Why? Why do we need to ignore that?
Lets put it in context though. How do you know that the rate for teenagers isn't do to education about HPV.. and other transmitted diseases. Especially because condom use among teenagers has increased from 46% in 1991 to 59% in 2013.
and what has lowering of the rate of infection in teenagers done for the actual health of the community especially when the infection rate (those that have been infected with one or more of the forms of HPV) is about 75% of the population?
.
Uhh, it's not like HPV is a brand new disease we just started teaching kids about. Nor is "disease is a risk of sexual activity" a new concept.
And as for what it does? uhh, less cancer?
the majority of the drop in infection rates is attributable to the vaccine, and this particular disease is responsible for a lot of cancer cases. Is that not good enough?
Lets see number one..condom use particularly for things as benign as HPV have been only recently talked about. AND condom use increase has come about rather recently..
Secondly its only your opinion that infection rate has dropped due to vaccine. AND you have no idea whether these children will then go on to get HPV anyway..
As far as being "responsible" for " a lot" of "cancer" cases... Wrong on so many aspects that's its hardly worth debating. Its highly possible that the relationship with HPV and cancer is not causational.
Its highly possible that if you are prone to get HPV in such a way as to be diagnosed (usually when you are symptomatic), It means that your immune system is more susceptible to cancer.
Roughly 75% of the population is infected with HPV of some type or another. 75% of the population will not be diagnosed with cancer.
Think on that and get back to me.
Folks.. this is why I worry about pushing vaccinations... its like a religion with some people.
I also don't vaccinate my children. I am also a doctor.
You know why? Because NOT EVERY VACCINE is appropriate and has been demonstrated not to have risks.
the problem with all these discussions is that they assume that the vaccines you are talking about.. are only those ones for say mumps measles and rubella.
People seem to forget that there a LOTS of vaccines out there.. some with VERY well known risks.. and some with little known risks and little known effectiveness.
For example.. I have not had my male 10 year old vaccinated for HPV. the risk is simply not worth a limited benefit at 10 years old.
Now remember.. there are reasons that some push vaccines:
I also don't vaccinate my children. I am also a doctor.
You know why? Because NOT EVERY VACCINE is appropriate and has been demonstrated not to have risks.
the problem with all these discussions is that they assume that the vaccines you are talking about.. are only those ones for say mumps measles and rubella.
People seem to forget that there a LOTS of vaccines out there.. some with VERY well known risks.. and some with little known risks and little known effectiveness.
For example.. I have not had my male 10 year old vaccinated for HPV. the risk is simply not worth a limited benefit at 10 years old.
Now remember.. there are reasons that some push vaccines:
And as I said I think parents can opt their child/children from the vaccination.
However , if they opt they opt out of vaccinating they might not have the option of sending their child to a public school.
They would need to either find a private school that accepts unvaccinated children or homeschool their child/ children.
Forceful coercion is always the way that majorities like to go. I have noticed that with you a number of times on other topics. But, as I have said before, that is the difference between new and traditional liberals. The new liberalism is not based on the individual and her needs, but on the requirements of the persons in government and their interests, which they are ruthlessly pursue, just like the last set of bigots.
There's no forceful coercion. People have choices. You can vaccinate and go to public or private school or homeschool. You can not vaccinate and go to private school or homeschool. The one option not available to to not vaccinate and attend public school. Families need to decide what's more important, not vaccinating or taking advantage of the public school system.
Disallowing children to go to the school their parents are paying for is coercion in any book I know. That is totally unrelated to the question of whether or not it might be justifiable.
Forceful coercion is always the way that majorities like to go. I have noticed that with you a number of times on other topics. But, as I have said before, that is the difference between new and traditional liberals. The new liberalism is not based on the individual and her needs, but on the requirements of the persons in government and their interests, which they are ruthlessly pursue, just like the last set of bigots.
There's no forceful coercion. People have choices. You can vaccinate and go to public or private school or homeschool. You can not vaccinate and go to private school or homeschool. The one option not available to to not vaccinate and attend public school. Families need to decide what's more important, not vaccinating or taking advantage of the public school system.
These diseases never went away in many parts of the world. The reason that these disease are "coming back" to the US is largely because of the influx of immigrants from countries that have little or no vaccination and have poor healthcare standards.
As of April 14, 1978, no cases of smallpox have been reported to the World Health Organization (WHO) from anywhere in the world since the last case had onset of rash on October 26, 1977, in Merka town, Somalia.
The Global Push toward the Finish Line
Polio incidence has dropped more than 99 percent since the launch of global polio eradication efforts in 1988. According to global polio surveillance data from December 9, 2015, 66 cases of wild poliovirus have been reported in 2015: 49 from Pakistan and 17 from Afghanistan.
Disagree. A serious health concern trumps that "right" to attending the school just because their parents pay taxes.
We are not taking about force as I said before.
Your thoughts are not mine so please stop projecting your thoughts as if they are mine,
Two or three non immunized persons in a population otherwise immune do not constitute a serious health concern except in very few cases. Saying so is either uninformed or a lie. There are arguments, but in almost every case they will not be the health issue but a type peer group pressure against otherness or a kind of free riding.
Coercion entails force of some kind. And denying a child schooling that his parents are forced to pay for is "force" whether you like to admit it or not. It is quite immaterial how many steps are between this point and police becoming active.
And as I said it is not 2 or 3 who opt out.
The 2 or 3 are those who are unable to vaccinated because of medical reason and they are allowed to attend public school where hopefully they are protected because " the herd" ( the other children ) were required to be vaccinated.
All states allow those with medical reasons for opting out of vaccination to attend public schools.If the parents of the others agree to vaccination, there is no necessity in the large majority of cases to force the minority to bow to the herd.
Childless persons, businesses, empty nesters, those who choose private schools all pay taxes for public schools.
Your argument fails.
It is up to states whether to require vaccinations for children in their public school system.
If the parents of the others agree to vaccination, there is no necessity in the large majority of cases to force the minority to bow to the herd.
Not at all. Why should it "fail"? There is no reason to make kids face a decision of leaving or bowing, where everyone else is immunized. ....
Although exemptions vary from state to state, all school immunization laws grant exemptions to children for medical reasons. Almost all states grant religious exemptions for people who have religious beliefs against immunizations. Twenty states allow philosophical exemptions for those who object to immunizations because of personal, moral or other beliefs. As a result of legislation passed in 2015, two of those states—California and Vermont—will no longer allow philosophical exemptions beginning in July 2016, bringing the number of states that allow philosophical exemptions to eighteen.
Two or three non immunized persons in a population otherwise immune do not constitute a serious health concern except in very few cases. Saying so is either uninformed or a lie. There are arguments, but in almost every case they will not be the health issue but a type peer group pressure against otherness or a kind of free riding.
How do you know only two or three students per school would not be immunized if it wasn't required? Most public schools require immunizations to attend. Are you saying that they are uninformed?
We do not know. The case at hand did, however, seem to indicate that to have been the situation at that school. And no. I did not say that the school personnel is poorly informed. What I was saying is that to force children to have vaccinations against the will of the parents and without am overpoweringly important reason is rather socialist and bigoted.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?