6 ms·

If it was my son and he couldn't be vaccinated for a few months I'd simply hold him out of school until the vaccinations could be administered. I feel for the c

by smuss77 12y ago

If it was my son and he couldn't be vaccinated for a few months I'd simply hold him out of school until the vaccinations could be administered. I feel for the child and his family, it's a horrible thing that happened to them, but talk about solving a simple problem with an activist response. This is how we end up with a ridiculous number of laws and regulations. If we should legislate that every kid in a public school is vaccinated, why would we stop there? Why not legislate every kid that enters a public library be vaccinated? Why not any public place?

analog31 12y ago
Holding a kid out of school can be a pretty serious hardship for a family, and a setback for the kid's education. At the very least, the school should provide the kid with alternative care.
zdean 12y ago
And furthermore, if the concern is that unvaccinated children are putting others at risk and should be excluded from school, then wouldn't it stand to reason that this child (who is also unvaccinated) is also putting others at risk (albeit the motivation for not vaccinating is different)?
- jrochkind1 12y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity Public health is inherently a community thing, cause contagious diseases are transmitted socially, that's just how it works. If everyone who can be vaccinated is, then those who can't are much safer.
maxlybbert 12y ago
The thing that bothers me isn't the need to vaccinate, but the fact that the list of vaccinations continues to get longer. Well, it isn't the length of the list; it's simply that I'm not worried about all of the diseases on the list. My main disagreement is chicken pox. Yes, I understand that there are serious chicken pox cases, but they're incredibly rare. Whoever made the decision to include the chicken pox vaccine on the list weighed a very rare risk for unvaccinated children against even smaller risks for vaccinated children, and decided to require the vaccine. That's a rational decision, but I would prefer if I were allowed to weigh benefits and risks myself.
- cc439 12y ago
  The chicken pox vaccine is included to prevent shingles. You will be long gone by the time your child is a senior citizen and vulnerable to the relapse but it's a horrible experience for the elderly.
  - jrs235 12y ago
    You don't have to be senior to get shingles. I got shingles at age 30 along the s2 and s3 dermatomes. Extremely painful but certainly survivable and treatable. Complications are the big concern in the elderly. I think education and knowledge dissemination on what to look for for early diagnosis is more important.
  - Vendan 12y ago
    shingles isn't just for old people, I'm 27 and I had it. Wish I hadn't. Caught it early and the doctor said I was lucky, but it still hurt to even move.
    - jrs235 12y ago
      As I mentioned on a sibling post, I too got shingles at a younger age. Just prior to rearing its ugly blisters, were you stressed physically, emotionally, and/or mentally? From my understanding shingles is able to come out when the immune system is weak/compromised, often times to due high stress levels. I know when my showed up I was extremely stressed. I know a few others who have had shingles in their late 20's early 30's too. Not sure if it's becoming more prevalent or just more recognized/talked about but I think people should be more informed to recognize early symptoms so as to treat it ASAP. For others reading, when my shingles showed up I recall a funny tingling sensation which after a few days turned into more of a burning sensation. You will only feel it on one side of your body. My singles came out around the S2 and S3 dermatomes (http://webpresencepartners.com/wp-content/uploads/cssmap/2013-08-20/dermatome.png http://webpresencepartners.com/wp-content/uploads/cssmap/201...) on my right side. If hurt to sit, it hurt to stand, it hurt to move... but it went away after only a few days thank goodness! Shingles often starts presenting itself in one of two dermatomes. If you're not familiar with dermatomes I suggest you due a quick five minute search and read on them. ADD: Good info: http://www.webmd.com/skin-problems-and-treatments/shingles/news/20091102/shingles-recurs-more-often-than-thought http://www.webmd.com/skin-problems-and-treatments/shingles/n...
