I'm not arguing vaccines are a bad idea. I think they are a good thing. But I think the parent should have some input... Public awareness of how good vaccines are for kids and how they are good for public health is a great idea... I don't think there is anything extraordinary about resorting to freedom.Watch the video for the point where he drops in this line...
I've heard of many tragic cases of walking, talking normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines....... and severely undercuts his message that vaccines are a good idea. That's going to jump right out and scare the bejeezus out of parents who haven't accepted vaccines.
I got to that link via a NYT article about how "[t]he politics of medicine, morality and free will have collided in an emotional debate over vaccines and the government’s place in requiring them, posing a challenge for Republicans who find themselves in the familiar but uncomfortable position of reconciling modern science with the skepticism of their core conservative voters." That article goes through the differing positions of various GOP candidates. Reading those positions, I think it's clear what the safest one is:
Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin, also a possible 2016 candidate, was asked on Sunday about vaccinations on the ABC News program “This Week,” and insisted that the science was clear and convincing. “Study after study has shown that there are no negative long-term consequences,” he said. “And the more kids who are not vaccinated, the more they’re at risk and the more they put their neighbors’ kids at risk as well.”Hey! Wait a minute! I went to the link to the "This Week" transcript and those quotes are all from Dr. Thomas Friedman, the CDC Director! Scott Walker was interviewed on that show, but the topic of vaccines didn't come up. Is the NYT trying to help Scott Walker seem like the sensible middle-of-the-road guy here... or is it just screwing up?
Anyway, I think it would be good for GOP candidates to say something like what Dr. Friedman said and Scott Walker hasn't said (yet). Stick to the strength of the science and the reasons for getting vaccinations. Steer away from the subject of forced vaccinations — unless you're making a conscious choice to get onto the libertarian track and say "The state doesn't own our children. Parents own the children." (Is that the libertarian track — children owned by parents? Owned or not — we do need to trust parents with their children, but few of us will trust parents completely.)
UPDATE: The NYT has now corrected the misattributed quote.
Posts
117 comments:
If parents own their children, why are the rest of us called upon to pay through the nose for their birth and education? I say, Whoever pays the piper calls the dance.
I'm not sure that many of you are in touch with one of the problems. I live in public school district rich in immigrant children. I walked my kids through high school registration a couple years ago. The waiting and delays took the better part of the morning because so many kids weren't up on vaccinations (mine were). The problem was, where were the parents supposed to get their kids vaccinations? How were they supposed to pay for it?
Maybe they could mention the risk factor involved in illegal immigration.
There's a pool of untracked children with impossible-to-verify health status who may be bringing in all sorts of diseases.
Diseases which are rare or nonexistent in a culture that has vaccinated its children for more than 40 years.
It's not xenophobia or immigration-hating to want these people to follow the laws.
Especially if that means that Immigration gets to stop them at the border and test for oddball diseases. Or at least stop-at-the-border and ask them about their health status.
Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust Fund
"The Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust Fund provides funding for the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program to compensate vaccine-related injury or death claims for covered vaccines administered on or after October 1, 1988.
Funded by a $0.75 excise tax on vaccines recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for routine administration to children."
jimbino said...If parents own their children, why are the rest of us called upon to pay through the nose for their birth and education? I say, Whoever pays the piper calls the dance.
But you are notoriously childless around here with no thought for the morrow except for who goes to National Parks.
""The Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust Fund provides funding for the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program to compensate vaccine-related injury or death claims for covered vaccines administered on or after October 1, 1988."
So Paul isn't necessarily wrong, then?
This subject reminds me of the Onion survey:
"98% of Commuters Favor Public Transit For Everybody Else"
"Owned or not — we do need to trust parents with their children, but few of us will trust parents completely."
Trust but verify. But don't trust completely until the verification process is completed... and re-completed...
The verification process might take as many as 26 years.
There's the is it a good idea question, and there's the is it constitutional question.
It's constitutional if it's public health related, preventing epidemics for instance; it's a good idea depending on the vaccine.
Rand Paul was owned by his total asshole, 100% conman, father, and that childhood seems not to have harmed him very much. The Paul family lived well off the publication and sale of paranoia inducing John Birch Society insider tips that destroyed many weak minded people.
Vaccination Verification Panels
As a rationalist Libertarian, this truly divides me. I absolutely believe kids should get vaccinated, but cannot support the concept of even more government nanny-ism.
Too much familial control has already been claimed by the State.
Autism is explained pretty well by assortitive mating. Bosses no longer marry secretaries, they marry other bosses.
Smart apparently increases the risk of autism.
"Scott Walker was interviewed on that show, but the topic of vaccines didn't come up"
Now they'll accuse Scott Walker of plagerism.
Chicklite, most cities have free or reduced cost vaccination clinics. Several years ago I took my daughter to one because I couldn't get into her regular doctor, it was in the rough part of town I'd never been to before. She needed a meningitis vaccine newly required by state law in order to start school. I paid around fifteen dollars for it.
