zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,869
|
Post by zibazinski on Feb 5, 2015 17:19:33 GMT -5
And I'm still going after you if you bring your unvaccinated kid out to infect those who can't fight off the disease you're spreading.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Feb 5, 2015 17:21:57 GMT -5
Choosing to murder or to pay taxes is NOT akin to medical intervention... Not in my book. I think mandatory medical intervention sets a different kind of precedence. No one is dragging you down and sticking you full of mercury, you just can't send your kids to public school. Just like you can't work at a hospital unless you're current on your vaccines. No one is still physically demanding that they vaccinate. You're just not allowed to do some things unless you follow the rules of said thing.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 5, 2015 17:46:29 GMT -5
Fair enough. But if we're being honest, the statement "I'm not for forcing vaccines." isn't accurate. The most that can be said is that you tolerate not forcing vaccines under some circumstances. I don't fathom how people can so readily divorce their views on vaccination, wherefor they condone heavy-handed state interference "for the public good", from their views on that which shall not be named, where personal choice and freedom are so highly valued that they trump all other factors including life itself.
I can at least understand the mentality of the individual who values freedom of choice (i.e. keeping government "out of people's bodies") above the collective good of society, and is consistent in his/her priorities. I may not agree with their values, but I understand them. What I fail to understand is how reasonable people so readily rationalize around the glaring inconsistencies in their values when accommodating incompatible viewpoints (e.g. having witnessed the ravages of disease in an unvaccinated community first-hand and becoming convinced state intervention is necessary). It's as though they've never critically examined what they believe and why. Their values are simply a patchwork of rationalizations, omissions, and circular logic constructed with the express goal of justifying a pastiche of personal ideals. One's fundamental values shouldn't change based on context. Although many situations do admit relevant distinctions that avoid contradictions, this issue of whether or not the state has the fundamental right to invade citizens' bodies for the collective good of society isn't one of them. Nor can this be construed as a matter of degree, since the mortality of that which shall not be named is many orders of magnitude greater than the mortality toll due to unvaccinated children. I see no logical way to reconcile the schism between the two, and given the number of "It's complex." and "It's a sticky issue." non-answers in this thread, I'm definitely not alone. You don't fathom it because you aren't paying attention to the differences between the two situations. In this situation an unvaccinated child can pose a risk to others. Whereas, what a woman chooses to do with her body will never pose a risk to the health or safety of someone else's child.
This is about protecting the safety of others, which I put above freedom of choice. This is why if the family chooses to homeschool, then I don't care what they do as far as vaccinations. They are making that choice without impacting the safety of other public school children.
Why, pray tell, should we distinguish between the right of the state to intervene on behalf of children belonging to the parent and the right of the state to intervene on behalf of children not belonging to the parent. By that logic, the state should have no right to remove a child from the custody of an abusive parent, but should possess the right to forcibly medicate or expel hyperactive, snide, reckless, or bigoted children whose antics may seriously harm their peers, including provoking them to suicide. Explain to me how "government can protect Joe's children from you but not from Joe" is a reasonable standard, or one even partway reconcilable with the fact that the state very clearly has a mandate to protect Joe's children from Joe.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 3:01:09 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2015 17:57:40 GMT -5
Can you also then force add meds, etc ...?
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Feb 5, 2015 18:12:57 GMT -5
You don't fathom it because you aren't paying attention to the differences between the two situations. In this situation an unvaccinated child can pose a risk to others. Whereas, what a woman chooses to do with her body will never pose a risk to the health or safety of someone else's child.
This is about protecting the safety of others, which I put above freedom of choice. This is why if the family chooses to homeschool, then I don't care what they do as far as vaccinations. They are making that choice without impacting the safety of other public school children.
Why, pray tell, should we distinguish between the right of the state to intervene on behalf of children belonging to the parent and the right of the state to intervene on behalf of children not belonging to the parent. By that logic, the state should have no right to remove a child from the custody of an abusive parent, but should possess the right to forcibly medicate or expel hyperactive, snide, reckless, or bigoted children whose antics may seriously harm their peers, including provoking them to suicide. Explain to me how "government can protect Joe's children from you but not from Joe" is a reasonable standard, or one even partway reconcilable with the fact that the state very clearly has a mandate to protect Joe's children from Joe. The govt does protect children outside the womb. I am confusing all my threads, but somewhere I shared a story of someone where the court intervened & ordered a transfusion the parents would not allow on a newborn. The courts had to wait until the baby was born to intervene.
