|
|
Anti-Vaccination Legislative win in California
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 546
By Asura.Ivlilla 2015-04-17 21:26:56
one is a carrier regardless of one having a vaccine or not.
As I said, its resistance to, not immunity, Vaccinations do decrease the chances of you even becoming a carrier.
But someone having no resistance can have a far greater chance, influenza being anywhere up to 5x more likely to get sick as a result.
Look at it this way.
Stop signs stop traffic, now imagine thers 5 drivers, and one almost hits me.
You remove the stop signs (or vaccines) then 5 cars nearly hit me... my chances of not getting hit, just dropped by a ***tonne.
That's literally the best way I can explain it, if people still don't get why everyone being vaccinated helps, maybe they should go see why ebola is like kicking an entires countries *** that doesn't believe in vaccinations.
I wouldn't use ebola as an example. They only started testing possible vaccines for it recently. Can't immunize with a vaccine that doesn't exist.
No, they started testing them more than a decade ago. I volunteered for what I believe was one of the first, if not for THE first, human trials of an ebola vaccine. I was accepted but could not take the cost of having to quit my job and travel across the country for several months for the study. Something about bills.
 Leviathan.Protey
Server: Leviathan
Game: FFXI
Posts: 685
By Leviathan.Protey 2015-04-17 21:29:56
So that alone proves that diseases don't work the way you think they do.
Being a carrier is part of the why and how diseases mutate and spread, particularly among those who are not vaccinated, which further mutates the strain, to a point it can bypass natural immune-resistances.
The less carriers there are, which drops as more people are vaccinated. and also inhibits the spreading of the disease among others, the less it can spread.
So far, your only argument against vaccines is "well, people carry the disease anyways", when largely, they do not once immunized/vaccinated.
You make yourself look like a fool by stating your false assumptions as if they are facts. Nowhere did I say I am against vaccinations. On the contrary I probably have had more vaccinations than pretty much any of you. And yes I do know how diseases work. As I said... "The people who do not get vaccinated are in danger regardless if the people around them have vaccines or not because anyone can be a carrier. The only way to improve your safety is to either get the vaccine or live in a plastic bubble." Which is true until you can irradicate the disease.
Leviathan.Protey
Server: Leviathan
Game: FFXI
Posts: 685
By Leviathan.Protey 2015-04-17 21:35:38
one is a carrier regardless of one having a vaccine or not.
As I said, its resistance to, not immunity, Vaccinations do decrease the chances of you even becoming a carrier.
But someone having no resistance can have a far greater chance, influenza being anywhere up to 5x more likely to get sick as a result.
Look at it this way.
Stop signs stop traffic, now imagine thers 5 drivers, and one almost hits me.
You remove the stop signs (or vaccines) then 5 cars nearly hit me... my chances of not getting hit, just dropped by a ***tonne.
That's literally the best way I can explain it, if people still don't get why everyone being vaccinated helps, maybe they should go see why ebola is like kicking an entires countries *** that doesn't believe in vaccinations.
I wouldn't use ebola as an example. They only started testing possible vaccines for it recently. Can't immunize with a vaccine that doesn't exist.
No, they started testing them more than a decade ago. I volunteered for what I believe was one of the first, if not for THE first, human trials of an ebola vaccine. I was accepted but could not take the cost of having to quit my job and travel across the country for several months for the study. Something about bills.
"Many Ebola vaccine candidates had been developed in the decade prior to 2014,[1] but none has yet been approved for clinical use in humans."
The rest of it is here: Your text to link here... Basically there wasn't even a viable one to be tested on humans until 2014 and they didn't start clinical trials in West Africa until January 2015.
By Bloodrose 2015-04-17 21:36:13
How many vaccinations have you had? 12, maybe 24?
And again, what you stated shows you do not know how vaccines, or diseases actually work.
It's been pointed out, again multiple times in every single thread, how vaccines and diseases actually work - and backed by medical science by peer reviewed papers and doctors, that what you said is patently false.