Paul's fear mongering on vaccines is a low point for him. Libertarianism doesn't demand this particularly nutty statement.
"The United States has the highest number of mandated vaccines for children under 5 in the world (36, double the Western world average of 18), the highest autism rate in the world (1 in 150 children, 10 times or more the rate of some other Western countries), but only places 34th in the world for its children under 5 mortality rate.
What’s going on?"http://www.smartvax.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=66
I'm concerned about the growing number of vaccines administered. Why the disparity between the US and other developed countries?
I'm not anti-vaccine, but I think the vaccine should be based on the real-world risk of contracting the disease.
“And the more kids who are not vaccinated, the more they’re at risk and the more they put their neighbors’ kids at risk as well.”
I'm no doctor, but if the neighbors' kids are vaccinated, they have nothing to fear from the unvaccinated, right?
I watched the CNBC interview. It seems to me that his specific objection was to a Hepatitis B vaccine being given to his newborn. Since this disease is spread by sexual intercourse and blood transfusions, his objection in that specific case was rational.......However, he did put up a word fog around the vaccination issue. Is he saying that it should be voluntary and that all well informed citizens should have their children vaccinated? There's the flack factor. Lots of smart people are flaky and will opt out of vaccination programs. They will put their children at risk.
Who has "ownership" is a stupid way to approach the issue. Who is ultimately responsible for the health and well-being of a child is a much better way to approach the question.
The answer is the same, of course. Parents must be ultimately responsible for children until they can be responsible for themselves, or each and every one of us starts, lives, and ends life as wards of the State.
Real American said...
“And the more kids who are not vaccinated, the more they’re at risk and the more they put their neighbors’ kids at risk as well.”
I'm no doctor, but if the neighbors' kids are vaccinated, they have nothing to fear from the unvaccinated, right?
Not necessarily. Vaccines are seldom 100% effective for 100% of the people who take them.
Personally, I'm a big fan of vaccines, but I encourage parents to work with their physicians to determine what vaccinations to give to their children. One size does not fit all, be it in clothing, schooling, or medicine. Some children do have health issues that prevent them from being vaccinated. There is a non-zero risk associated with most vaccines and parents should have the information to make informed decisions.
I watched excerpts of this interview on MSNBC. Their take away from it was that he bullied the female interviewer and that he's against vaccination.
"Real American", please note that sarcasm is not an easy thing to wield in print form. Was your question a serious one, or are you doing a bad job at being funny?
CDC says measles reported in Az, Ca, Co, Il, Mn, Mi, SD, Tx, Ut, Wa
I would be interested in seeing if there is correlation to illegal immigrant population (noted in 2010 census to be high in Tx, Ca, Az, Il, Wa, not so much in Ut, Wa, Mn, Mi) since I would expect less vaccination in Mexico & South America.
Why is this a Republican problem?
I get that Rand Paul is all about free choice, and I agree with him, even with vaccines (and yes, I vaccinate all my children---even the unnecessary ones). But the NYT is playing a game of political gotcha, when the reality is that anti-vaxxers are a bipartisan group.
This is getting to be beyond dumb. We're entering hysterical territory right now with the press.
If you want more people to vaccinate their children at least pretend to think about how to achieve that goal. Does calling everyone who notes that there are rare complications with vaccines names and demanding that we use the government monopoly on force to take kids out of homes and forcibly vaccinating them sound like the best way to accomplish this? This is how we end up in a police state.
Have employers require their employees be vaccinated. Have schools require students be vaccinated.(parents have to be able to choose the school though) The larger the entity you use to require vaccination the more kids will not be vaccinated.
As a rationalist Libertarian, this truly divides me. I absolutely believe kids should get vaccinated, but cannot support the concept of even more government nanny-ism.
I think that requiring it for public schools (perhaps with some exemptions, but limited) is a good compromise. If parents wish to not have their kids vaccinated, they should be free to do so, but have to bear the burden of that choice by making some other accommodations in terms of education.
Nothing that Paul said was wrong, but I do wish that he hadn't used the "heard of tragic cases" line quite like that - as a person with medical training, he could have phrased it better in terms of acknowledging that there are some risks, but that the positives greatly outweigh them, rather than saying something so open to attack and misinterpretation.
Why not offer a one-time-per-child tax credit to parents who vaccinate their children? Along with a coordinated media campaign, featuring actual scientists and doctors, laying out the truth about the risk of vaccination. Yes, it might not work. Yes, it could potentially be harmful (in a literally miniscule number of cases), but the dangers of not getting vaccinated are worse than the alternative. And point out to the people that Jenny McCarthy is a total boob in need of a serious reduction.
"But the NYT is playing a game of political gotcha, when the reality is that anti-vaxxers are a bipartisan group."
That's not true. Democrats were the party that insisted companies be allowed to be sued for vaccines causing autism and most anti-vaxxers are whole foods hippies.