And personally, I see a huge difference between a fetus <12 weeks old & a child outside of the womb both in development & ability to survive without the need for a host. You may not see that distinction & that is fine. But don't assume my views are inconsistent just because I see distinctions where you do not.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Feb 5, 2015 18:16:13 GMT -5
Can you also then force add meds, etc ...? ADD is not a communicable disease. Not sure how a child not on ADD meds would affect the health or safety of others. How are people not seeing the difference?
It could provide a major disruption & at some point someone would have to do something to ensure that kid isn't disrupting the learning environment for an entire class. But that doesn't mean forcing meds. It could mean the school puts the kid in a more appropriate class or it could mean some other alternative solutions.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,869
|
Post by zibazinski on Feb 5, 2015 18:44:00 GMT -5
The peanut allergy kid isn't allowed to foist their issue on an entire school. They may eat in a safe place. You want to not vaccinate your child? Be prepared to have said child shunned and you possibly sued. Funny, I used to ask about weapons in someone 's home. Now I'd have to ask if you vaccinate or not.
|
|
Pants
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 19:26:44 GMT -5
Posts: 7,579
|
Post by Pants on Feb 5, 2015 18:52:41 GMT -5
They just announced a measles cluster among infants at a daycare near my house. These children were too young to be vaccinated. 5 confirmed cases, could be up.to 15 exposed.
This is why I vaccinate. This is why I will continue to vaccinate and why I continue to advocate for vaccinations. I consider it a moral imperative.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Feb 5, 2015 18:55:53 GMT -5
They just announced a measles cluster among infants at a daycare near my house. These children were too young to be vaccinated. 5 confirmed cases, could be up.to 15 exposed. This is why I vaccinate. This is why I will continue to vaccinate and why I continue to advocate for vaccinations. I consider it a moral imperative. Oh, man! I hope the little ones do okay. I imagine their parents are fit to be tied!
|
|
Pants
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 19:26:44 GMT -5
Posts: 7,579
|
Post by Pants on Feb 5, 2015 19:00:12 GMT -5
They just announced a measles cluster among infants at a daycare near my house. These children were too young to be vaccinated. 5 confirmed cases, could be up.to 15 exposed. This is why I vaccinate. This is why I will continue to vaccinate and why I continue to advocate for vaccinations. I consider it a moral imperative. Oh, man! I hope the little ones do okay. I imagine their parents are fit to be tied! I'm 23 weeks pregnant and I have a really hard time thinking about it, even in theory. I just can't even imagine.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 3:01:09 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2015 19:15:06 GMT -5
I will say for the most part the people I know who don't vac are not using public day cares and schools. I guess they might be a minority though. California seems to have a lot unvaccinated.
Just to reiterate. My kids are vaccinated. I'm not for mandatory vaccination though...
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Feb 5, 2015 19:27:29 GMT -5
They just announced a measles cluster among infants at a daycare near my house. These children were too young to be vaccinated. 5 confirmed cases, could be up.to 15 exposed. This is why I vaccinate. This is why I will continue to vaccinate and why I continue to advocate for vaccinations. I consider it a moral imperative. DS2's school just announced a change in policy due to this. No visitors or siblings will be allowed to enter the infant rooms. In addition anyone exposed to the measles who has not been immunized will not be allowed in the center for 21 days.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 5, 2015 19:54:23 GMT -5
So to play devil's advocate here. Aren't the people who aren't able to be medically vaccinated infringing on others rights? I mean if I'm (global me) forced to vaccinate because of all those who can't. Then isn't that an infringement of me? Those people can stay home/out of schools/etc. I get that they don't choose to be unable to get a vaccine, but why do they dictate what others do? It's the peanut butter allergy kid in the school lunchroom on a larger scale if you think about it. i brought it up because of how grey this entire area is. i think it really depends on how MUCH it compromises the safety of others for you to behave in a certain way. for example, let's say i juggle knives, and i need to practice a LOT. is it OK for me to practice on a crowded subway, where i am virtually guaranteed to injure non-consenting others? how much risk is associated with the "free" behavior, who is likely to get harmed, and how easy is it for others to avoid harm? those are the issues. i think the issue is especially strange when you are dealing with something that largely doesn't exist in the epidemiological sense.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 5, 2015 22:20:59 GMT -5
Why, pray tell, should we distinguish between the right of the state to intervene on behalf of children belonging to the parent and the right of the state to intervene on behalf of children not belonging to the parent. By that logic, the state should have no right to remove a child from the custody of an abusive parent, but should possess the right to forcibly medicate or expel hyperactive, snide, reckless, or bigoted children whose antics may seriously harm their peers, including provoking them to suicide. Explain to me how "government can protect Joe's children from you but not from Joe" is a reasonable standard, or one even partway reconcilable with the fact that the state very clearly has a mandate to protect Joe's children from Joe. The govt does protect children outside the womb. I am confusing all my threads, but somewhere I shared a story of someone where the court intervened & ordered a transfusion the parents would not allow on a newborn. The courts had to wait until the baby was born to intervene.
