropped-in-meningitis-death-of-their-son-1.4258950

[ExtraSlow]

Whose rights are we protecting, the parents, or the children?

[tirebob]

Fuck that. If you are too weak to survive without the rest of the population carrying your weak genes along allowing you to weaken the rest of the future population by procreating then too fucking bad. Learn to live with your own shit and don't expect the world to cave to your weaknesses. If you can't survive in normal population then keep your own ass or your kids ass out of normal populations. It is your job to protect yourself and your offspring. Not mine.

PS- I am not an anti vaxxer in the least I just don't think it is mine or anyone else's right to dictate to others what they have to medically do to themselves or their kids based on a small percentage of other peoples fears. Maybe I am an asshole but I also believe in the strong survive and the weak adapt or die off. Basic nature 101.

[max_boost]

Fuck that. If you are too weak to survive without the rest of the population carrying your weak genes along allowing you to weaken the rest of the future population by procreating then too fucking bad. Learn to live with your own shit and don't expect the world to cave to your weaknesses. If you can't survive in normal population then keep your own ass or your kids ass out of normal populations. It is your job to protect yourself and your offspring. Not mine.

PS- I am not an anti vaxxer in the least I just don't think it is mine or anyone else's right to dictate to others what they have to medically do to themselves or their kids based on a small percentage of other peoples fears. Maybe I am an asshole but I also believe in the strong survive and the weak adapt or die off. Basic nature 101.

hard to disagree with this lol

let them die haha

[AndyL]

Nah it's the shutting down a school or daycare for weeks or months while everything is decontaminated after exposure that sucks.

Not all kids will be immune after the vaccinations, the idea is if 99% are, they won't bring it - thus the immune compromised will not be likely to be infected. But these sunflowers who worship false idols in the form of Facebook memes as fact - have destroyed that way of protecting those who need it most.

If my kid can't bring peanut butter due to someone's allergy your kid shouldn't bring deadly infectious diseases to school. It's just that simple. If a kids immunocompromised or has a REAL reason they can't be vaccinated - no issue. If it's because Mom and or dad are snowflakes and lack understanding of science - ban them.

[A790]

Fuck that. If you are too weak to survive without the rest of the population carrying your weak genes along allowing you to weaken the rest of the future population by procreating then too fucking bad. Learn to live with your own shit and don't expect the world to cave to your weaknesses. If you can't survive in normal population then keep your own ass or your kids ass out of normal populations. It is your job to protect yourself and your offspring. Not mine.

PS- I am not an anti vaxxer in the least I just don't think it is mine or anyone else's right to dictate to others what they have to medically do to themselves or their kids based on a small percentage of other peoples fears. Maybe I am an asshole but I also believe in the strong survive and the weak adapt or die off. Basic nature 101.

More than half the population needs eyewear to see. Every day people take tylenol, aspirin, anti-allergy medications/etc. Steven Hawking needed a medical team to stay alive, as well as a team of IT/researchers to communicate.

"The weak adapt or die off"

(with aspirin)

Also, fuck Steven Hawking apparently. lol

I don't understand the issue here. It seems to me that being an anti-vaxxer is a lifestyle choice, and that comes with costs. Kind of like being a smoker.

The state says that you need to be vaccinated to go to state-funded schools. You do not have to go to a state-funded school, but you do need to go to school. You have options. Nobody is forcing you to vaccinate.

If you don't want to play by the rules, you don't have to so long as you don't go to a public school. Just go to a private school instead. So what's the problem here?

[ExtraSlow]

Vaccines are incredibly safe and well studied. I truly don't understand anyone who woukd choose not to vaccinate.

Also, measles is incredibly dangerous. As recently as 1980 2.5 MILLION people died annually and that's dropped to a still large 75,000 people dying every year from it.
So that single vaccine is saving more than two million people a year from death.

But yeah, it's cool to make it seem like a big imposition to vaccinate #becausefreedom.
:thumbsdow

[Melinda]

There's also mutation to consider. Each person infected by something facilitates a mutation of that strain. If enough mutations happen, the current vaccines won't work anymore.

There's also people like newborns (babies under 1), cancer patients, organ recipients, other immunocompromised people and those that vaccines just don't work on to consider. The numbers are higher than you might think. I'm all for mandatory vaccinations.

[Maxt]

There's also mutation to consider. Each person infected by something facilitates a mutation of that strain. If enough mutations happen, the current vaccines won't work anymore.

There's also people like newborns (babies under 1), cancer patients, organ recipients, other immunocompromised people and those that vaccines just don't work on to consider. The numbers are higher than you might think. I'm all for mandatory vaccinations.
My daughter has a condition, where her immune system doesn't react against some vaccines, so she has to be vaccinated multiple times and its still no guarantee, which reminds me, she needs a second flu this year soon. We have to keep track of the anti-vaxxers in our circles and decline some invitations to things, and keep track of who is sick at school and with what if we can even get the information.