I'm concerned about the growing number of vaccines administered. Why the disparity between the US and other developed countries?
I think it's because it's "easier" to give them all at a young age. As kids age, they become less likely to see a doctor. So shoot them all up at a young age for every possible preventable disease.
There's also this desire in the USA to reduce risk to 0, as if that could ever happen.
Since this thread is being continued:
I think have decided to think that school distrcts, etc. should require kids to be vaccinated, but then they should not also be allowed to require attendance, such that the bureaucrats' way out would be to send the cops to handcuff the kids and bring them in for forcible vaccinations.
And I definitely think the Federal Government should stay out of it. State governments are more observable and subject to criticism.
And the CDC has not exactly covered itself with glory in later years.
The smell of politics around their weaselly statements and actions about something as serious as the recent domestic Ebola scare bothered me a lot.
And how come we do not even hear about how Ebola still rages in Africa anymore?
Children owned by parents is okay if parents are owned by children. The relationship is reciprocal.
She is my daughter / she is my mother.
You get out of the reciprocal relationship by disowning.
She disowned her daughter.
Birches said...
(and yes, I vaccinate all my children---even the unnecessary ones)
Which of your children do you consider the unnecessary ones?
Lefties love science when it suits them, but have no problem rejecting it when it doesn't. Like anything to do with fracking, oil production, sand mining, or modern agriculture.
"I'm no doctor, but if the neighbors' kids are vaccinated, they have nothing to fear from the unvaccinated, right?"
Some babies are still too young to be vaccinated and some people are too sick so they are the ones who are put at risk because of some parents refusal to get their children vaccinated.
I'm a big proponant of individual freedom, but when one's personal freedoms conflict with many other peoples lives and health I think the public interest overrules those freedoms. It's why I've never had an issue with the laws and punishments associated with things like drunk driving. There is a clear distinction to me between basic freedoms and when your own actions put a lot of other peoples lives in danger. Vaccination of children should probably be mandatory, but in an ideal world it wouldn't have to be. Also, in an ideal world we would be able to always implicitly trust the recommendations of health officials without question.
"Lefties love science when it suits them, but have no problem rejecting it when it doesn't. Like anything to do with fracking, oil production, sand mining, or modern agriculture."
What does this mean?
It seems to me that his specific objection was to a Hepatitis B vaccine being given to his newborn.
Are they requiring hep b for newborns now? That does seem ridiculous.
Vaccines are a public health good, but that doesn't mean that they are all the same. Everybody in the US doesn't need the yellow fever vaccine, or the flu vaccine every year necessarily. You have to evaluate the risk/rewards on each disease and population group.
And some kids can't have vaccines for medical reasons. And yes, vaccinations have small but real risks. IF that is all paul was saying, than he is totally right.
I think we have a reasonable compromise in requiring certain vaccines, absent medical reasons, for school children.
...but few of us will trust parents completely
Fewer still would trust the federal government at all.
The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program statistical report can be found at http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/statisticsreport.pdf and shows around 200-350 claims decided in favor of the claimant annually in recent years.
Around 75% of the claims are rejected.
There are details in the report on claims for each type of vaccination covered as well as financial and claims data.
Vaccination presumably benefits both the person undergoing vaccination as well as the general public via 'herd immunity.' The risk of death or injury, on the other hand, is borne completely by the person receiving the vaccine, albeit with the possibility of compensation for the death or injury.
Not at all clear to me how to balance personal risk against benefits to the diffuse public. However, it's not irrational to decide, at least with respect to those diseases that are not so dangerous, that the personal risk outweighs the total benefit.
Why is it Republicans they are focusing on when it's liberals who aren't vaccinating their children?
On Puffington Host, I saw an article on mandated kidney donations. I thought libtards said our bodies were our own.
Nathan Robinson PhD student, Harvard University- Could Government-Mandated Kidney Donation be a Good Thing?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathan-robinson/could-governmentmandated-_b_6585126.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592
Best meme I've seen on this: If I can't send peanut butter to school with my kid because your kid might die, why can you send to school an un-vaccinated kid that might end up killing mine?
"Robert Cook said...
"Lefties love science when it suits them, but have no problem rejecting it when it doesn't. Like anything to do with fracking, oil production, sand mining, or modern agriculture."
What does this mean?"
What are you confused about. I think it's pretty clear what I mean.
Are they requiring hep b for newborns now? That does seem ridiculous.
Isn't that the one they put in the baby's eyes right after birth? They don't ask for permission or tell you they are doing it, but I believe you can tell them ahead of time that you don't want it. That's one of the unnecessary vaccines I allow my children to receive, IiB.
Shouldn't the NYT be going after Dr. Sears and Jenny McCarthy, not Rand Paul and Chris Christie?
Whooping Cough is a dangerous childhood disease.
