14
   

Should there be a penalty for not vaccinating yourself or your kids?

 
 
Irishk
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Jul, 2011 10:25 am
@OmSigDAVID,
I understand your point, too. I can see why California's law was written as it was and why it's important to them. I'm also assuming there won't be much consideration of changing it as long as the outbreaks are localized to just certain counties. If, on the other hand, they were faced with a state-wide outbreak of, say, measles or pertussis, it could be they'd start to think about amending it.

That's probably also true of the other states that make it easy to opt out.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Jul, 2011 10:28 am
@Irishk,
I question the jurisdiction
of any State to pump sickness into anyone 's blood.
Irishk
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Jul, 2011 10:48 am
@OmSigDAVID,
I got that Smile Your body is your temple!!
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Jul, 2011 10:53 am
@Irishk,
Irishk wrote:
I got that Smile Your body is your temple!!


mine too
http://www.raingod.com/angus/Gallery/Photos/Europe/Italy/Sicilia/images/SelinunteTemplo01.jpg
Razz
Irishk
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Jul, 2011 10:57 am
@djjd62,
Temple of doom???

Smile
0 Replies
 
CalamityJane
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Jul, 2011 02:13 pm
@Irishk,
Irishk wrote:

Linkat wrote:
Although those states may be the less vaccinated - what is the %?
This website says 86 percent of local children are fully immunized in San Diego County. I believe the CDC claims that vaccination rates of at least 93% are needed to ensure 'herd immunity' against pertussis.


Unfortunately the non-local kids, i.e. the illegal aliens are not vaccinated and we've had 9000 cases of pertussis in 2010 and already close to 2000 cases in 2011 so far - this is enough to cause great harm to the entire population. Adults, who contract pertussis, usually have it worse.

http://www.cdph.ca.gov/Pages/NR11-032.aspx
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Jul, 2011 05:48 pm
@CalamityJane,
Give a break Jane! You are spouting off bogus claims with no factual basis.

"Illegal aliens"? You apparently are getting your email from CIS rather than from the Family Research Council that says homosexuals are to blame and CCC who says it is "welfare queens".

How about at least doing a little research to find out whether your statement has any factual basis? Two minutes on Google was all it takes.

Quote:
Ken August, a spokesman for the California Department of Public Health, said state officials do not believe there is any connection between immigration and the whooping cough outbreak.

"We absolutely do not think either legal or illegal immigration has anything to do with the California pertussis epidemic," August said.

Public health officials, he said, have a number of reasons for reaching this conclusion. His response, edited for clarity, continues below:

Pertussis did not need to be imported into California. It's always been here.
Mexico does a great job vaccinating for pertussis. Until just a few years ago, Mexico was using the whole-cell vaccine, which is probably more effective than the acellular vaccine that has been used in the U.S. since the 1990s.
There is no pertussis outbreak/epidemic in Mexico.
Immunization rates in Hispanic children are high.
All adults, whether they are from the U.S. or Mexico, are likely to be susceptible to pertussis. A 2008 survey found that about 6% of U.S. adults stated they had received Tdap, a whooping cough inoculation for adolescents and adults that was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2005. The number is actually likely to be lower since the responses were not verified.
Hispanic infants are overrepresented among pertussis cases, but this discrepancy disappears after six months of age when most infants have received three doses of Dtap -- the vaccine for infants -- and are much less vulnerable to pertussis.
Overall rates of pertussis disease are highest in whites. We think Hispanic infants are overrepresented among young infants because they are more likely to live in larger households, per census data, and have more contacts. More contacts means more opportunities to be exposed to someone with pertussis.


http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/09/q-a-on-whooping-cough-are-immigrants-fueling-the-epidemic.html

It may seem like a good idea to blame one of the scapegoats of the day. But it isn't "illegal aliens" and it isn't "towelheads" or "queers" either.
CalamityJane
 
  3  
Reply Thu 21 Jul, 2011 05:59 pm
@maxdancona,
I live in San Diego, max, my daughter goes to high school where plenty of kids are bussed in from Hispanic areas and these kids have no SS# - and their parents are undocumented aliens. I don't care if these kids go to our schools, I do care about their health status though.

We live with these problems on a daily basis, and no it's not necessarily
Mexicans who are in this country illegally, they're from Colombia, Peru,
El Salvador and other S.A. countries....

Bogus claims? You're the nut cake here!



maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Jul, 2011 06:05 pm
@CalamityJane,
We are talking about Pertussis outbreak. You made the claim that "illegal aliens" were responsible in some way for the current Pertussis outbreak.

I am simply pointing out that, whatever problem you have illegal human beings, this particular claim is bogus.

The reason you would make up things that aren't true about "illegal aliens" probably isn't relevant to this thread.


CalamityJane
 
  3  
Reply Thu 21 Jul, 2011 06:11 pm
@maxdancona,
I didn't say that either, you're projecting as usual.
I said that most of them are not vaccinated and that's true. I did not say
that they're responsible for the pertussis outbreak - I did say that we have had an outbreak and that all kids entering school in September need to be vaccinated, period.