And personally, I see a huge difference between a fetus <12 weeks old & a child outside of the womb both in development & ability to survive without the need for a host. You may not see that distinction & that is fine. But don't assume my views are inconsistent just because I see distinctions where you do not.
Suffice it to say that the differences you've cited aren't relevant to the fundamental issue of the state's authority over the bodies of citizens. We'll leave it at that and move on. Consider that in the case of parents who eschew vaccination, there is no specific threat to compel the use of force. An unvaccinated child will in all likelihood never become ill with the disease targeted by the vaccine. If (s)he does happen to fall ill, the likelihood that (s)he'll infect other (vaccinated) children before being quarantined is marginal. Hence, taken individual by individual, the state has no basis whatsoever to claim that Jimmy Unvaccinated or Janey Unvaccinated are individually a threat to anyone. Only when we define a new class of people and base our decisions on a statistical profile of this class does the state inherit a compelling interest to intercede. One wonders how the freedom-loving, choice-loving denizens of YMAM would react to a state mandate targeting certain other classes of people "for the public good".
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,869
|
Post by zibazinski on Feb 6, 2015 7:33:56 GMT -5
The peanut allergy kid isn't allowed to foist their issue on an entire school. They may eat in a safe place. You want to not vaccinate your child? Be prepared to have said child shunned and you possibly sued. Funny, I used to ask about weapons in someone 's home. Now I'd have to ask if you vaccinate or not. We have had discussions here where parents were outraged that schools banned pb&j sandwiches because of allergy concerns. Heres ex one...how did everyone in this thread comment? ymam.proboards.com/thread/32316/allergy-parents-say-snacking-playgroundHere Zib..here's one of your comments about peanut allergies in another thread. ymam.proboards.com/thread/25894/school-lunchesAnd here... Interesting.... eta..im picking on you zib, because you were the last to respond, I suspect if I spent some time comparing the posters in this thread to the allergy ones I'd see more comments along this line. Well, I read your quote about my post and it has nothing to do with peanut allergies so I'm confused. Nevertheless my comments stand. The rights of a few do not outweigh the rights of the many.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 3:01:09 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2015 7:47:02 GMT -5
We have had discussions here where parents were outraged that schools banned pb&j sandwiches because of allergy concerns. Heres ex one...how did everyone in this thread comment? ymam.proboards.com/thread/32316/allergy-parents-say-snacking-playgroundHere Zib..here's one of your comments about peanut allergies in another thread. ymam.proboards.com/thread/25894/school-lunchesAnd here... Interesting.... eta..im picking on you zib, because you were the last to respond, I suspect if I spent some time comparing the posters in this thread to the allergy ones I'd see more comments along this line. Well, I read your quote about my post and it has nothing to do with peanut allergies so I'm confused. Nevertheless my comments stand. The rights of a few do not outweigh the rights of the many. Well, there goes the American Republic...
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,869
|
Post by zibazinski on Feb 6, 2015 7:54:18 GMT -5
?
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Feb 6, 2015 8:29:00 GMT -5
The govt does protect children outside the womb. I am confusing all my threads, but somewhere I shared a story of someone where the court intervened & ordered a transfusion the parents would not allow on a newborn. The courts had to wait until the baby was born to intervene.
And personally, I see a huge difference between a fetus <12 weeks old & a child outside of the womb both in development & ability to survive without the need for a host. You may not see that distinction & that is fine. But don't assume my views are inconsistent just because I see distinctions where you do not.