My brother as a baby suffered brain damage from whooping Cough because he coughed so hard, my mother said he was never the same after that and he was never able to learn to read or write though he did manage to live a fairly good life, although it was a hard life.
I'm pretty much in agreement with Paul and Christie but I do have contempt for the ignorant irresponsible Hollywood liberals who refused to get their children vaccinated.
Shouldn't the NYT be going after Dr. Sears and Jenny McCarthy, not Rand Paul and Chris Christie?
Has anyone asked Hillary Clinton her opinion?
Good Christ. Is vaccinations going to be the tar baby that "legitimate rape" was for the GOP in 2012? Another issue for Republican candidates to blunder into so they can alienate mainstream Americans?
I get that the media is going to give the GOP a hard time in 2016. But why make it so damn easy for them???
Any Republican candidate should make it clear that only nut cases do not get their children immunized. No Republican is going to get a single vote from the nut case cohort that is anti-vaccination. Not one.
So there is no risk, for once, in being honest. There is no need to cowtow to lunies. None.
Whooping Cough is a dangerous childhood disease.
Mom's cousin died from it in the 1930s. He was an only child. I'm not sure if Great Aunt Emily ever recovered from the loss.
"What are you confused about. I think it's pretty clear what I mean. "
It's not clear.
Autism is explained pretty well by assortitive mating. Bosses no longer marry secretaries, they marry other bosses.
Smart apparently increases the risk of autism.
I don't think that it is smart, per se, but rather, a particular part of smart, which Baron-Cohen calls "systemizing". Which means that it is supposedly more likely when two engineers marry, than two liberal arts majors.
Here's how the GOP politicians need to respond on this vaccine issue: "vaccinate your kids. Full Stop." Feel the urge to discuss balancing parental rights? Want to air the other side of this phony controversy? Avoid the temptation!
Enough with the unforced errors.
Christie said the right thing, but then he kept talking.
Rush Limbaugh is nailing this subject during his opening monologue today.
The cult of Herbal Remedies has long been at war with traditional Medicine and its DRUGS.
Too bad that paranoia was so easy to transfer to vaccines which are proven science and not medical guess work.
But that is how easy it is to capture weak minded paranoid folks, continuing a long Paul Family tradition. Rand needs to quit using his Daddy's tricks.
EMD said...
So Paul isn't necessarily wrong, then?
Of course not. The MSM is just being its typical insidious self (especially the NYT).
Institute of Medicine sez: "Adverse Effects of Vaccines...finds that while no vaccine is 100 percent safe, very few adverse events are shown to be caused by vaccines."
The Vaccine Injury Table shows what qualifies by default. There are only about 200-400 cases compensated each year, out of millions of vaccinations. (But the whole things is lawyers+government, which is a terrible combo for determining any sort of objective truth.)
Then there's the fact that it still debatable whether flu vaccines do anything; their apparent positive epidemiological results may be due mostly or entirely to the fact that healthier people are more likely to get vaccinated. Plus those pesky disease organisms keep mutating...
So maybe the best course someone could take regarding vaccines for human-communicable diseases (i.e. not tetanus) might be for everyone else to have them, but not that someone (hence the Onion reference).
The typical anti vaxer is a Whole Foods shopping, anti GMO, pro organic bobo.
How exactly is this an issue for Republican politicians?
The reason the media is asking this of GOP politicians is that the GOP has already been painted as "anti-science" and "faith based" nuts, due to questioning the conventional wisdom on global warming and evolution. It's not exactly fair (as the issue of GW isn't whether it's happening but what is causing it or what can be done to fix it, and most Republican voters believe in evolution while some believe in it while also accepting some theory of creationism at the same time) but it is a charge the Left has been able to stick the GOP with. This was made worse when you had Todd Akin utter something about how a woman getting raped is unlikely to get pregnant.
So this vaccine issue presents an opportunity to let mainstream Americans see the Left as the home for anti-science nuts for a change, and due to some "split the baby" gaffes Christie and Paul are flubbing it. This is not a good news cycle for the GOP, and they need to turn this around.
"I'm no doctor, but if the neighbors' kids are vaccinated, they have nothing to fear from the unvaccinated, right?"
Quite right. But as was pointed out this morning on National Proletarian Radio, if unvaccinated kids are kept out of school to protect the immunocompromised ones, the latter would also be barred from school by the policy.
I've heard of many tragic cases of walking, talking normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines
Rand Paul continues to be an idiot.
Yes, you've "heard of" those cases, Mr. Paul.
(And I say this as a little-l libertarian who is generally positive on Mr. Paul's policy prescriptions.
But that doesn't make him smart or a good politician.