Now it's mandatory, regardless who you are, and rightfully so!
0 Replies
 
Robert Gentel
 
  2  
Reply Thu 21 Jul, 2011 06:14 pm
@boomerang,
I have never been vaccinated for anything, I've had to develop my immunity the old way, contracting whooping cough, measles etc as a kid. While I think it's stupid not to do so I'd disagree very strongly with punishing individuals for it (it isn't my fault that I wasn't immunized as a kid, and now that I had the damn diseases I don't feel like getting a paper for the sake of it) and am on the fence about parents being punished for it too (as much as I disagree with them it would take quite a bit of erosion of parental rights to protect kids from all bad decisions of this degree of severity).

Maybe I'd agree with punishment if I thought there were real harm being done, but a lot of times the harm is very very slight (e.g. less so that the dietary habits of many American kids, which is relevant in that I just saw that Joe recently asked if we should consider that kind of thing child abuse).

E.g. when I went to Colombia, I got stuck there in the airport because I found out that you need a vaccination for yellow fever to get back to Costa Rica after visiting much of South America. I specifically asked the airline about this and was told I didn't need to but it isn't their responsibility. Anyway, they have a vaccination post in the airport but that still wouldn't have suited as they make you wait 10 days after the vaccination. I couldn't afford to spend another 10 unplanned days on vacation in Colombia but a guy was there selling the documents for travelers in such a situation and I bought my document for a couple hundred bucks instead of getting stuck in Bogota. That feels a bit shady and if I'd known about it I'd have gotten the vaccine but now that I have the document (valid for many years) I don't feel like getting it and didn't bother for the next two trips to South America where I needed it.

Should I be punished for that? I personally don't think so, mainly because I don't see myself as putting the community at sufficiently greater risk to merit it. Is my take on the danger I am posing wrong (I admit to not being too sure about it)?
patiodog
 
  4  
Reply Thu 21 Jul, 2011 07:42 pm
@Robert Gentel,
I think the difference in your own situation, Robert, is that you are an adult, responsible for yourself.

It's a different question, I think, to hold a parent responsible for the well-being of their child. Does this mean I think they should be punished for not having their children vaccinated? No, I don't think that -- though frankly I wouldn't be too fussed if there were a minor penalty (the downside of that being that minor penalties almost always affect the poor disproportionately).

But the school question is a bit different from a question of punishing families or infringing on the rights of parents. Part of the task a public school is charged with is ensuring the welfare of their students while at that school. Since public schools are pretty much ideal incubation tanks for infectious disease, I think it is within their purview to require that a large enough percentage of their students be vaccinated to protect the group. Of course, the most equitable way to ensure this is to require that every student be vaccinated prior to entry of the school (give or take valid medical exceptions).

Imagine the fallout if one of these diseases flared through a school, and it was found that they were lax in enforcing mandated vaccination requirements, particularly if this resulted in the death or deaths of children. It could be a professional, political, and legal disaster for everyone involved.
Robert Gentel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Jul, 2011 07:48 pm
@patiodog,
patiodog wrote:
I think the difference in your own situation, Robert, is that you are an adult, responsible for yourself.


I know, but the question was: "Should there be a penalty for not vaccinating yourself or your kids?" I read that as also asking if we should punish grownups who don't get vaccinations. I'm already on the fence about kids, I think I'd be less inclined to punish adults for not getting vaccinated.
patiodog
 
  2  
Reply Thu 21 Jul, 2011 07:55 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Yeah, I just kind of figured it was moving on from there.

I'm also marginally coherent at best, it would seem.

But I do sort of feel that whether some degree of coercion is right or wrong from an abstract perspective, the real-life situation pretty much mandates that it be used.

And now that I'm thinking of travel -- I think there is a similar situation for any nation or international agency charged with combatting the spread of infectious disease. We pretty much all agree, I think, that laws ensuring safe cooperative use of roadways, harbors, airports, etc. are necessary for the general good as people travel between places. Well, what about doing what is possible and practical to ensure the public good from a biological perspective? To require individuals entering areas where, say, yellow fever is endemic to be vaccinated prior to arrival is not just a question of the individual's safety, but of curbing the spread of disease throughout the globe.

Just pondering, anyway...
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Jul, 2011 08:05 pm
@Robert Gentel,
I've been vaccinated for all sorts of things, being a bacteriology major, a lalapalooza of vaccines, but not for the usual, as I'm older, more the esoteric stuff, like paratyphoid. Whatever we would be exposed to in path lab class, which was a lot, I just don't remember the data.

I was never vaccinated for measles, mumps, or whooping cough. Was for diphtheria and polio and small pox as a kid.

I had one set of measles, which I'll just guess to be rubella. the shorter one. That seemed like a few days in my aunt's bed. I had scarlet fever, quarantined for it. That was longer. I never had mumps or whooping cough or chicken pox.
The life of the only child who cleaned kindergartens.

