{quote]…But according to Omer, religious exemptions aren’t as popular as personal-belief exemptions. He’s found that opt-out rates in states that allow personal-belief exemptions are 2.5 times as high as rates in states that only permit religious exemptions. In one analysis he found that whooping cough rates in states with personal-belief exemptions are more than double those in states that allow only religious exemptions.
[/quote]
So in other words it is not the religious ‘nuts’ that are the majority of non-vaccinators. It is easy and preferable to blame it on this particular group - especially in places like CC which has a more left of center leaning population - than it is to look at the facts (from Mother Jone’s no less) and see that it’s the special snowflake parents who are causing the biggest problem. It is the personal believers who are getting the exemptions. It is an extensions of societal acceptance of personal wants/beliefs (and not of the religious kind) over the reasonable enforcing of standards to gain general wellbeing. In this particular case it happens to be the group that would usually fight tooth and nail to have everyone mainstreamed and accepted and tolerated and hugged and kumbayaed over. The same group that would gladly fight for students rights to wear a bikini to the prom or take their service pig to the SAT test. In this case the absurdity of the situation has happened to peeve this group.
In California a young girl can ask the school to assist with birth control and abortion access. So, what if the young girl (not sure how to extent to boys) asks to be vaccinated, is the school now obligated to assist in this area of health care…see…on absurdity leads to another…
But really, it’s just a small part of a bigger - much bigger - issue.
As long as California law permits the ‘personal beliefs’ exemption, the anti-vaxxers can foolishly forgoe the vaccinations and kids like Rhett are at risk. For a kid who is in remission from leukemia, a case of the measles could be much more serious than for a healthy kid.
I think that unless a kid has a medical condition that contraindicates vaccinations, there should be no exemptions. The anti-vaxxers could home school or start a private school.
This poor kid with leukemia, doesn’t have a choice in the matter. The anti-vaxxers do.
I didn’t say it was the religious nuts who were causing problems, and I did look at that map before. My point was that these ARE people who generally believe in science, and that someday their kids will be old enough to challenge their parents’ beliefs regarding vaccines.
And you are right that these people would likely be advocating for the service pig as well. It’s not about political persuasion (which seems to be the subtext)–it’s about selfishness and entitlement, which at least in this case seems to correlate more with wealth than anything else.
Sally - sorry if I misunderstood your point. Yes, it does seem to be wealth related, in this case. Other exceptions have wealthy (in either political clout or actual $$) rallying for their exemptions. (don’t want to get this thread closed …so 'nut said). Then again, to some of these parent Jenny McCarthy just might be a god.
There was an article several years ago showing how Marin county (where this immunocompromised child lives) had an incredibly high rate of paying for ‘special’ students to go to private school. I do not remember the terms used, but the gist was that there are a disproportionate number of legally savvy parents who will find an error in a public schools paper work as it relates to their ‘special needs’ child. It could be something as simple as the school filing an incorrect form. Rather than fight the parents the school system dishes out $$ so some of these kids can attend high cost privates on the public dime. And FWIW…the violent child I mentioned in a previous post, that was mainstreamed to our local middle school had…yup… a lawyer for a parent.
There is another snaggle in this whole thing…we, as a society, want to protect children from the idiocy of their parents. Making non-immunized children (who are so through no fault of their own) stay out of school is punishing the child for the behaviour of the parents. IF we want to go down this path then it’s pretty easy to pull other things - like the DREAM act - into the light. That was passed on the belief that kids shouldn’t suffer because of their parents misdeeds. (actually, these kids benefit from their parents illegal acts). So, do we shield kids from their parents actions or inactions or we don’t? If we shield kids then arguably the immunocompromised child should be banned from the school since it puts them at a higher risk than if they were home schooled.
We can’t force people to immunize their kids but we should be able to protect immune-suppressed kids from the stupidity of other kids’ parents. In other words, if their parent choose to not vaccinate then there should be other consequences (like home-schooling them or paying for a private that doesn’t care about immunizations). Their selfishness may not end up harming their own kids, but it puts so many others at risk that it’s not ok. From personal experience, the anti-vaxxers are often educated, wealthy parents who are making a conscious choice to ignore science and also ignore the fact that we don’t have diseases sweeping through the US like they did in the past.
Perhaps the threat of civil liability would get these parents to vaccinate their kids. If one of the unvaccinated kids came to school with undiagnosed measles (before the rash appears) and spread measles to an immunocompromised kid, the parents should be responsible. If these non-vaxxers tend to be wealthier, then they have assets to protect and might think twice.
While on the whole, most nurses are very intelligent and work hard to stay current in their knowledge, there are plenty of them who can amaze me with their ignorance.
^^^^ I completely agree. However, we have developed and accepted a system within our public education which shields parents and children from many of their actions. So, you can’t just pick vaccines and make that sub-group the recipients of uncomfortable effects. You would have to require the violent kids parents to pay for the extra costs of the personal Aide, The vegetarian parent for the extra cost of the vegetarian options, the celiac’s kids for the extra cost of keeping a completely gluten free section, the uncontrolled vocalizing kid to pay for the special accommodations, the parent of the child who can not use the regular restroom would have to pay for the installation of a special facility. If we’re willing to make everyone feel the financial and social effects of their stubbornness then, yes, let’s do it. If on the other hand picking one group and not all others - nope - that won’t work.