Because he isn't, honestly.)
jimbino:
I don't think it's as simple as "quite right," though. If your kids are vaccinated there's no way to tell if that vaccine will be effective--the vaccine failure rates are in the 10% range for many diseases and that's not likely to improve (witih such a large population you're bound to have idiosynratic reactions, etc). If all vaccines were 100% effective all the time then we'd really only have to worry about people who had medical cause to not be vaccinated (young, already sick, that sort of thing). But since vaccines aren't 1005 effective and further since there's not an easy way to tell if the vaccine will be effective for any given person, a big part of the effectiveness of a vaccination program relies crucially on herd immunity--on widespread adoption of the vaccine!
"I'm no doctor, but if the neighbors' kids are vaccinated, they have nothing to fear from the unvaccinated, right?"
"Quite right. But as was pointed out this morning on National Proletarian Radio, if unvaccinated kids are kept out of school to protect the immunocompromised ones, the latter would also be barred from school by the policy."
Its not right because some babies are still too young to be vaccinated and others can't be vaccinated because of a medical reason and they are the ones who will be at risk. Also, school is just one place children can be exposed.
"
Why is it Republicans they are focusing on when it's liberals who aren't vaccinating their children?"
Because its' liberal media that is now pushing the meme that it's Republicans being against vaccinations.
When we all know it's people who shop at Whole Foods, and want organic and protest and GMO's.
It's Hollywood types like Jenny Mcccarthy pushing the anti vaccine crap, not mainstream republicans.
"I'm no doctor, but if the neighbors' kids are vaccinated, they have nothing to fear from the unvaccinated, right?"
Quite right.
Both of whom above are ignorant of "herd immuninity".
The only good news for people who want to encourage vaccinations is that now that the fucking New York Times has an issue they can use to attack the GOP they'll be fighting for vaccinations and portraying anyone who opposes them as antiscience. Nevermind that a large portion of the anti-vaxers are super liberal assholes on the coasts--it's all the fault of those knuckledragging science-hating Republicans.
It's not xenophobia or immigration-hating to want these people to follow the laws.
Especially if that means that Immigration gets to stop them at the border and test for oddball diseases. Or at least stop-at-the-border and ask them about their health status.
Or at least note on the asylum application "coughing blood".
Looks like the Anti-vaxxers are clustered in Obama's target demographic:
"When Seth Mnookin began his definitive book The Panic Virus on the anti-vaccine movement, he was inspired to do so by encountering the beliefs among “our peers… they lived in college towns like Ann Arbor and Austin or sophisticated urban centers like Boston and Brooklyn; they drove Priuses and shopped at Whole Foods. They tended to be self-satisfied, found it difficult to conceive of a world in which their voices were not heard, and took pride in being intellectually curious, thoughtful, and rational.”
Gotta admit this is an issue that makes me angry even as someone without kids. To think about the untold millions of people who died over the course of human evolution, of parents helplessly watching their children die, of all the time and devotion and work that went into figuring out a way to prevent these horrible diseases from causing harm...and now these unbelievably entitled idiots want to piss that away. Just as they don't realize how lucky they are to live in a rich world with the material wealth they have, so to do they ignore everything that went into making things like measles or chicken pox "no big deal." Read any letter from the early twentieth century (much less the Civil War)between family members--one of the first topics is almost always health, how the kids are doing, who has died, etc. Antibiotics, vaccines, and immunity aren't gifts from some benevolent goddess Gaia, we earned their protection with the toil of many and the deaths of untold millions. People who so contemptuously denigrate those accomplishments really piss me off.
I'm a fan of individual liberty. If you want to forego modern conveniences, hard-won as they were, fine, be Amish, that's your choice and you can live that way apart from us. Leftists are constantly telling us we're supposed to give more of what we have to the less fortunate, that it's our responsibilty to work and have our earnings redistributed because we have it so good and others need what we have, that it's our duty to sacrifice for the greater good. But when it comes to vaccines they've decided they only want the benefits and sacrifice is something other people do--they want to live within society and send their kids to public school (not split off like the Amish) but not subject their own kids to the tiny risk getting vaccinated poses, all while reaping the benefits of all those other parents and kids (now and in the past) who did.
For all the shit we can't control in life, all the things we can't protect kids from, all the problems we can't solve, it seems damn near criminal to me that as a society (as a species!) we'd voluntarily give up a pretty good solution.
instapudit is doing a great job pointing out the hypocricy of the left. But this one link is pretty funny,since it has a map showing where all the cases are originating:
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/features/los-angeles-vaccination-rates/
That's right. In CAlifornia. In all the rich liberal schools. This is rich liberals (probably white)pushing the anti vaccination crap. Same people that are constantly arguing against GMO's and pushing organic foods.
"An examination by The Hollywood Reporter of immunization records submitted to the state by educational facilities suggests that wealthy Westside kids — particularly those attending exclusive, entertainment-industry-favored child care centers, preschools and kindergartens — are far more likely to get sick (and potentially infect their siblings and playmates) than other kids in L.A. The reason is at once painfully simple and utterly complex: More parents in this demographic are choosing not to vaccinate their children as medical experts advise. They express their noncompliance by submitting a form known as a personal belief exemption (PBE) instead of paperwork documenting a completed shot schedule."