It occurred to me recently that I could use being vaccinated for pertussis, and asked, but it's not available at my clinic.

I'd toss this off except that one of my cousins' husband died of the measles at something like 42, now a long time ago.




Missed the last few posts.
I haven't been all so interested in punishment but am not clear on my thinking on that. I remember some pretty strong iron days of the past.
I don't know that you are wrong, Robert. I do have a view, fairly squishy, that governments can have a role to play in all this, but I was much against a couple of the last world fear WHO flares even to start with.

I pay attention to Pdog. He is most up on stuff.

Robert Gentel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Jul, 2011 08:08 pm
@patiodog,
patiodog wrote:

Yeah, I just kind of figured it was moving on from there.

I'm also marginally coherent at best, it would seem.


I only read the OP, so it may well have.

Quote:
We pretty much all agree, I think, that laws ensuring safe cooperative use of roadways, harbors, airports, etc. are necessary for the general good as people travel between places.


I think it probably all comes down to what you consider "necessary". And I'm not arguing that it is or isn't I really don't know what would cross that line for me. I don't personally think all vaccines are but I'm sure some have been in certain cases.

Quote:
Well, what about doing what is possible and practical to ensure the public good from a biological perspective? To require individuals entering areas where, say, yellow fever is endemic to be vaccinated prior to arrival is not just a question of the individual's safety, but of curbing the spread of disease throughout the globe.


I think preventing the spread is certainly the point of the Costa Rican requirement. They don't require that you vaccinate yourself to go, only to get back in their country (which is why I ended up having to choose in Bogota between buying the doc or staying there another 10 days) but while admitting to not knowing I strongly suspect that Bogota, Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paulo aren't really that much of a yellow fever hotspot. I could, of course, be wrong but my guess was that those rules were aimed at regions of those countries like the Amazon and didn't feel like I was endangering the public good much.

But in theory I agree, if someone is endangering the public good beyond a certain degree I agree with some degree of coercion. And I'm genuinely curious as to whether any vaccines I don' t have may qualify.

patiodog
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Jul, 2011 08:10 pm
@ossobuco,
Oh, I ain't up on nothing, osso, outside the doggies and kitties. I just enjoy the bloviatin'.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Jul, 2011 08:14 pm
Sinclair Lewis' Arrowsmith, anyone? Yellow fever involved in the scenario.
0 Replies
 
patiodog
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Jul, 2011 08:18 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Quote:
But in theory I agree, if someone is endangering the public good beyond a certain degree I agree with some degree of coercion. And I'm genuinely curious as to whether any vaccines I don' t have may qualify.


Well, I think that's the tricky bit. If you're vaccinating a population against an endemic disease, individuals don't much matter. One person sidestepping the requirement doesn't matter, every other person sidestepping it matters a great deal. So punishing the individual seems draconian, but forgoing punishment invites failure.

Here's a thought, and surely it's already being employed to some degree all over the place: make it more onerous to go without the vaccine than to receive it. Require five times the paperwork and bureaucratic runaround to enrol an unvaccinated child than a vaccinated child. Have the processing time for a request to enter sans vaccine be longer than the 10 days required for the vaccine to be effective (doesn't, of course, have any bearing on those who purchase forged or misbegotten papers).
Robert Gentel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Jul, 2011 08:25 pm
@patiodog,
patiodog wrote:
Well, I think that's the tricky bit. If you're vaccinating a population against an endemic disease, individuals don't much matter. One person sidestepping the requirement doesn't matter, every other person sidestepping it matters a great deal. So punishing the individual seems draconian, but forgoing punishment invites failure.


Sure, but maybe I can make my question more specific, what all do you guys in the US, for example, get vaccinated for? I don't even know what vaccines I would have normally had there.

Are there any you guys get that you think I should get for example (I might be headed stateside next trip, any diseases you want to eliminate me as being the vector for)?

Quote:
Here's a thought, and surely it's already being employed to some degree all over the place: make it more onerous to go without the vaccine than to receive it. Require five times the paperwork and bureaucratic runaround to enrol an unvaccinated child than a vaccinated child. Have the processing time for a request to enter sans vaccine be longer than the 10 days required for the vaccine to be effective (doesn't, of course, have any bearing on those who purchase forged or misbegotten papers).


Yeah, I was thinking about it, but that case is what made me pause too. That they had the 10-day wait for those without the vaccine made me circumvent it. But I'm with you in principle, those are just details. They should probably ditch the 10-day requirement and I would have gotten the vaccine then and there if they want to motivate me optimally but I'm not sure if that largely invalidates their reason for it in the first place (i.e. if by waiving the 10-day requirement they are largely rendering it useless).

I wonder if paying people to get a vaccine could also help motivate some. I wouldn't be swayed by what they could reasonably offer for it and for me convenience is the bigger motivation but I wonder if some of these parents who don't vaccinate their kids could be enticed to in addition to trying the coercion. The carrot and the stick so to speak.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/01/2022 at 09:28:49