They need to do what California did and eliminate personal and religious exemptions. To be exempt, you need a medical doctor to sign off, saying it is medically dangerous to receive the vaccination. Otherwise, you get it, no matter what your parents believe or think.
I dont consider what they are doing deplorable, nor irresponsible, their ONLY responsibility is to themselves. Period. They owe you or me nothing. They effect nobody, but themselves.
The diseases are in the wild they are out there and somebody somewhere, inoculated or not will be carrying them hence why we have inoculations in the first place even though we have reduced dramatically many diseases. Some to the point we dont really need the inoculations. That said many of us get them anyhow. The point of inoculation is not reduce the effects or to not get a given disease.
Herd immunity is a simply a side benefit when most people are inoculated. We live in a free country were people are free to make their own decisions unless they can be plainly shown to be a clear and present danger to others. Someone who is not inoculated does not fit that description.
In light of events like a measles outbreak in Washington state or the EU. Do you think that governments need to start doing more to counter the anti-vaccination movement and their pseudoscience lies? If so, what measures do you think they should take: legislation, more fact-based myth-debunking awareness campaigns, or fear and shock based campaigns like anti-smoking ads, more then one? If not, why not?
I think they need all three, use legislation to eliminate exemptions (should be all but medical) though that may be difficult so in the mean time launch campaigns from both angles, fact-based to debunk myths, and fear to provide a much stronger emotional push to vaccinate. This opinion piece from the CBC highlights why a fear campaign to encourage vaccination would work. Have pamphlets, commercials, whatever showing children suffering or dead from these diseases, show them what happens when you do not vaccinate.
First of all, if you don't view freeloading as deplorable or irresponsible, that's fine but I do. And like I said, it's a rational choice for parents, let someone else's kids take the risk and bask in the free benefits, but society doesn't have to allow a rational choice for Person A to put at risk the other 300 million + of us which is why we have vaccine mandates.
And they put everyone at risk who is too young for vaccines, the very sick and/or immunosuppressed people who can't take vaccines, those for whom vaccines didn't work (and that they don't know didn't work until they're infected), the very old, and those for whom the vaccine may have lost effectiveness. All of them are put at risk by anti-vaxxers. In a fully vaccinated population, those incredibly vulnerable people are offered immense protection by herd immunity, which you call a side effect but in fact is the POINT and the REASON all 50 states have some requirement for kids to be vaccinated, especially if they're going to attend public schools.
So, yes, they are absolutely putting others at risk. Thanks goodness for all of us their numbers are small. Instead, responsible parents and others who get vaccines have reduced measles from maybe 4 million cases per year to near zero, and the outbreaks in little pockets mostly STAY in those pockets. That does not happen without herd immunity and high vaccination rates. If the rest of us listened to their pseudo-science BS we'd be right back where we were before vaccines were invented. But because the VAST majority still get vaccines, those morons can decline to have their kids vaccinated and very, very likely nothing bad will happen to their children THANKS to the rest of the country who DID.
I'm assuming that's a typo. If those aren't the point, what is the point?
Of course most people being inoculated IS.....herd immunity! In 2019 We don't "need" the vaccines because of...herd immunity!
And unvaccinated kids ARE a threat to the medically vulnerable. If they want to stay home and don't work in hospitals, go to hospitals, or clinics or nursing homes or buses or trains or planes, or anywhere else the very young, very old, immunosuppressed, etc. are found, that's fine. Unfortunately, we can't keep them in their houses so the next best step are vaccination mandates, with few exceptions.
Who's held responsible for a reaction to the vaccine if you're abrogating parental rights? Does the Dr. or politician get imprisoned for injuring or killing a child? What other medical procedures can the state force people to have, in your opinion?
Cephus' statement is not completely accurate. Parents still have the right to choose vaccination or reject it; however, if they reject it, there are certain restrictions on their ability to enroll their children in pre-school, day care, and public/private schools which require immunization. They can home school their children or choose private facilities without immunization requirements. As always, any child who has proven to have a medical condition which makes immunization dangerous is exempt from these rules with a medical exemption provided by a licensed M.D.
Don't forget, those children allergic to vaccines are at risk of catching these diseases throughout their lives, and the more the children their own age are "opted out" by their parents increases the risk to those kids who really cannot avail themselves of the protection.
School & Childcare Requirements for Immunizations :: Public Health :: Contra Costa Health Services
We have similar conditions here that I have no problem with, however, the implication in Cephus' statement was the state should be able to force people to undergo a medical procedure, which is all sorts of not ok.
Why would you allow parents to refuse life saving vaccinations? Not only are they harming their own children but endangering the lives of anyone else in contact with them.
We have similar conditions here that I have no problem with, however, the implication in Cephus' statement was the state should be able to force people to undergo a medical procedure, which is all sorts of not ok.
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?