But now the NYT wants to pose this as Republcans being anti vaccines.
Vaccinate your kids you dingbat liberals.
AustinRoth wrote:
As a rationalist Libertarian, this truly divides me. I absolutely believe kids should get vaccinated, but cannot support the concept of even more government nanny-ism.
Aren't you a nanny stater then?
There is a difference between a rich stupid liberal in a fab city being anti-vax and a potential presidential nominee speaking on the issue.
But go with it. It will make you feel better. When a democrat poli goes anti-vax then you can all go crazy.
"I'm no doctor, but if the neighbors' kids are vaccinated, they have nothing to fear from the unvaccinated, right?"
Quite right. But as was pointed out this morning on National Proletarian Radio, if unvaccinated kids are kept out of school to protect the immunocompromised ones, the latter would also be barred from school by the policy.
This is actually quite wrong.
The problem is, vaccines are not all equal. We're currently on our third different vaccine for measles.
In order to be inoculated against measles, you're supposed to get your shots three times. First before you're 18 months, which a lot of parents do, then again around age 6, which people forget, especially those who don't have insurance or go to the doctor regularly, and then again at adulthood.
The CDC lumps all non vaccinated people into two categories. One of those categories is "Religious, moral or personal reasons".
What does that even mean? Are personal reasons, "Oh, I totally forgot to get to the doctor because I was too busy doing other things with my life"??
You'd be surprised how many people aren't properly vaccinated against measles who don't even realize they aren't properly vaccinated against measles.
They aren't anti-vaxxers by a long shot. But they still aren't vaccinated.
Are you even sure YOU are vaccinated? And by YOU, I mean, anyone reading this message?
I would swear I was vaccinated if you asked me yesterday. But last night my wife looked up my records in my "baby book" and said there was no record of me ever getting the measles vaccination. I've been working on the border a long time now and have gotten lot's of shots, maybe even the measles shots, but I can't say for sure I'm vaccinated against the measles.
Even if I had received the shots as a kid, I'm pretty sure it's no longer effective.
All the people arguing this back and forth on different websites, I'd be surprised if half of them are properly vaccinated against measles.
Young americans most worried about vaccinations:
https://today.yougov.com/news/2015/01/30/young-americans-worried-vaccines/
liberals.
The vaccine concept is founded on solid scientific groundwork. That said, vaccines as the natural antigens can cause symptoms and side-effects, including inflammation. Also, not all vaccines are created equal, and each vaccine has additives (e.g. adjuvants) that are themselves potentially toxic.
The distribution and administration of vaccines are part of a risk management protocol. People should be aware of their benefits and risks. They should be aware that they are at higher risk to contract infectious diseases, especially non-native diseases, with a high rate of legal and illegal immigration.
I wonder if Americans should receive the ebola, tb, malaria, etc. vaccines as a precaution.
Does the government test foreign and domestic travelers, or would that be discriminatory and a violation of civil rights, respectively?
But on the other hand, Rand Paul is right that there is a question of personal freedom here.
For example, should we mandate people get flu shots every year? Or do you have the option of deciding for yourself or your kid?
n.n. wrote:
The vaccine concept is founded on solid scientific groundwork. That said, vaccines as the natural antigens can cause symptoms and side-effects, including inflammation. Also, not all vaccines are created equal, and each vaccine has additives (e.g. adjuvants) that are themselves potentially toxic.
GOod point. Just because there is little proof that vaccines cause autism it doesn't mean that there aren't problems with vaccines.
"mrs.e said...
"What are you confused about. I think it's pretty clear what I mean. "
It's not clear.:
What'as not clear? What are you confused about?
But on the other hand, Rand Paul is right that there is a question of personal freedom here.
Not only personal freedom, but the Federal Government treats everything as a one size fits all problem solving machine. Every problem is a nail and the Federal Government has a hammer.
I've got four children. Three of them have done fine with vaccines, but my youngest has had all sorts of issues. So, we've spread the shots out over a much longer time period for him.
Each parents should be most qualified to make these decisions for their individual children.
Plus we homeschool, so you don't need to fear! We aren't bringing our children to your public school.
There is such a thing as conflicting principles. I may have bedrock principles from which I operate, for example, but they can and do come into conflict. This is one of those cases, I think. It doesn't necessarily mean you're a hypocrite, just that there's no such thing as an ideal world.
I, too, believe there is a slight risk of a range of side effects from vaccines, but they are necessary to prevent outbreaks, but that I am uncomfortable with government mandates (though I do tend to side with the mandates).
Of course, the pathetic part in all of this is that it's mostly Prius-driving organic liberals who are driving most of this (most, but not all) but now the democratic Media Complex is trying to rephrase the narrative to make it look like conservatives/Republicans are the problem. @sshats.
Even if I had received the shots as a kid, I'm pretty sure it's no longer effective.
