9 ms·
California Senate overwhelmingly passes SB 277, abolishing most opt-outs
- walterbell 11y agoWhat are the 10 vaccines being mandated?
- sigzero 11y ago(1) Diphtheria. (2) Hepatitis B. (3) Haemophilus influenzae type b. (4) Measles. (5) Mumps. (6) Pertussis (whooping cough). (7) Poliomyelitis. (8) Rubella. (9) Tetanus. (10) Varicella (chickenpox). http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB277 http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?...
- apendleton 11y agoFor what it's worth, this actually ends up being fewer than ten distinct kinds of inoculations, as 1, 6, and 9 are typically combined as the DTaP/TDaP vaccine, and 4, 5, and 8 are combined as the MMR vaccine. Some do need boosters, though, so I imagine it comes out in the wash.
- digikata 11y agoFrom http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/15-16/bill/sen/sb_0251-0300/sb_277_bill_20150507_amended_sen_v95.htm http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/15-16/bill/sen/sb_0251-0300/sb... (1) Diphtheria. (2) Haemophilus influenzae type b. (3) Measles. (4) Mumps. (5) Pertussis (whooping cough). (6) Poliomyelitis. (7) Rubella. (8) Tetanus. (9) Hepatitis B. (10) Varicella (chickenpox). (11) Any other disease deemed appropriate by the department, taking into consideration the recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Academy of Family Physicians. Item 11 bothers me a bit, I don't want it to become a sales channel for vaccine makers. I think vaccines in 1-10 have a solid public health foundation, but 11 leaves a door open for abuse.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- lkbm 11y agoFrom http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/15-16/bill/sen/sb_0251-0300/sb_277_bill_20150219_introduced.html http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/15-16/bill/sen/sb_0251-0300/sb...: Diphtheria, Hepatitis B, Haemophilus influenzae type b, Measles, Mumps, Pertussis (whooping cough), Poliomyelitis, Rubella, Tetanus, Varicella, and "Any other disease deemed appropriate by the department, taking into consideration the recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Academy of Family Physicians." Judging from the article, I assume that last clause was removed in the final version, but I'm guessing the rest stayed the same.
- digikata 11y agoIf you look at the status/history for the bill: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=sb_277&sess=CUR&house=B&author=pan_%3Cpan%3E http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=sb_2... It looks like 11 is still there, but I could easily be misinterpreting.
- ChuckMcM 11y agoI certainly hope this makes it past the Assembly and into law. I am stunned at how rancorous the debate has been though. If I ever questioned if there was a problem with science education, that question has been soundly answered. Way too many people are getting through our primary education system with absolutely no understanding of how science, as a process and discipline works. And that is a very sad thing indeed.
- kiba 11y agoWay too many people are getting through our primary education system with absolutely no understanding of how science, as a process and discipline works. It's a question of trust in scientific authorities, not about their knowledge or lack thereof. No amount of understanding or attempt at education will dissuade anti-vaccine parents.
- tedunangst 11y agoAh, see, these anti-vax parents aren't like yesterday's anti-vax parents: "The parents who do it now do it for very legitimate reasons. We don't do it because we are uninformed."
- zedzedb5 11y agohttp://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ApprovedProducts/UCM123789.pdf http://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines... How does one interpret this document? We laugh at the side effects associated with medications when it's on the television but not the FDA documentation for such medications? Under "CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY" it reads that MMR "may" cause serious complications and/or death. Further down it reads that the MMR Vaccination may cause serious complications and/or death. I am confused
- eli 11y agoI'm not sure if you're trolling or simply misreading that document, but under the section you cited it says that getting Measles, mumps, and rubella can cause serious complications or death. Not the shot which vaccinates against those diseases.
- jessriedel 11y agoThis article survives on HN because it strokes people'e scientific literacy egos and lets them feel outraged and/or look down on others. This is not of sufficient intellectual interest to warrant being on the front page.
- nosideeffects 11y agoMaybe a lot of people are interested in the science of ego-stroking.