Suffice it to say that the differences you've cited aren't relevant to the fundamental issue of the state's authority over the bodies of citizens. Well the govt seems to disagree with you on that considering how the laws are written. As for the rest, there is almost no threat if vaccination rates are high. When they aren't then the threat becomes real. There are already states where the only exemptions for public school children are medical. Will be interesting to see if any other states change their laws.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,869
|
Post by zibazinski on Feb 6, 2015 8:44:37 GMT -5
Hope so but you can always find some quack that will do anything for money.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Feb 6, 2015 8:49:20 GMT -5
And as far as allergies... IMO, it is much easier to protect a single child from a known threat than a whole population from an unknown threat. You know if Jimmy is eating PB&J and shouldn't be sitting with Johnny. You don't know if Jimmy has been exposed to measles and who is the most vulnerable that might catch. So to me they are very different issues.
With very young kids you might have to limit food being brought from home, but every daycare I know of provides food and doesn't allow brought from home. With older kids a separate table usually is sufficient.
That is my opinion as someone with severe food allergies that has been hospitalized on several occasions due to them.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,869
|
Post by zibazinski on Feb 6, 2015 10:11:09 GMT -5
You have a child that for medical reasons cannot get immunized. That is one child. The other 99 per cent in childs room are vaccinated. Probably safe. You don't want to vaccinate your child due to some whackadoodle idea, no thank you to your child exposing others to your belief system. Sroo, your quotes from my posts just reinforce my point. It's one thing to isolate a child from lunch time because of THEIR issue. Do you expect an entire school to accommodate someone who chooses not to vaccinate their little "carrier" due to some bullshit philosophy? The backlash against these anti-vaxxers is long overdue. As a parent who could have my child, or myself, or a younger sibling contaminated because of you, fie on you. If my child died due to your negligence, I'd be coming after you with more than a lawsuit. To me, like drunk driving, it's premeditated murder.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 3:01:09 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2015 10:12:44 GMT -5
This is like the flu shot. I don't get the flu shot because I strongly believe in letting my body strengthen my immunity naturally. If I get the flu I don't make it a point to hug seniors, babies and the infirm but I don't feel responsible for them either. These illnesses are an act of nature. I did not create them. I have the right to choose how to protect my own health.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,869
|
Post by zibazinski on Feb 6, 2015 10:24:34 GMT -5
So you're okay if your flu virus causes them to die or become seriously ill? I realize you don't go out of your way to infect them but some people are not as considerate. It's funny how some old people in my EX's family thought I was a bitch for not bringing myself or my kids around them when they were sick so they could see my kids. Now that the old bastard got hospitalized with pneumonia , he's much pickier about who can visit him. Not that my kids or I even speak to him.
|
|
973beachbum
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:12:13 GMT -5
Posts: 10,501
|
Post by 973beachbum on Feb 6, 2015 10:27:53 GMT -5
I just want to point out that there actually is a miscule risk from the vaccine. the benefits of not having whooping cough or measles hospitalizing thousands and killing a large amount of people every year are vastly better. That isn't even what any person I have ever met who didn't want to vaccinate their child disagreed with.
The absolutely loved that their choices were basically risk free by virtue of everyone else taking the vaccine and providing their herd immunity to their kids. The problem now is some many people are refusing to have their kids vaccinated that there is no longer a herd immunity to fall back on.
I don't care how much someone doesn't want to take the small risk. Unless they are going to never leave their home ever, then they are absolutely going to have the ability to pass on whatever diseases they catch. And I'm not okay with that.