Very true -- depending on your age. Immunizations do periodically require boosters.
eric said...Each parents should be most qualified to make these decisions for their individual children.
Plus we homeschool, so you don't need to fear! We aren't bringing our children to your public school.
And that's fine, eric, I really don't want the vaccine squad to kick down your door with needles at the ready. If you didn't homeschool, though, would you object if the public school didn't allow your child in until they'd had all their vaccinations?
Most of the comments above talk about "vaccines" as if it was one issue. That is belief in government based on faith, not science.
There is a world of difference between requiring schoolchildren to be vaccinated against measles and requiring them to be vaccinated against venereal diseases.
Likewise, vaccination against plague and hanta virus may be a good idea here in New Mexico, but there is hardly much sense in getting it in Madison, WI.
It's not a question of whether what Christie or Paul said is technically accurate--clearly the issue of parental rights is a thorny legal matter, in that the state does not require vaccinations (unless you want your kids to attend school in some cases). But politically, it makes little sense to opine on this--is there some federal proposal up for debate on this matter? If not, why wade into the nuance?
Simply state that people should get vaccinations if they have no specific medical reason not to--that keeps in line with mainstream medicine, and is a generally defensible statement. Let the Left split along its fault lines over whether to appeal to the swampy anti-vaxxer types or the more mainstream public.
Sometimes I think the Right just doesn't even want to do politics right.
For example, should we mandate people get flu shots every year?
No. But if we were in the midst of a huge 1918 style flu epidemic that was killing thousands by the day, that answer would change.
Because, as hagar said, there are differences between the effectiveness and the need for different vaccinations. The people at strong risk of flu complications should probably get it, and this includes people of certain ages, imuno compromised, children, etc.. and health care workers and some others, but for your average 30something in good health it is only of marginal value.
MMR is separate case. Tetanus shots are given under certain circumstances. Each vaccine should be evaluated individually.
I should say tetanus boosters for adults, because I think they also combine it with some others and give to kids.
jr565:
What it means is that vaccines should be represented as part of a risk management protocol. Both the antigens and the stimulative substances and forms in a vaccine produce symptoms. Vaccines are designed to stimulate production of antibodies without causing the full disease. The effectiveness and side effects of vaccines vary with formula, individual, and time.
I would say it's amazing that we cannot have a rational discussion about something as common as vaccines, but, then again, we cannot even agree that human life is not a product of spontaneous conception, and that arbitrary standards of viability are established by individual faith.
Notice that I am not directing my final criticism to you. I don't recall your position on intrinsic value of human life; but, since it is one of two moral axioms, I will repeat it often, as our established policy creates an unprecedented moral hazard for We the People and our Posterity.
Given that we've had massive shortages of the flu vaccine --- and the lack of any profitability in making it in the first place --- there'd be a huge problem if everybody got the flu shot.
However, would anti-vaxxers have a problem with a school set aside that would have ONLY unvaccinated kids attend?
Clearly, higher education is looking bad here. You churn out grads who think asinine shakes are the key to health but actual proven medical advances are a creepy conspiracy by "big Pharmaceuticals"
And parents should always have the right to ask just what the heck do you want to do to my kid now? - and be truthfully answered!
Shanna said...Tetanus shots are given under certain circumstances.
Fun fact: part of the Obamacare healthcare provider reporting scorecard/effectiveness rating counts vaccine/booster compliance as a % of patients. If you go to your primary care physician for a physical and they don't have a record of a recent teatnus booster, get ready for that shot, baby, 'cause their reimbursmenet in part depends on making sure you get it.
Just vaccinate your kids. Sheesh. This is not about the government forcing you to regulate your lives or whatever message Paul wants to send out there.
I find it crazy that when the government recommends we do something the right wing suddenly thinks the government is trying to control our lives. And then - get this - it's always a conservative politician who is PART of the government telling us to ignore the government. Comical.
I'd love to see an unedited transcript or tape of the interview.
Liberalism (A/K/A libertarianism) has long been based on the principal of "Ownership" or "Sovereignty" of our own bodies.
Children have ownership of their own bodies but, because they are children don't really have the ability to exercise it intelligently. It is something they grow into.
As they are growing into full exercise of this ownership, it must be supervised by the parents.
I wonder if this is the sense of ownership of children that Paul had in mind?
If so, it makes a lot of sense to me.
John Henry
In Puerto Rico a common form of name for wives includes "de" (of)
Say Anna Rodriguez marries a Jose Sanchez. She becomes Anna Rodriguez de [of] Sanchez.
SOunds pretty ownershippy to me.
John Henry
I've always kind of rolled my eyes when a Hilary Clinton or a Jenny McCarthy and others talk the danger of vaccines. Where is their training, education, experience to make an informed judgement on this? Certainly they can decide for themselves, they do own their bodies. But why should anyone pay any attention to their opinion on this?