jrochkind1 12y ago
I believe nearly every university requires proof of vaccination/immunity for a variety of standard immunizations for attendance. It's pretty standard. I don't know if it's some federal law, or just good public health practice. Are you upset about this? I'm not sure why the anti-vaccination crowd isn't more upset about this -- but bite my tongue, I'm sure it'll be coming next. You can always make a slippery slope argument, but public educational institutions seem like a pretty appropriate place to require vaccinations. Then again, why not legislate that every kid period is vaccinated (unless health conditions prevent it), really, why not?
- smuss77 12y ago
  I'm not upset about that. Personally, I think vaccines are a minuscule risk, and worth taking, but that's me. The "why not," for me, is if someone truly believes a vaccine is harmful, maybe due to religion or because she's a researcher that believes there is some second order risk (founded or not), it's immoral to force them to do so.
dinkumthinkum 12y ago
That actually doesn't sound that bad. It's interesting invoking the phrase "laws and regulations" is meant to indicate on its face something terrible. :) Maybe it is just simply irresponsible and negligent not to vaccinate your child. Makes a lot of sense to me. But then I like polio's status today, perhaps some would like to see it make a comeback.
- smuss77 12y ago
  It absolutely is meant to seem terrible. :) Not to put words in your mouth, but assuming a law is passed requiring every kid get vaccinated, there must be a punitive side to the law. What will it be? Prison? Taking people's kids?
jawngee 12y ago
Because going to school is a legal requirement until a specific age. Going to the library or another public place is not. People shouldn't be afforded leeway because of their own ignorance. Not vaccinating your child is ignorant and dangerous. I don't think there should be a religious exemption either, but I'm a raging atheist so shrug.
- threatofrain 12y ago
  Yeah but that's kind of a capricious line considering the amount of traffic going into that public place -- mandatory of not. It's kind of a not-so-strong point to say that kids are forced to go to school when there are so many kids in a library anyway. Also, I thought vaccination works? If so, what does it matter if another child is or isn't vaccinated? This child is a special case, and he is also a temporary case. It's because HE cannot be vaccinated. It's silly because if there were another special case at the school, then it would be untenable.
Spooky23 12y ago
Why does your personal preference with any basis in fact or reasoning allow you to trump some sick child's ability to attend school? Where does preference end? If there's a boy in a kindergarten with severe peanut allergy, should the class snack be peanuts one a day week? After all, the kid can stay home that day? Read the story of FDR's struggle with polio. Or the death and disfigurement dealt out by smallpox. Or the kids bedridden for weeks with measles in the 50s. Taking safe, effective measures to eradicate these things isn't "ridiculous regulation"... It's a service to humanity.
- smuss77 12y ago
  I didn't say I have a preference. Labeling someones choice not to vaccinate a "personal preference" is quite belittling. There is a real, albeit tiny, risk of allergic reaction and possibly death from vaccines (pro-vaccine reference http://www.vaccines.com/vaccine-allergic-reaction-odds.cfm http://www.vaccines.com/vaccine-allergic-reaction-odds.cfm). So the peanut analogy doesn't hold up, the lack of peanuts doesn't pose a risk to any child.