Carrier rates decrease as people are vaccinated. The dangers of contracting a disease from a carrier drops as more people are vaccinated, that can be vaccinated, and helps protect those that can not be vaccinated, by limiting the amount of people with communicable diseases, either as carriers, or as an infected person.
Your assertion that you're going to be a carrier anyways, regardless of vaccination, is going to be dangerous anyways, so why bother being vaccinated, is plain HELP I AM TRAPPED IN 2006 PLEASE SEND A TIME MACHINE.
[+]
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 546
By Asura.Ivlilla 2015-04-17 21:42:35
one is a carrier regardless of one having a vaccine or not.
As I said, its resistance to, not immunity, Vaccinations do decrease the chances of you even becoming a carrier.
But someone having no resistance can have a far greater chance, influenza being anywhere up to 5x more likely to get sick as a result.
Look at it this way.
Stop signs stop traffic, now imagine thers 5 drivers, and one almost hits me.
You remove the stop signs (or vaccines) then 5 cars nearly hit me... my chances of not getting hit, just dropped by a ***tonne.
That's literally the best way I can explain it, if people still don't get why everyone being vaccinated helps, maybe they should go see why ebola is like kicking an entires countries *** that doesn't believe in vaccinations.
I wouldn't use ebola as an example. They only started testing possible vaccines for it recently. Can't immunize with a vaccine that doesn't exist.
No, they started testing them more than a decade ago. I volunteered for what I believe was one of the first, if not for THE first, human trials of an ebola vaccine. I was accepted but could not take the cost of having to quit my job and travel across the country for several months for the study. Something about bills.
"Many Ebola vaccine candidates had been developed in the decade prior to 2014,[1] but none has yet been approved for clinical use in humans."
The rest of it is here: Your text to link here... Basically there wasn't even a viable one to be tested on humans until 2014 and they didn't start clinical trials in West Africa until January 2015.
Yeah, that's really funny considering I was accepted into a trial of a human ebola vaccine back in Fall of '03.
Leviathan.Protey
Server: Leviathan
Game: FFXI
Posts: 685
By Leviathan.Protey 2015-04-17 22:15:33
How many vaccinations have you had? 12, maybe 24?
And again, what you stated shows you do not know how vaccines, or diseases actually work.
It's been pointed out, again multiple times in every single thread, how vaccines and diseases actually work - and backed by medical science by peer reviewed papers and doctors, that what you said is patently false.
Carrier rates decrease as people are vaccinated. The dangers of contracting a disease from a carrier drops as more people are vaccinated, that can be vaccinated, and helps protect those that can not be vaccinated, by limiting the amount of people with communicable diseases, either as carriers, or as an infected person.
Your assertion that you're going to be a carrier anyways, regardless of vaccination, is going to be dangerous anyways, so why bother being vaccinated, is plain HELP I AM TRAPPED IN 2006 PLEASE SEND A TIME MACHINE.
Again, you are stating your false assumptions as if they are facts and making yourself look HELP I AM TRAPPED IN 2006 PLEASE SEND A TIME MACHINE. Nowhere did I say "so why bother being vaccinated".
What I have said is not against what science has said. Just because you state it is so, doesn't mean it is true. Diseases do spread regardless of if the people around you have had vaccines or not. This is fact. This continues until all carriers die off.
As to how many vaccines I have had: besides the dozen I got from 0-6 years old, I also got tetanus at 15, MMR at 18. MMR (again) at 24. Polio at 24. Tetanus (again) and Diptheria at 24. Meningococcal at 24. Influenza every year over the last 20 years. Typhoid at 25. Typhoid (again) at 28. Hep A(1) at 25. Hep A(2) at 26. Hep B(1) at 26. Hep B(2) at 26. Hep B(3) at 27. Smallpox at 27. Anthrax(1) at 27. Anthrax(2) at 27. Anthrax(3) at 27. Anthrax(4) at 27. Anthrax(5) at 27. Anthrax(6) at 28. Yellow Fever at 37.
