4 ms·

"State Sen. Richard Pan (D-Sacramento) will announce Monday morning a bill to add COVID-19 vaccines to California’s list of required inoculations for attending

by bruceb 5y ago

"State Sen. Richard Pan (D-Sacramento) will announce Monday morning a bill to add COVID-19 vaccines to California’s list of required inoculations for attending K-12 schools, a move that would override Gov. Gavin Newsom’s scaled-back mandate from last year." Just to be clear this is a proposed bill. Lots of bills are proposed that don't even get voted on. Long way from becoming law.

edmcnulty101 5y ago
Seems like a reasonable bill to CA people, with a decent chance of being passed though right? Seems like most urban CA people would go for something like this. Help prevent spread of Covid with virtually no downside. Californians should ALL be mandated to take the vaccine not just kids. Masks could also possibly be a target for a future permanent mandate by the government of CA. COVID is just one of many respiratory diseases that are dangerous to certain vulnerable groups. Drug resistant TB, SARS, the Flu. California should really be the leader in pathogen safety here and enact vaccine and mask mandates for ALL of it's citizens. Gloves could be a good safety option as well.
- encryptluks2 5y ago
  This would be like mandating flu vaccines for children. They are unnecessary for their age group, and not very effective against variants like Omicron.
  - version_five 5y ago
    > mandating flu vaccines One of my big fears is that this is coming. People have been emboldened and received very little pushback against forcing others to get the covid vaccine, and to prove it wherever they go. How long until we start hearing "flu vaccine saves lives, I have the right to know if someone around me isnt vaccinated, etc etc". I'm almost afraid to say it out loud, and I bet a lot of people here already support it. Childhood vaccination against Polio and the other big and previously debilitating childhood illnesses is nothing like mandating a covid vaccine, especially during a live event where the guidance and effectiveness is changing daily.
    - 3825 5y ago
      I fully support it. The only thing that gives me pause is the cost. As long as the vaccine is easily available free of cost, I am OK with a mandate.
      - version_five 5y ago
        Obviously I dont, and I think it would be boring to get into the pros and cons, but what I'd suggest thinking about if we go down this road is a constitutional amendment, one way or the other, to either say "here is an enumeration of the powers government has to impose vaccines/treatments on people", or "people have a specific right not to be subjected to mandates" in order to get a greater clarity and settle the discussion from a government powers perspective. We can argue all we like about what's constitutional now, but it would be much better to actually clarify it, for better or worse. I don't see much chance of this happening in the current environment, but I think it would elevate the debate
        ryantgtg 5y ago
        Are we using the word “mandate” correctly? So far all I’m seeing are requirements in order to utilize certain public/private resources (like visiting a place). But if you’re not using those resources, then the vaccine isn’t required. I’d think a “mandate” would entail requiring the vaccine for everyone.
        edmcnulty101 5y ago
        It's a mandate because it's not 'the places' choice whether to enforce it or not on their own property.
        ryantgtg 5y ago
        Thanks. I hadn't really looked at it from that perspective. But still that's not mandating that people _get_ the vaccine. That's mandating that a _business_ requires customers/employees to have it (and there are always ways to get accommodations). Overall, it's confusing to me because I see people arguing "no one should be forced to get a jab who doesn't want one!" But so far I'm not seeing instances of that occurring, so it's unclear why they're arguing that (unless it's mostly a pre-emptive, which is fine and understandable).
- amscanne 5y ago
  The previous mandate required the vaccine starting the semester after full approval. This mandates it regardless if it still under emergency use authorization. The latter strikes me as unreasonable.
  - hammock 5y ago
    This bill also would eliminate the personal belief exemption (possibly unconstitutional).

by bruceb 5y ago

edmcnulty101 5y ago

Seems like a reasonable bill to CA people, with a decent chance of being passed though right? Seems like most urban CA people would go for something like this. Help prevent spread of Covid with virtually no downside. Californians should ALL be mandated to take the vaccine not just kids. Masks could also possibly be a target for a future permanent mandate by the government of CA. COVID is just one of many respiratory diseases that are dangerous to certain vulnerable groups. Drug resistant TB, SARS, the Flu. California should really be the leader in pathogen safety here and enact vaccine and mask mandates for ALL of it's citizens. Gloves could be a good safety option as well.

encryptluks2 5y ago
This would be like mandating flu vaccines for children. They are unnecessary for their age group, and not very effective against variants like Omicron.
- version_five 5y ago
  > mandating flu vaccines One of my big fears is that this is coming. People have been emboldened and received very little pushback against forcing others to get the covid vaccine, and to prove it wherever they go. How long until we start hearing "flu vaccine saves lives, I have the right to know if someone around me isnt vaccinated, etc etc". I'm almost afraid to say it out loud, and I bet a lot of people here already support it. Childhood vaccination against Polio and the other big and previously debilitating childhood illnesses is nothing like mandating a covid vaccine, especially during a live event where the guidance and effectiveness is changing daily.
  - 3825 5y ago
    I fully support it. The only thing that gives me pause is the cost. As long as the vaccine is easily available free of cost, I am OK with a mandate.
    - version_five 5y ago
      Obviously I dont, and I think it would be boring to get into the pros and cons, but what I'd suggest thinking about if we go down this road is a constitutional amendment, one way or the other, to either say "here is an enumeration of the powers government has to impose vaccines/treatments on people", or "people have a specific right not to be subjected to mandates" in order to get a greater clarity and settle the discussion from a government powers perspective. We can argue all we like about what's constitutional now, but it would be much better to actually clarify it, for better or worse. I don't see much chance of this happening in the current environment, but I think it would elevate the debate
      - ryantgtg 5y ago
        Are we using the word “mandate” correctly? So far all I’m seeing are requirements in order to utilize certain public/private resources (like visiting a place). But if you’re not using those resources, then the vaccine isn’t required. I’d think a “mandate” would entail requiring the vaccine for everyone.
        edmcnulty101 5y ago
        It's a mandate because it's not 'the places' choice whether to enforce it or not on their own property.
        ryantgtg 5y ago
        Thanks. I hadn't really looked at it from that perspective. But still that's not mandating that people _get_ the vaccine. That's mandating that a _business_ requires customers/employees to have it (and there are always ways to get accommodations). Overall, it's confusing to me because I see people arguing "no one should be forced to get a jab who doesn't want one!" But so far I'm not seeing instances of that occurring, so it's unclear why they're arguing that (unless it's mostly a pre-emptive, which is fine and understandable).
amscanne 5y ago
The previous mandate required the vaccine starting the semester after full approval. This mandates it regardless if it still under emergency use authorization. The latter strikes me as unreasonable.
- hammock 5y ago
  This bill also would eliminate the personal belief exemption (possibly unconstitutional).