by smuss77 12y ago

analog31 12y ago

Holding a kid out of school can be a pretty serious hardship for a family, and a setback for the kid's education. At the very least, the school should provide the kid with alternative care.

zdean 12y ago

And furthermore, if the concern is that unvaccinated children are putting others at risk and should be excluded from school, then wouldn't it stand to reason that this child (who is also unvaccinated) is also putting others at risk (albeit the motivation for not vaccinating is different)?

jrochkind1 12y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity Public health is inherently a community thing, cause contagious diseases are transmitted socially, that's just how it works. If everyone who can be vaccinated is, then those who can't are much safer.

maxlybbert 12y ago

The thing that bothers me isn't the need to vaccinate, but the fact that the list of vaccinations continues to get longer. Well, it isn't the length of the list; it's simply that I'm not worried about all of the diseases on the list. My main disagreement is chicken pox. Yes, I understand that there are serious chicken pox cases, but they're incredibly rare. Whoever made the decision to include the chicken pox vaccine on the list weighed a very rare risk for unvaccinated children against even smaller risks for vaccinated children, and decided to require the vaccine. That's a rational decision, but I would prefer if I were allowed to weigh benefits and risks myself.

cc439 12y ago
The chicken pox vaccine is included to prevent shingles. You will be long gone by the time your child is a senior citizen and vulnerable to the relapse but it's a horrible experience for the elderly.
- jrs235 12y ago
  You don't have to be senior to get shingles. I got shingles at age 30 along the s2 and s3 dermatomes. Extremely painful but certainly survivable and treatable. Complications are the big concern in the elderly. I think education and knowledge dissemination on what to look for for early diagnosis is more important.
- Vendan 12y ago
  shingles isn't just for old people, I'm 27 and I had it. Wish I hadn't. Caught it early and the doctor said I was lucky, but it still hurt to even move.
  - jrs235 12y ago
    As I mentioned on a sibling post, I too got shingles at a younger age. Just prior to rearing its ugly blisters, were you stressed physically, emotionally, and/or mentally? From my understanding shingles is able to come out when the immune system is weak/compromised, often times to due high stress levels. I know when my showed up I was extremely stressed. I know a few others who have had shingles in their late 20's early 30's too. Not sure if it's becoming more prevalent or just more recognized/talked about but I think people should be more informed to recognize early symptoms so as to treat it ASAP. For others reading, when my shingles showed up I recall a funny tingling sensation which after a few days turned into more of a burning sensation. You will only feel it on one side of your body. My singles came out around the S2 and S3 dermatomes (http://webpresencepartners.com/wp-content/uploads/cssmap/2013-08-20/dermatome.png http://webpresencepartners.com/wp-content/uploads/cssmap/201...) on my right side. If hurt to sit, it hurt to stand, it hurt to move... but it went away after only a few days thank goodness! Shingles often starts presenting itself in one of two dermatomes. If you're not familiar with dermatomes I suggest you due a quick five minute search and read on them. ADD: Good info: http://www.webmd.com/skin-problems-and-treatments/shingles/news/20091102/shingles-recurs-more-often-than-thought http://www.webmd.com/skin-problems-and-treatments/shingles/n...

jrochkind1 12y ago

I believe nearly every university requires proof of vaccination/immunity for a variety of standard immunizations for attendance. It's pretty standard. I don't know if it's some federal law, or just good public health practice. Are you upset about this? I'm not sure why the anti-vaccination crowd isn't more upset about this -- but bite my tongue, I'm sure it'll be coming next. You can always make a slippery slope argument, but public educational institutions seem like a pretty appropriate place to require vaccinations. Then again, why not legislate that every kid period is vaccinated (unless health conditions prevent it), really, why not?

smuss77 12y ago
I'm not upset about that. Personally, I think vaccines are a minuscule risk, and worth taking, but that's me. The "why not," for me, is if someone truly believes a vaccine is harmful, maybe due to religion or because she's a researcher that believes there is some second order risk (founded or not), it's immoral to force them to do so.

dinkumthinkum 12y ago

That actually doesn't sound that bad. It's interesting invoking the phrase "laws and regulations" is meant to indicate on its face something terrible. :) Maybe it is just simply irresponsible and negligent not to vaccinate your child. Makes a lot of sense to me. But then I like polio's status today, perhaps some would like to see it make a comeback.

smuss77 12y ago
It absolutely is meant to seem terrible. :) Not to put words in your mouth, but assuming a law is passed requiring every kid get vaccinated, there must be a punitive side to the law. What will it be? Prison? Taking people's kids?

jawngee 12y ago

Because going to school is a legal requirement until a specific age. Going to the library or another public place is not. People shouldn't be afforded leeway because of their own ignorance. Not vaccinating your child is ignorant and dangerous. I don't think there should be a religious exemption either, but I'm a raging atheist so shrug.

threatofrain 12y ago
Yeah but that's kind of a capricious line considering the amount of traffic going into that public place -- mandatory of not. It's kind of a not-so-strong point to say that kids are forced to go to school when there are so many kids in a library anyway. Also, I thought vaccination works? If so, what does it matter if another child is or isn't vaccinated? This child is a special case, and he is also a temporary case. It's because HE cannot be vaccinated. It's silly because if there were another special case at the school, then it would be untenable.

Spooky23 12y ago

Why does your personal preference with any basis in fact or reasoning allow you to trump some sick child's ability to attend school? Where does preference end? If there's a boy in a kindergarten with severe peanut allergy, should the class snack be peanuts one a day week? After all, the kid can stay home that day? Read the story of FDR's struggle with polio. Or the death and disfigurement dealt out by smallpox. Or the kids bedridden for weeks with measles in the 50s. Taking safe, effective measures to eradicate these things isn't "ridiculous regulation"... It's a service to humanity.

smuss77 12y ago
I didn't say I have a preference. Labeling someones choice not to vaccinate a "personal preference" is quite belittling. There is a real, albeit tiny, risk of allergic reaction and possibly death from vaccines (pro-vaccine reference http://www.vaccines.com/vaccine-allergic-reaction-odds.cfm http://www.vaccines.com/vaccine-allergic-reaction-odds.cfm). So the peanut analogy doesn't hold up, the lack of peanuts doesn't pose a risk to any child.