If I include the dozen or so from age 0-6, I'm looking at around 54.
Leviathan.Protey
Server: Leviathan
Game: FFXI
Posts: 685
By Leviathan.Protey 2015-04-17 22:20:50
also had H1N1 at 33, TDAP and Typhoid (again) at 37. So total is about 57.
 Cerberus.Pleebo
Server: Cerberus
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9720
By Cerberus.Pleebo 2015-04-17 22:23:09
Perhaps the confusion stems from no one having a clue how your point fits in with the topic.
By Bloodrose 2015-04-17 22:28:34
You're ignoring the fact that vaccines inhibit the spread of the disease, and also inhibits the number of carriers.
So the number of carriers decrease, even without them having to die off, as the disease can no longer spread, and the disease itself can become stagnant, and die off if it can't replicate itself in a host carrier.
Diseases that have vaccines can easily die off, in a carrier, if the carrier is vaccinated, because of the way anti-bodies and vaccinations work in tandem with each other.
The point of a vaccine, again something that has wooshed over your head, is that they inhibit the spread of diseases, and provide a more comprehensive protection to others, even the ones who can not medically be vaccinated.
You said yourself "What's the danger if you're vaccinated", then went on to state "well, you can still get the disease", hence there is a danger, even if someone is vaccinated.
Care to back-pedal some more? It's not just me saying something - it's actual backed up medical data that is being referred to, that is proving you wrong on your assumptions. I made some assumptions, to which I apologize.
However, it *is* a fact you stated two entirely different things that go along with the anti-vaccine stance that gets repeated by people who know absolutely nothing about how communicable diseases work, which basically came down to "why should I vaccinate myself, if you're already vaccinated" (obviously not word for word, but is the gist of what was said in every anti-vax thread ever)
[+]
Leviathan.Protey
Server: Leviathan
Game: FFXI
Posts: 685
By Leviathan.Protey 2015-04-17 22:29:58
My point was that people who do not get vaccinations are in danger regardless of if the people around them get vaccinations or not because anyone can be a carrier.
Bismarck.Snprphnx
Server: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
Posts: 2691
By Bismarck.Snprphnx 2015-04-17 22:32:52
That is an excellent source. It pretty much tells you everything you need to know to make an informed decision.
Again, it all goes back to propaganda from a source with an agenda. Nearly 20 years ago, when the spike in autism cases began to be noticed, one doctor, Andrew Wakefield, published a study connecting the MMR with Autism. It was picked up by enough people, one being Jenny McCarthy, that the anti-vac movement picked up a lot of steam. What took several more years to figure out was, Wakefield was in the process of developing his own version of the MMR, that split the 1 vaccination into 2-3 separate vaccines with no link to Autism. Eventually this was figured out, but the damage had obviously been done. The sheep were convinced, and to this day, people obviously still use Wakefields research as proof of a causal link.
Since Wakefields downfall, McCarthy has attempted to backpedal, saying she isn't anti-vacs, but wants parents to think for themselves...
With that brief anti-vacs history said, my personal opinion, as a father of a nearly 4 year old with autism...
http://howdovaccinescauseautism.com/
We did consider not vaccinating our son. But, we used common sense, and actually spoke with and trusted the advice from our pediatrician, and not some air-headed celebrity. I wish more people would do that.
Is Autism a struggle? Yep
Is Autism a highly misunderstood mental illness? Yep
Would I vaccinate my kids again if there was a direct link between the MMR and Autism? Yep, because I did. My son was showing signs of it when my 3rd child was born. And even knowing that, we still vaccinated her.
Cerberus.Pleebo
Server: Cerberus
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9720
By Cerberus.Pleebo 2015-04-17 22:37:14
My point was that people who do not get vaccinations are in danger regardless of if the people around them get vaccinations or not because anyone can be a carrier. So then... get vaccinated?
