The Glade 4.0

http://www.historyofvaccines.org/conten ... exemptions

Some (most?) states require vaccination records on file, but allow kids to attend that have opted-out of actually having received vaccinations because of religious (48 states) or personal conviction (20 states). Figuring out the rules and statistics for an exact answer would require more effort than I'm willing to put into it.

From what I've read, sometimes it's as simple as stating that it's against your religious convictions, they put that in the file, and bam, done.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

A number of states require a physician's signature to sign off on an exemption, however, and a growing number of physicians won't sign off on it.

_________________
Darksiege: You are not a god damned vulcan homie.

So am I, but I've never heard you take issue with that form of hyperbole before. In any case, you just said you "had no idea" how fining or jailing people for not getting vaccinated is different from forcibly sticking them with the needle so.. what are you trying to say?



But yet you just said that you had no idea how this was any different from fining them or jailing them for failing to do so. I'm unsure why you're citing a case that said the government can criminally punish people for not getting vaccinated as evidence they can't get forcibly vaccinated, if you don't see any difference between that and forcible needle-sticking.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I have no idea why "people around here" think it's different, I don't even know if they DO think it's different. You lexically scoped that paragraph to use global variables. My opinions are partitioned to local namespace.

As for me not taking issue with hyperbole about "point of a gun" statements, I used to all the time when idiots talked of shooting folks left and right for slights (real or imagined), stringing them up, etc., but not so much anymore 'cause it gets repetitive after a while. My heart's just no longer in it.


A) I do see a huge difference between a fine, incarceration and involuntarily being injected.

B) The USSC case upheld the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision. Since that state decision recognized explicitly

Marcus Perrin Knowlton, Chief Justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court wrote:

So, the precedent is set.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

*facepalm* They don't think it's different. You evidently do, because you claimed that the case in question doesn't allow forcible vaccination, even though it allows criminal punishment for refusal. Then when I asked how threatening criminal sanctions is different from forcibly sticking with the needle in terms of using government authority to cause a vaccination to happen the person would otherwise refuse.. you said you had no idea how it's different. Is it that you know there's a difference but you can't really articulate it or something?



that is not the kind of hyperbole I'm referring to. I'm talking about people referring to any government mandate action as being done "at the point of a gun".



Yes. I know. You said that. I want you to tell me what you think the nature of that difference is. This is not a trick question; I specifically said earlier I had not made u my mind on this issue.



Yes, and yet they still permitted the fine. Had he acquiesced to the vaccination to avoid the fine, a force of sorts (the threat of the seizure of assets, under the 4th amendment) would have been used against him.

There's 2 different potential meanings for "forcibly vaccinated"; one referring to physically imposing the actual needle on the person, the other meaning the use of coercive force to get someone to acquiesce.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I think "a court sentencing someone to receive an injection of proteins, toxins or microbes of a disease-causing microorganism" (my actual and exact meaning for "forcibly vaccinated") would be corporal punishment and, therefor, unconstitutional.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

While I find this view understandable, I also am not sure it's entirely accurate. The point of having the injection is to prevent disease, not as a punishment for.. having refused the injection. Otherwise, what was the point of the original vaccination?

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Marcus Knowlton thought it quite possible that folks would decide to grab Jacobson, hold him down and vaccinate him, after first throwing a legal coat of whitewash over the whole incident so they could get away with it. If you read about it, his ruling was a specific warning to folks in Boston.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

So?

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Maybe we should just mandate not being a huge pussy, then you wont be afraid of a vaccination.

I blame metrosexualism.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Maybe we could do what Wildlife Officials do to Racoons:


But we could label them "Farm-Raised Organic Quinoa" and then the scientifically illiterate douchenuggets would eat them up by the thousands voluntarily.

_________________

https://screen.yahoo.com/comedy-central ... 00792.html

Apparently it IS the metrosexuals! LIBERAL metrosexuals!

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

We currently have no law mandating vaccines, and we seem to be doing pretty well as far as immunizations go. There's been a recent trend against vaccines, but it's still limited and there haven't been many serious consequences to it. It seems more like a fad to me than something we'll have to worry about long term.

So... why fix what isn't broken? There's simply no need to use the force of law to make people get vaccines, because they already do. If the anti-vaccination crowd picks up more steam and an actual problem emerges, I can see considering it. But I really don't think we're at that point yet.