- waterlesscloud 11y agoScience has been growing a strange ego-stroking pop culture faction of late, and it's fairly worrying. It's certainly not an attitude that's actually going to improve anything. All it does is serve to create deeper divides that are even harder to bridge. People just dig in their heels. I'm sure it's emotionally satisfying for people in some way, but I've come to a place where such an attitude significantly lowers my opinion of the person wielding it.
- mikeash 11y agoI think the passage of a law mandating vaccination with no religious exemption is rather interesting, personally. Yeah, the vaccine side is not that interesting. Vaccines are great, we all know it. But the political side is very interesting.
- bluehazed 11y ago> "The only thing we can do is continue to educate our officials" about the personal belief exemption, said Lisa Bakshi, a mother from Placer County. "The parents who do it now do it for very legitimate reasons. We don't do it because we are uninformed." This isn't being uninformed, it's being actively uninformed.
- jawns 11y agoI'm interested to learn about the case law about this as it pertains to the constitutionality of disallowing a religious exemption. Some common vaccines are derived from human fetal cell lines, and those fetal cell lines are themselves derived from a handful of elective abortions. For many of those vaccines, there are alternatives that are not derived from human fetal cell lines, but not all. Several religious denominations that oppose abortion, e.g. the Catholic Church, have addressed this issue and said that such vaccines can and should be used, so long as there is no reasonable alternative and there is a proportionate reason. (The Church's reasoning, in case you're curious, is that the vaccines' connection to abortion is considered remote cooperation.) But even though some denominations see the vaccines as permissible, I suppose it might be possible for a person, motivated by religious belief, to be completely on board with the efficacy of the vaccine but oppose how it was created on moral grounds, and so demand a religious exemption. Typically in the U.S., religious beliefs must be reasonably accommodated. I would think that someone who objects to the vaccine mandate on religious grounds could make the argument that if it is possible for anyone to be accommodated (in this case, those with medical issues), then accommodation itself should be considered reasonable, and it's just a matter of determining whether accommodating both is so risky as to be unreasonable. In other words, if we're willing to assume X amount of risk by allowing medical exemptions, then it follows that at least some risk can be tolerated. And if a religious objector can show that additionally assuming Y risk by allowing religious objections is not substantially more risky, then I think they could make the case that it should be considered reasonable to also accommodate religious beliefs.
- tedunangst 11y agoThe medical exemption exists because giving them the vaccine increases risk (to the recipient). It's not a choice regarding acceptable risk; it's consistently choosing the least risky option.
- rlpb 11y agoPermitting a small number of exemptions does not compromise hive immunity. Permitting a large number of exceptions does. The article states an objective example of where hive immunity was compromised due to a lack of vaccination. So there is sound scientific reasoning for disallowing religious exemption for public health reasons. In terms of priorities, it seems reasonable for medical exceptions (eg. "this child is allergic to the vaccination so is more likely to die if it is administered") to come before religious ones ("my child won't suffer from an increased risk of harm [than other children receiving the vaccination] but I don't want the vaccine to be administered"). It might even be reasonable to permit a small quota of religious objections, so that the total number of exceptions does not compromise hive immunity. But then how would it be decided which children would not be permitted in this group? The other option would be to simply ban children not vaccinated for religious reasons from the ability to spread disease by excluding them from schools. This seems to be the proposition made already though: > "I am concerned about opportunities for equal education," because unvaccinated kindergarteners would require home schooling, Bates said.
- paulhauggis 11y ago"The science is clear: Vaccines are safe and efficacious." Nothing is 100% safe. So when they say something like this, it's pretty scary. I don't think it's causing autism, but some people do have ill effects due to vaccines.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- eli 11y agoSome people surely think they suffer ill effects. You get a shot and the next day catch a cold, so you blame the shot. But that's not science.
- ermintrude 11y agoThat's exactly how some vaccines work. See: http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/smallpox/vaccination/faq.asp http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/smallpox/vaccination/faq.asp "Most people experience normal, usually mild reactions that include a sore arm, fever, and body aches."