....
o.O
By Bloodrose 2015-04-17 22:37:34
My point was that people who do not get vaccinations are in danger regardless of if the people around them get vaccinations or not because anyone can be a carrier. So then... get vaccinated?
....
o.O apparently.
[+]
Leviathan.Protey
Server: Leviathan
Game: FFXI
Posts: 685
By Leviathan.Protey 2015-04-17 22:38:18
You're ignoring the fact that vaccines inhibit the spread of the disease, and also inhibits the number of carriers.
So the number of carriers decrease, even without them having to die off, as the disease can no longer spread, and the disease itself can become stagnant, and die off if it can't replicate itself in a host carrier.
Diseases that have vaccines can easily die off, in a carrier, if the carrier is vaccinated, because of the way anti-bodies and vaccinations work in tandem with each other.
The point of a vaccine, again something that has wooshed over your head, is that they inhibit the spread of diseases, and provide a more comprehensive protection to others, even the ones who can not medically be vaccinated.
You said yourself "What's the danger if you're vaccinated", then went on to state "well, you can still get the disease", hence there is a danger, even if someone is vaccinated.
Care to back-pedal some more? It's not just me saying something - it's actual backed up medical data that is being referred to, that is proving you wrong on your assumptions. I made some assumptions, to which I apologize.
However, it *is* a fact you stated two entirely different things that go along with the anti-vaccine stance that gets repeated by people who know absolutely nothing about how communicable diseases work, which basically came down to "why should I vaccinate myself, if you're already vaccinated" (obviously not word for word, but is the gist of what was said in every anti-vax thread ever)
I haven't backpedaled any. The comment "If you are vaccinated how are you in danger?" was a logical quip to Jassik who said that people not getting vaccinations are putting others in danger. The logic follows: you are a carrier, I have been vaccinated, so I shouldn't be in danger. And as to "well, you can still get the disease" that is because if you don't get vaccinated you are highly likely to become symptomatic with carriers around you even if the carriers have been vaccinated. I don't know what assumptions you are accusing me of making, please state which you are referring to.
Bismarck.Snprphnx
Server: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
Posts: 2691
By Bismarck.Snprphnx 2015-04-17 22:44:08
On a related note...
Something else that has begun to hit the undercurrent of anti-vacs/homeopathic group in the country is Essential Oils. Basically, you use the natural oils from various plants, get all Severus Snape with them, and make up a concoction to help cure yourself. The mixtures are either applied to the skin, or vaporized and inhaled.
I have a cousin, as well as the wife of a different cousin who sell/use these. They started with saying the vapors helped alleviate allergy symptoms. Which I can believe. Different plants can be inhaled/digested to naturally open your airways.
But earlier this year, I jokingly asked if they had something that could cure Autism. They took me seriously. Several weeks later, one of them approached me with a box, with a oil vaporizer, and several different oil mixtures. I was in total disbelief. They actually think they have a mixture to help cure him. I had to walk away, from the combination of wanthing to laugh in their faces and sheer anger.
By Bloodrose 2015-04-17 22:50:28
You pointed out how others are still in danger, which Jassik had already provided information on multiple times in other threads that you and I have both been a part of, so it really wasn't a logical quip of any kind. I had also pointed out that statements like that, always tend to come from the anti-vaccination crowd who buy into the inane *** coming from preachers of homeopathic medicine, that costs ridiculous amounts of money in comparison to the flu shot (as an example), spend ridiculous amounts of money on "all natural" stuff are severely marked up prices, and end up costing more in medical bills than those who've had vaccinations.
Assumption number 1:
one is a carrier regardless of one having a vaccine or not.
This is not true. One is not simply a carrier of a disease, because first they must contract the disease in order to be a carrier. Hence the "If only diseases worked like you think they do" comment from Pleebo. If someone is vaccinated, it greatly reduces the chance of becoming a carrier, let alone infected by a non-infected carrier. You then amended that statement on the following page to say that people, regardless of vaccines or not *can* become carriers - that's called a back pedal.