[tcon]

Policy makes no sense. If a kid HAS been vaccinated, they won't get sick from unvaccinated kids.

https://kidshealth.org/en/parents/immunization-chart.html

In other words, those who WANT their kids to be protected will already have been immunized, and will be free and in the clear. So why would you ban unvaccinated kids? It doesn't solve anything. The parents have already accepted their kids getting sick is an outcome of their actions. So its not really a "ban on unvaccinated kids", its a punishment to parents who have chosen not to do so, aka a serious infringement on their parental rights.

cuz herd immunity

[speedog]

Thank you, Melinda, for your great post. A790, Maxt and ExtraSlow's most recent posts are also spot on.

I recall going to a small country graveyard with my family about 20 years ago, a graveyard where I have a lot of relatives buried including a brother of mine. My eldest, who was about 8 at the time, asked me after a bit as to why there were so many children buried there and my reply was quite simple. In the 70's and before that, kids did die from measles and such, they died from peanut and fish allergies and such, they died at birth (such as my brother buried the there) because the modern conveniences and procedures we have now just were not readily available everywhere back then.

Hell, my eldest was a premie and spent the first few weeks of his life in the hospital so his immune system could have enough time to develop plus a few other things that just needed time in a safe environment to be sorted out. In the 60's, there's probably a very real chance we would've been planning a funeral instead of the almost 30 wonderful years we experianced with him so far.

Like others have said, the choice should not be taken away from you of whether or not you opt to get a vaccination but the resulting decision could very well limit your ability to participate in society as you may like. Is it a supposedly imposed restriction that you may not agree with? Sure but sometimes the good of the many outweighs the the good of the few.

[Darell_n]

A comparison would be the state forcing you to feed your kids peanut butter. Your analogy is a false equivalency.

I'm all for vaccinations, 100% (except iffy about the flu vaccine, simply because its effectiveness is shit as we've discussed elsewhere).

But saying that the state gets a say on what gets injected into your body (or your kids' bodies)? Hello 1984 :nuts:

Edit-
I am not missing the point at all. Those parents have accepted that risk as they are the ones that control consent for their child. Anything else is totalitarian and completely batshit insane.

It is exactly like banning peanut butter. For example, my nephew is capable of catching measles due to Crohns medication. Lots of kids are immuno-suppressed for varying conditions and their previous vaccinations are not necessarily effective.

[heavyD]

It is exactly like banning peanut butter. For example, my nephew is capable of catching measles due to Crohns medication. Lots of kids are immuno-suppressed for varying conditions and their previous vaccinations are not necessarily effective.

But...but...but...I was told that's false equivalency.

[HiTempguy1]

But...but...but...I was told that's false equivalency.

It is. On one hand, you are banning an object, on the other hand, you are banning a person who does not want to recieve something in their bodies by government force.

Your argument is terrible. As I already outlined, there are much better reasons than your terrible argument to use that are actually valid in this case and protect the rights of all individuals.

[AndyL]

But it's not government force, CFSA isn't going to come in apprehend your kids, vaccinate and return them if you choose not to.

But with privledges comes responsibility - like keeping your infectious diseases carrying kids away from those who may be compromised.

[tonytiger55]

Thank you, Melinda, for your great post. A790, Maxt and ExtraSlow's most recent posts are also spot on.

I recall going to a small country graveyard with my family about 20 years ago, a graveyard where I have a lot of relatives buried including a brother of mine. My eldest, who was about 8 at the time, asked me after a bit as to why there were so many children buried there and my reply was quite simple. In the 70's and before that, kids did die from measles and such, they died from peanut and fish allergies and such, they died at birth (such as my brother buried the there) because the modern conveniences and procedures we have now just were not readily available everywhere back then.

Hell, my eldest was a premie and spent the first few weeks of his life in the hospital so his immune system could have enough time to develop plus a few other things that just needed time in a safe environment to be sorted out. In the 60's, there's probably a very real chance we would've been planning a funeral instead of the almost 30 wonderful years we experianced with him so far.

Like others have said, the choice should not be taken away from you of whether or not you opt to get a vaccination but the resulting decision could very well limit your ability to participate in society as you may like. Is it a supposedly imposed restriction that you may not agree with? Sure but sometimes the good of the many outweighs the the good of the few.

+1

I agree with the sentiment. I think I posted this before on a similar thread.
When I try to speak with my parents and ask about their siblings, or cousins when they were children back in India. Its really hard to get information out. What did come out was a common theme. Children just died in those days. My parents would not go into much detail. My mother has four siblings that she never met. My father mentioned siblings that had died before him (and he comes from a very big family).
When I look back and talk to my siblings, we realise kids died due to availability of vaccinations and medicine. Small things today that we take for granted.

I don't agree vaccinations should be forced. No government should impose that on your children, otherwise you get that slow creep and then one can ask what is next...? It then becomes a legal framework that gets bigger and bigger. Politicians then can use this as a instrument to argue for the sake of party politics/pharmaceutical companies/profits rather than the good of our species.

I was going to say education would be the answer. But both my parents had limited education yet they were pro vaccination due to seeing first hand poverty, death and hardships brought on by lack of medicine.
I still think the answer is education, not so much on vaccinations as the information is there. But more specifically on critical thinking and for people to identify their own unconscious biases.

[Misterman]

Whose rights are we protecting, the parents, or the children?

Ding ding ding!! We have a winner.

Not vaccinating your kids should essentially be considered child abuse. How the hell can a childs right to their own health be legally violated because mom and dad are idiots?

[Sugarphreak]

...