- tedunangst 11y agoExcept nobody gets the smallpox vaccine.
- outworlder 11y agoYeah, and if you are complaining about the mild immune response caused be an attenuated (or even dead) virus, imagine how worse you would feel when infected by the active pathogen.
- paulhauggis 11y agoThis isn't the point. The point is that the ruling said it's "completely safe". Since it's not "completely safe", does this mean I could sue them?
- ermintrude 11y agoIt's about time we stop giving religious beliefs any special treatment at all compared to actual measurable evidence (e.g. inhumanely killing animals, mutilating/indoctrinating children, etc.).
- xacaxulu 11y agoOr tax exempt status for teaching nonsense pseudoscience.
- istvan__ 11y agoGreat news, this means the vaccination numbers can go back to the western world level in the LA private schools. http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/09/wealthy-la-schools-vaccination-rates-are-as-low-as-south-sudans/380252/ http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/09/wealthy-la...
- mapgrep 11y agoJust FYI, this is an inaccurate headline ("No More Vaccine Exemptions: California Senate Overwhelmingly Passes SB 277"). "No More Vaccine Exemptions" will be true only IF this passes the Assembly, where it faces a tougher fight. (Then the governor must sign it, but this is expected to happen.) (I wish HN headlines about politics were half as accurate as the technical ones. See also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9276841 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9276841)
- outworlder 11y agoPerhaps now people will stop calling it a 'controversy'? That word makes it the concerns seem legitimate. There is no such 'controversy' in Brazil, for instance. The vaccination programs have been very successful. Several life-threatening diseases were greatly reduced or even eradicated, no matter how poor the region. We did have a revolt, in 1904 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_Revolt http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_Revolt) Vaccines are one of the humankind's greatest accomplishments. To avoid vaccinations due to fuzzy "religious grounds" is to turn the clock backwards at least a century.
- wehadfun 11y agoI see a lot of pro vax people here. (Wonder how many of you actually have children less than 2 years old). Anyway here are some things that concerned me: 1. "Vaccines are safe" - The U.S. has the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program [1]. In short it pays people who are hurt by vaccines. If vaccines are so safe why is this program needed? 2. "We had these vaccines as Kids" - The vaccine injury program made vaccine manufactures not be liable for injuries cause by their vaccine. This happened in 1988. "Since 1988, the U.S. childhood immunization schedule has rapidly expanded"[2]. In you are older than 28 you did NOT receive a lot of these vaccines as a kid. There is a whole lot more but I don't feel like writing a book. [1]http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/index.html http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/index.html [2]http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00038256.htm http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00038256.htm
- centrinoblue 11y agoI hesitate to reply here but some additional points to consider (esp. re item 11 in the list of vax): - exponential growth in the number of vaccines over time - non-leathal nature of some of the newer vaccinees i.e common flu (scope creep) - concerns around the early age to be injecting so many foriegn substances (monkey genes) at the same time - trust in a for-profit medical system (revolving door governance) - science is not perfect - mandatory medical procedures should be viewed as a slippery slope - no-one died in the Disneyland outbreak - perspective: "in 2011, outbreaks resulted in over 30,000 cases, 7 deaths" http://shotofprevention.com/2015/01/22/disneyland-measles-outbreak-should-you-be-concerned/ http://shotofprevention.com/2015/01/22/disneyland-measles-ou... "Season’s failed flu shot raises questions about immunization program" http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health-and-fitness/health/seasons-failed-flu-shot-raises-questions-about-immunization-program/article22730631/ http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health-and-fitness/healt...
- __z 11y agoThe common flu is non-lethal? Facepalm Flu deaths are hard to measure but "CDC estimates that from the 1976-1977 season to the 2006-2007 flu season, flu-associated deaths ranged from a low of about 3,000 to a high of about 49,000 people." - http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/disease/us_flu-related_deaths.htm http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/disease/us_flu-related_deaths.h... Furthermore, I personally know one of those people killed by the flu.
- jakeogh 11y agoThe voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/archive/nurcode.html http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/archive/nurcode.html