You've also pointed out that Vaccines aren't immunities to a disease, so the follow-up logic that "you are a carrier, I have been vaccinated, so I shouldn't be in danger" is flawed from the start, and another back-pedal attempt. Then you followed that up with a "Well, you can still get the disease", but instead link it to if you didn't get vaccinated, which is a hole in the argument you're making.
The Second assumption is assuming you've had more vaccines than than of the people in this thread have had. I've had well over 30 vaccinations myself. Some people may have to have more than our total combined for various reasons, so it's pretty redundant to make that assumption, while calling out another for making assumptions.
By Bloodrose 2015-04-17 22:54:46
And not all people can be, or are carriers of diseases.
Some can only become carriers while others can only transmit disease after certain conditions are met.
You should really do some research into communicable diseases and how their transmission from one person to another works.
Leviathan.Protey
Server: Leviathan
Game: FFXI
Posts: 685
By Leviathan.Protey 2015-04-17 23:18:28
You pointed out how others are still in danger, which Jassik had already provided information on multiple times in other threads that you and I have both been a part of, so it really wasn't a logical quip of any kind. I had also pointed out that statements like that, always tend to come from the anti-vaccination crowd who buy into the inane *** coming from preachers of homeopathic medicine, that costs ridiculous amounts of money in comparison to the flu shot (as an example), spend ridiculous amounts of money on "all natural" stuff are severely marked up prices, and end up costing more in medical bills than those who've had vaccinations.
Assumption number 1:
one is a carrier regardless of one having a vaccine or not.
This is not true. One is not simply a carrier of a disease, because first they must contract the disease in order to be a carrier. Hence the "If only diseases worked like you think they do" comment from Pleebo. If someone is vaccinated, it greatly reduces the chance of becoming a carrier, let alone infected by a non-infected carrier. You then amended that statement on the following page to say that people, regardless of vaccines or not *can* become carriers - that's called a back pedal.
You've also pointed out that Vaccines aren't immunities to a disease, so the follow-up logic that "you are a carrier, I have been vaccinated, so I shouldn't be in danger" is flawed from the start, and another back-pedal attempt. Then you followed that up with a "Well, you can still get the disease", but instead link it to if you didn't get vaccinated, which is a hole in the argument you're making.
The Second assumption is assuming you've had more vaccines than than of the people in this thread have had. I've had well over 30 vaccinations myself. Some people may have to have more than our total combined for various reasons, so it's pretty redundant to make that assumption, while calling out another for making assumptions.
It is a logical quip. I quite clearly showed the logic.
Obviously you have to come into contact with the disease in order to become a carrier >.> I didn't say that outright because it is obvious. Please tell me if I need to say overt things to you in the future. And I never amended anything I said and didn't backpedal.
"you are a carrier, I have been vaccinated, so I shouldn't be in danger" is not flawed, nor is it a backpedal attempt, it was the logic behind me making my first post. Or are you saying that you are in danger regardless of if you have a vaccine or not? Because that would make you part of the anti-vac crowd. Also, there was no hole in my argument. As to your second part I think you are misquoting me. Are you referring to "You can be a carrier regardless"? If so, that was always referring to if you had been vaccinated or not as that is what "regardless" refers to.
I didn't assume I had more vaccines than everyone, I said "probably". That left open the possibility for others to have had more vaccines than me. If I had assumed I would have said, "I have had more vaccinations than everyone". I think you might have a problem with reading comprehension.
Leviathan.Protey
Server: Leviathan
Game: FFXI
Posts: 685
By Leviathan.Protey 2015-04-17 23:28:49
And not all people can be, or are carriers of diseases.
Some can only become carriers while others can only transmit disease after certain conditions are met.
You should really do some research into communicable diseases and how their transmission from one person to another works.
where did I say "all"? I already know about communicable diseases and how their transmission from one person to another works. Which is why I said one is a carrier regardless of having a vaccine or not. I think you might have taken that the wrong way to mean that necessitates that you are a carrier. It should be taken thus: a vaccine doesn't necessarily prevent you from being a carrier.