I am absolutely okay with telling someone they have no choice but to vaccinate if they want to live here.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,869
|
Post by zibazinski on Feb 6, 2015 10:36:04 GMT -5
We now have it in our public schools here. Measles and whooping cough. Traced to a few nut job families , UN named in the newspaper but everyone knows who the families are. Sadly enough, one of them tracks to the sister of DH's EX. Yes, they are different thinking. I actually thought they homeschooled. Unfortunately, the nuts have exposed others who for some reason have no immunity.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 6, 2015 10:47:28 GMT -5
Suffice it to say that the differences you've cited aren't relevant to the fundamental issue of the state's authority over the bodies of citizens. Well the govt seems to disagree with you on that considering how the laws are written. As for the rest, there is almost no threat if vaccination rates are high. When they aren't then the threat becomes real. There are already states where the only exemptions for public school children are medical. Will be interesting to see if any other states change their laws. Therein lies the rub. For loss of herd immunity we'd need tens of millions of parents electing not to vaccinate their children. If such is the case, this clearly isn't an issue of a few scattered non-conformers; it's a wholesale movement characterized by a loss of faith in the medical authorities. If, on the other hand, the necessary quorum of parents (85%, or thereabouts) persists in vaccinating their children, then the argument about "almost no threat" stands. We can't have it both ways.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,869
|
Post by zibazinski on Feb 6, 2015 10:58:00 GMT -5
One child has a possibility, a small one, if everyone else is immunized, of contaminating others. If ten percent are Un immunized as opposed to 99 percent being immunized, it gets uglier. I hope parents are demanding to know if there are unvaccinated students in the school and just why they aren't. I can't imagine being that stupid, both with my childs life and with others.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Feb 6, 2015 12:33:20 GMT -5
You have a child that for medical reasons cannot get immunized. That is one child. The other 99 per cent in childs room are vaccinated. Probably safe. You don't want to vaccinate your child due to some whackadoodle idea, no thank you to your child exposing others to your belief system. Sroo, your quotes from my posts just reinforce my point. It's one thing to isolate a child from lunch time because of THEIR issue. Do you expect an entire school to accommodate someone who chooses not to vaccinate their little "carrier" due to some bullshit philosophy? The backlash against these anti-vaxxers is long overdue. As a parent who could have my child, or myself, or a younger sibling contaminated because of you, fie on you. If my child died due to your negligence, I'd be coming after you with more than a lawsuit. To me, like drunk driving, it's premeditated murder. Or... Do you expect an entire school to accommodate someone who cannot vaccinate their little "carrier" due to some medical problem? **Again, please remember I'm playing devil's advocate here and am truly more interested in the reasoning behind advocating free choice for some things, but not for others** It isn't just about the one's that can't vaccinate. It is also about maintaining herd immunity. Vaccines aren't 100% effective, but you don't know who falls into the 1-5% who aren't protected. So, it is about protecting them as well. Then it is about protecting our society. We aren't going to force everyone in the general public to vaccinate just because. But, if we require certain vaccinations to attend public schools, then most will comply & we will maintain herd immunity levels of vaccination rates.
You are making it about 1 single kid. It isn't about 1 single kid. It is about the whole bigger picture. Doing this not only helps to protect that kid, but it also helps to protect siblings that aren't old enough to be vaccinated, it protects those few for whom the vaccinations didn't work & they don't even know. Hell, it protects the unborn from dying or being born with lifelong disabilities if their mother was unable to vaccinate. It protects us from an epidemic that could hospitalize thousands & cost lives.
Yes, 1 kid not getting the shot doesn't make the difference. But, when tons of kids don't get the shot because 'you don't need it if everyone else has had the shot', then immunity starts breaking down.
|
|
imanangel
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jun 8, 2014 12:18:00 GMT -5
Posts: 1,042
|
Post by imanangel on Feb 6, 2015 13:02:37 GMT -5
The smallpox vaccine should be voluntary and at the discretion of the parents. Apparently Rand Paul thinks so. Isn't he the guy that also believes that you can't get pregnant from a "legitimate" rape?
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Feb 6, 2015 13:03:06 GMT -5
Or... Do you expect an entire school to accommodate someone who cannot vaccinate their little "carrier" due to some medical problem? **Again, please remember I'm playing devil's advocate here and am truly more interested in the reasoning behind advocating free choice for some things, but not for others** It isn't just about the one's that can't vaccinate. It is also about maintaining herd immunity. Vaccines aren't 100% effective, but you don't know who falls into the 1-5% who aren't protected. So, it is about protecting them as well. Then it is about protecting our society. We aren't going to force everyone in the general public to vaccinate just because. But, if we require certain vaccinations to attend public schools, then most will comply & we will maintain herd immunity levels of vaccination rates.
You are making it about 1 single kid. It isn't about 1 single kid. It is about the whole bigger picture. Doing this not only helps to protect that kid, but it also helps to protect siblings that aren't old enough to be vaccinated, it protects those few for whom the vaccinations didn't work & they don't even know. Hell, it protects the unborn from dying or being born with lifelong disabilities if their mother was unable to vaccinate. It protects us from an epidemic that could hospitalize thousands & cost lives.
Yes, 1 kid not getting the shot doesn't make the difference. But, when tons of kids don't get the shot because 'you don't need it if everyone else has had the shot', then immunity starts breaking down.
Yep. They were interviewing a woman from Ottawa whose 5 yr old son had a heart transplant and can't get the vaccinations. She's absolutely terrified that going to school could kill him, because of people who listen to Jenny McCarthy and don't vaccinate, counting on herd immunity.
|
|