And, the immune-surpressed kids parents have every ability to shield their kid…don’t send them where there are sick people. The right of the immune suppressed doesn’t supersede the right of healthy non-vaccinated. At least not in the system we have set up for ourselves. Once someone gets sick there may be legal authority to quarantine them, but right now you can’t punish someone for what they MIGHT do to someone else. Again, a societal ethic based on relativity is just that - it’s all relative. And, crossing the line into punishment for what MIGHT happen …well…it doesn’t take a long trip down that thought path to see what legal mud pit it will land us in.
I would make the non-vaxxer parents civilly liable to the immunocompromised kid who got measles, not the school. That is, if you make an irresponsible decision not to vaccinate and your kid spreads measles to another kid, then it’s like driving irresponsibly, you pay for your negligence.
The celiac kid has a documented medical reason for this. The un-vaccinated boy with leukemia does too. Other things you mentioned (like choosing not to vaccinate and vegetarianism) are personal choices, and they should have consequences. And those vegetarian kids aren’t putting the other kids in the room at risk of deafness or death. Not the same thing at all.
@TatinG - that is an interesting analogy! Do you think we could have a portion of our health insurance that pays in case we cause health impacts to others ala driving? That would certainly raise rates on anti-vaxxers, along with smokers (who I believe already pay a lot more anyway).
@MamaBear16 - totally agree with you. Also, as the mom of a child with severe allergies, we always send our own food and the only accommodation is that the other kids in his classroom wash their hands after lunch which honestly should be a universal practice for second-graders.
ETA - there are kids whose allergies extend to airborne food particles, but I think accommodating that is totally reasonable, just not relevant to my kid.
If I were in charge, yes, non-vaxxers would pay more for health insurance. But the current law does not permit any raised rates except for smokers.
Civil cases have been brought for negligently spreading STD, AIDS and herpes. I think the same should/could apply to spreading measles or any other disease which vaccinations can prevent. The liability for sickness, hospitalizations, and any permanent consequences like deafness could be considerable. One large high profile verdict amounting to big dollars would definitely cause those wealthy Marin County parents to think twice.
Perhaps the ADA could go into effect. For the immunosuppressed child, the severely allergic child etc, where there’s a documented disability the school would have to provide services, and those services could include quarantining the unvaccinated children away from those whose lives they threaten.
So do we now put little signs around the kids neck - 'I’m not vaccinated". How about those cases in the news that were fully vaccinated and yet still got and spread the disease. Do we also identify school kids with AIDs. Yes, it’s less of a risk…but only if you know you are being put at risk. So, one would have to identify the child at all times as posing the risk. Should the immunocompromised also wear a sign…so that parents who’s kids aren’t vaccinated and who still wish to do the right thing can keep their kids away from the vulnerable. I can see it now…a new playground rule will be everyone must visibly show their vaccination/immuno/disease status.
The un-vaccinated have a documented reason - their parents personal beliefs. And right now as the law stands that reason is as valid as any one elses medical reason. Nonsensical, sure…but it is what we have set up for ourselves. To say it yet again, everyone is special and gets special consideration. No blanket rules for all - ever - there is always reason for exception.
The conflicts of legitimate special interests are sometimes very challenging to figure out. For example, my allergic child is also allergic to animals. We have been slated to go on airplane flights with people who have animals with them. The law according to what the gate agents have told me, is that if they are service animals (would that more of them were “service pigs” because they’re less allergenic ha ha) then the animal takes priority and we have to be moved to far seats or take another flight etc. However, if it’s not a service animal, the allergy takes priority.
How inconvenient for you. When one person’s legitimate special need, ie. service animal conflicts with another’s allergy on a flight, it seems that the airlines booking system could be changed to say something like “Alert. Service dog booked on this flight”. Then you could avoid it. Otherwise, it seems first to buy the ticket should get priority.
Sure. Even without an immunosuppressed kid, I’d want to know.
But parents’ wacko beliefs are not protected under the ADA. I might believe that sign language is the devil speaking, but that doesn’t mean people with hearing disabilities don’t have a right to interpreters.
SMH. Some of the comparisons on this thread are just nonsensical to me. How do you compare bathroom accommodations (or classroom accessibility issues) made for a wheelchair bound/handicapped child to accommodating a non-vaccinated kid who can potentially carry and infect others around him with known life threatening illnesses. Is being in a wheelchair contagious? No. Is a ramp for accessibility somehow impairing the able bodied from living and breathing? No. Will everyone benefit from that ramp? Yes (ask teachers who carry large boxes to and from their classrooms on a regular basis. Just kidding…kind of ;-))
We as a society need to stop this selfish crap right now, or else Darwinism will take down the ignorant and the innocent.
Yes, they are. Challenging enough when one uses a reasonable person standard, even more challenging when there is no limit to the number of special interest groups which can be created.
As to service animals…as a landlord in CA…you are NOT allowed to ask what the animal is for, you are NOT allowed to ask for any documentation as to the validity of the service animal. This is a privacy issue and asking for any info relating to the service animal/served human can make you liable for a whole host of lawsuits. Not sure how it works on airplanes.
BTW…those little ‘I’m a service animal’ jackets are available for purchase by anyone. Oh, llamas and miniature ponies make excellent service animals. I guess airline companies will need to be able to provide appropriate accommodations for these lovely critters.
@sally305…if your willing to hand a sign around the neck of an unvaccinated child in order to protect others, will you also add info as to any and all other possible disease transmission potentials…I for one would like to know if they have a canker sore on the way, or a feel a sore throat coming on. Strep throat could wreck havoc on an suppressed immune system. What about mono- if kid has a sibling in college…hey chances are pretty good they may be a risk for transmitting mono.
Again, you can’t just pick on one group…you got to treat everyone equally and hold their opinions and values in the same esteem as the next persons.