By Bloodrose 2015-04-17 23:33:41
And not all people can be, or are carriers of diseases.
Some can only become carriers while others can only transmit disease after certain conditions are met.
You should really do some research into communicable diseases and how their transmission from one person to another works.
where did I say "all"? I already know about communicable diseases and how their transmission from one person to another works. Which is why I said one is a carrier regardless of having a vaccine or not. I think you might have taken that the wrong way to mean that necessitates that you are a carrier. It should be taken thus: a vaccine doesn't necessarily prevent you from being a carrier. It would really help the argument as a whole if you would start saying what you mean, instead of having to constantly amend it in order to clarify it.
You don't need to say all, but using a blanket term that doesn't differentiate between "all" or "some", is something that implies "all", rather than "some".
I also pointed out why saying "one is a carrier regardless of having a vaccine or not" was incorrect to begin with, and that it wasn't true. because it isn't, no matter how you spin it. The way it was said, was that it necessitates someone as a carrier, rather than the opportunity or chance to become one.
See the difference in using precise language?
I mentioned this to you before in other threads, but it seems that you are the one with the problem with reading, and not i.
Server: Shiva
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3618
By Shiva.Onorgul 2015-04-18 03:57:07
Oh goodie, this topic again.
I haven't checked the latest etiquette books: when beating a dead horse, does one use a wooden or aluminum baseball bat?
[+]
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 546
By Asura.Ivlilla 2015-04-18 04:13:19
Oh goodie, this topic again.
I haven't checked the latest etiquette books: when beating a dead horse, does one use a wooden or aluminum baseball bat?
Depends on whether or not you were wearing gloves whilst you were trying to squeeze blood from a stone. Aluminum doesn't have that same give wood does, and is much harsher on the hands.
 Leviathan.Chaosx
Server: Leviathan
Game: FFXI
Posts: 20284
By Leviathan.Chaosx 2015-04-18 04:38:55
I like the term herd immunity. It implies people are like a bunch of cattle that need to be caged at night, only roam together during the day, fed food that is dictated by the farmer, injected with antibiotics, fattened, and then brought to the slaughterhouse when needed.
Where does one sign up to become a people farmer?
By Jetackuu 2015-04-18 06:21:40
Oh goodie, this topic again.
I haven't checked the latest etiquette books: when beating a dead horse, does one use a wooden or aluminum baseball bat? neither, they use a wooden paddle.
Obligatory: That's a paddlin'
Bahamut.Odaru
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
By Bahamut.Odaru 2015-04-18 06:48:50
Remember that time you got polio when you were a kid? NO, YOU DON'T, BECAUSE YOUR PARENTS GOT YOU *** VACCINATED.
By Bloodrose 2015-04-18 07:19:57
I like the term herd immunity. It implies people are like a bunch of cattle that need to be caged at night, only roam together during the day, fed food that is dictated by the farmer, injected with antibiotics, fattened, and then brought to the slaughterhouse when needed.
Where does one sign up to become a people farmer? The Church.
The pastors are called the shepherds, and treat people as lost sheep that need to be guided.
[+]
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 470
By Asura.Wormfeeder 2015-04-18 07:25:13
I like the term herd immunity. It implies people are like a bunch of cattle that need to be caged at night, only roam together during the day, fed food that is dictated by the farmer, injected with antibiotics, fattened, and then brought to the slaughterhouse when needed.
Where does one sign up to become a people farmer? The Church.
The pastors are called the shepherds, and treat people as lost sheep that need to be guided. Kind of like liberal progressives, they look to the government to protect them and save them from themselves.
By Bloodrose 2015-04-18 07:29:58
I like the term herd immunity. It implies people are like a bunch of cattle that need to be caged at night, only roam together during the day, fed food that is dictated by the farmer, injected with antibiotics, fattened, and then brought to the slaughterhouse when needed.
Where does one sign up to become a people farmer? The Church.