_________________

farm raised quinoa, lol

I forgot to include: "Gluten-Free"

_________________

free-range quinoa

It's a fad, but it's a dangerous fad. See the recent whooping cough outbreak in Cali- 9000 cases, 10 infant deaths.

http://www.cdph.ca.gov/healthinfo/disco ... ussis.aspx, and the NPR summary article from last fall: http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2013/09 ... h-epidemic

And for the more detail inclined, a study on the effect of non-medical exemptions and whooping cough spread: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/c ... 8.abstract

Mostly due to large communities of individuals choosing not to vaccinate their children, with the collateral damage of the ~5% of the population that cannot be vaccinated, or do not respond to vaccines. Herd immunity is very important.

_________________
Darksiege: You are not a god damned vulcan homie.

There are concerns about the total docket of vaccines used during certain periods in our immunization history. The combination of all the various vaccinations may have a net-negative effect on some individuals. There's no evidence that any specific vaccine is causing some of the problems attributed to vaccinations (namely the rise in Austistic Spectrum Disorders).

That said, either some of you are fantastically young, or I'm simply too old for my own good. MMR vaccines did pretty much jack **** for anyone until the mid 90s. Kids in the 70s and 80s, despite being forcibly vaccinated by the Department of Education, still got the Measles, Mumps, and Rubella. I had the first two despite full immunization. My youngest sibling had all 3, despite being vaccinated in the mid-to-late 80s, and he contracted all 3 of them through a public school system that STILL requires the Federally recommended vaccination list to attend. These outbreaks were not trivial in the local sense: 25-40% of the student population in the affected schools contracted these diseases. So, something else had to happen: either better vaccines or some other behavioral agent eradicated Measles. It wasn't the vaccinations, as they don't account the 1988 outbreak in the United States (the CDC has been reporting it effectively eradicated in the United States since the mid 80s per their incident counts).

As for herd immunity, that's an increasingly fluid problem, Nephyr. The world continues to shrink in terms of relative distance and travel time. People can go too many places too quickly, and these diseases are not eradicated globally.

_________________

Vaccines are never claimed to be 100% effective. Even the vaccinated can often get the disease vaccinated against, though typically they get a much lesser form of the disease. Outliers always exist of course.

However, the CDC's data doesn't back up your claim Khross.

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/6mishome.htm

With an increasingly global world, a localized herd immunity is even more important.

Take Polio- we consider it eradicated. Worldwide, it's not. As we get refugees from the middle east, where it's relatively prevalent, the chance of it spreading again in the US/Wester Europe increases.

The more people who are vaccinated, the less likely it is to spread- you need a critical mass of people who have immunity to prevent it from spreading at an increasing rate, or spreading at all.

It doesn't mean no one immunized won't get the disease, nor does it mean you won't have pockets of the disease. But it does mean that you're less likely to get any widespread outbreaks.

_________________
Darksiege: You are not a god damned vulcan homie.

TheRiov:

It does. Want to explain the inset? Measles has, according to that data, been eradicated for the better part of the last 30 years, in the United States. There were more cases of Measles in the county I graduated high school in the year I graduated than the CDC data allows. I have newspaper clippings: nearly a thousand primary school kids got Measles that year.

But, whatever, you can say it's all the vaccinations. I suspect other things changed as well.

Nephyr:

I'm well aware. That said, I'm old enough to remember things the US has forgotten, but not old enough to remember an American "polio summer." I do have friends who lived through one. I have an Aunt who contracted polio in the 70s in Cleveland. I'm simply pointing out that we don't have good long term data on the combined effects on all the immune system tinkering we're doing.

There are legitimate reasons to reject certain vaccines. The chicken pox vaccines are fairly ineffective, for instance.

_________________

Oh, I completely agree that there are reasons to reject some vaccines. Some of my recent work has been in developing adjuvants and examining the effects for vaccine development, and there are definitely those that work and those that don't.

That said, most of the people I see objecting to vaccinations rarely have any good reason why.

And I think there are some vaccines that are worth making mandatory, or at least (in the case of N. Cali) to allow schools to turn away children without vaccines.

_________________
Darksiege: You are not a god damned vulcan homie.

I don't know that there's any trend against vaccines. Anti-vaccine organizations existed back in the era of the court cases we discussed. It's just that with the internet and modern media, every case of some loon not wanting vaccines gets blown up into a major issue to fill the 24 hour news cycle.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."