The pastors are called the shepherds, and treat people as lost sheep that need to be guided. Kind of like liberal progressives, they look to the government to protect them and save them from themselves. Not even close, but nice try.
Progressives on either side of the fence look at ways to limit government involvement by taking a progressive approach that contains the betterment for as many people as possible, rather than just a handful of their own ilk.
Even still, Liberals as a whole still don't do the things you think they do. As a whole, neither do the conservatives. The majority on both sides are reasonable people - then you get the foot-in-mouth dumbasses that spout off *** that makes the entirely look like a bunch of morons to their polar opposites, simply because they are the loudest.
Also, the Government is there to protect the people, to a point, as part of it's function and reason for existing. Currently, it caters to those who would limit certain rights, and to those who would expand certain rights due to lobbying from big business - not necessarily a bad thing in theory, but as it stands, generates career politicians and dynasties.
[+]
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 470
By Asura.Wormfeeder 2015-04-18 07:35:55
I like the term herd immunity. It implies people are like a bunch of cattle that need to be caged at night, only roam together during the day, fed food that is dictated by the farmer, injected with antibiotics, fattened, and then brought to the slaughterhouse when needed.
Where does one sign up to become a people farmer? The Church.
The pastors are called the shepherds, and treat people as lost sheep that need to be guided. Kind of like liberal progressives, they look to the government to protect them and save them from themselves. Not even close, but nice try.
Progressives on either side of the fence look at ways to limit government involvement by taking a progressive approach that contains the betterment for as many people as possible, rather than just a handful of their own ilk.
Even still, Liberals as a whole still don't do the things you think they do. As a whole, neither do the conservatives. The majority on both sides are reasonable people - then you get the foot-in-mouth dumbasses that spout off *** that makes the entirely look like a bunch of morons to their polar opposites, simply because they are the loudest.
Also, the Government is there to protect the people, to a point, as part of it's function and reason for existing. Currently, it caters to those who would limit certain rights, and to those who would expand certain rights due to lobbying from big business - not necessarily a bad thing in theory, but as it stands, generates career politicians and dynasties. I'm glad that you actually get it.
Quote: California anti-vaxxers, while relatively few in number, continue to wield outsize influence in the state. Over the winter, California suffered an outbreak of measles after an unvaccinated person visited Disneyland, prompting lawmakers to draft legislation designed to increase the state's vaccination rates.
But on Wednesday, state legislators could not answer a key question raised by the bill—should unvaccinated children be denied access to public schools?—after hundreds of parents opposed to mandatory vaccines for school children, according to the San Jose Mercury News, appeared before the Senate Education Committee to protest the bill, SB 277.
The bill would have done away with California's controversial 'personal belief exemptions,' which allow parents to choose not to vaccinate their children on the basis of their own personal beliefs. California is one of 20 states that allow such exemptions. More than a quarter of California schools have measles vaccination rates lower than those recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, according to The New York Times.
The bill's author, State Senator Dr. Richard Pan, a pediatrician, was forced to delay a vote in the Senate Education Committee after some of his fellow lawmakers said they would not vote for a bill that excluded unvaccinated children from public schools. Proponents of the bill spoke for about seven minutes, according to The Sacramento Bee, while opposed parents spent more than two hours arguing against it. “I think maybe some of the senators were taken aback by the ferocity of passion that they saw there, and that might have been impactful,” State Senator Ben Allen, a co-author of SB277, told the Bee.
The issue of mandatory vaccinations is contentious in California, where, according to the Contra Costa Times, more than 13,000 kindergartners are unvaccinated for personal or religious reasons. Perhaps hoping to sway public opinion, Pan and Allen penned an op-ed in The Fresno Bee titled "SB 277 protects children from horrific diseases."
Meanwhile, Pan is speaking with various stakeholders to try to find a path forward for the legislation. If he is unable to craft a compromise in one week's time, his bill will likely die in committee—a fate similar bills in Oregon and Washington suffered after facing similar opposition.
Source
|
|