Dr Rand Paul, OTOH, gives me pause. He is a medical doctor with a good reputation in that field by all accounts.
He has some expertise in this area. Not as much as someone specializing in immunology or related fields but certainly much more than the average layperson. Even most informed layperson.
That doesn't necessarily make him right but I am willing to pay attention to him on it.
I have no problem at all with schools, employers and perhaps other private organizations requiring vaccines. Paul raises an interesting question about govt, though. Should they have the right to do it?
John Henry
In the context of vaccines, it seems ironic if not downright strange to me that 'unscientific vaccine opposition' gets attached to Republicans.
Because for the most part, I associate 'unscientific vaccine opposition' with those paymasters to the Democratic party... the trial lawyers.
The major leagues of vaccine attacks have all been in the realm of tort claims. It all necessitated a federal vaccine compensation law. Opponents like Jenny McCarthy, and the few odd libertarian/populist nutjobs (I'm sorry to say I'm looking at you, Michelle Bachmann) are minor leaguers in comparison.
Matt said: I find it crazy that when the government recommends we do something the right wing suddenly thinks the government is trying to control our lives.
I find it equally crazy that most left wingers/progressives appear to implicitly trust all government recommendations no matter what even though they have a far less than perfect track record with such recommendations.
I think people should have their kids vaccinated. But I also think never questioning government recommendations is patently foolish (or at least as foolish as completely distrusting the government all the time).
Curious George:
No, it's not clear at all. You say "yaddayaddayadda...like anything to do with fracking, etc."
What does that mean?
"I find it crazy that when the government recommends we do something the right wing suddenly thinks the government is trying to control our lives. And then - get this - it's always a conservative politician who is PART of the government telling us to ignore the government. Comical."
I find it crazy that when a billionaire corporation recommends we do something the left wing suddenly thinks the billionaire corporations are trying to control our lives. And then - get this - it's always a left wing political activist who is FUNDED by billionaire corporations telling us to boycott the billionaire corporations. Comical.
Wingers arguments have some inconsistencies here. If the anti-vax people are just a bunch of Whole Foods wackos, why would Paul and Christie be pandering to these people?
"[W]hy would Paul and Christie be pandering to these [Whole Foods wackos]?"
What makes you so sure Paul and Christie aren't pandering to the powerful, resistant, immune Christian Scientist/Amish voting bloc?
ARM, I think you'll find that the obama administration has the exact same position as Christie. When asked today if we should make vaccinations mandatory his press secretary couldn't answer. Essentially all pols push the idea that vaccinations are necessary but that decisions should also be left with parents.
Where though are the actual non vaccinations occurring. In affluent communities that are pushing organic foods. You know this as does everybody else. Most of these outbreaks are occurring in CA. And not in the poor communities.
Example of leftism embracing anti vaccinations - river F Kennedy
http://time.com/3012797/vaccine-rfk-jr-thimerosal/
Mississippi has the highest vaccination rate in the country.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2015/01/30/mississippi-yes-mississippi-has-the-nations-best-child-vaccination-rate-heres-why/
Must be all those liberals in Mississippi.
Good comment section folks. There's this: "I find it equally crazy that most left wingers/progressives appear to implicitly trust all government recommendations no matter what even though they have a far less than perfect track record with such recommendations."
Methinks that's only when a D has the executive or has just taken some portion of the Congress. Let us see if the folks standing roadside opposing US participation in war in the MENA reappear January 2017 should the letter change. Does not seem to apply at all to vax though.
Rand Paul mistrusts government blunt force. For good reason. That is not the same as advocating - even as a politician - that people do what they should without being pushed (forget that execrable Sunstein concept of nudging) by the State. That is also not to say that State actors might be barred from excluding folks who don't meet entry criteria from the many, many, State-sponsored activities conducted in the US for which a majority or loud plurality apparently so often clamours.
Dear God was Rand Paul's performance awful in that interview. The contrast with Scott Walker's relaxed style in the face of much tougher questioning a few days ago on ABC could not be more striking.
I always figured what Paul had going for him was an agile mind and a sizable rooting section in the liberal media given his "non-interventionist" foreign policy. That interview calls into question both assumptions.
Writ Small: "I always figured what Paul had going for him was an agile mind and a sizable rooting section in the liberal media given his "non-interventionist" foreign policy. That interview calls into question both assumptions"
Paul does have an agile mind.
His problems arise when he has asked questions where he might antagonize the Alex Jones types, and he is just not willing to go there.
AReasonableMeltdown: "Wingers arguments have some inconsistencies here. If the anti-vax people are just a bunch of Whole Foods wackos, why would Paul and Christie be pandering to these people"
You are lumping together several different groups with different beliefs.
The anti-vaxxers are your typical whole foods lefties. They are the types that buy into the fake science of the debunked Lancet study (one of many debunked Lancet studies), are against GMO's, nuclear power, and DDT to eradicate malaria (hey, it's just a bunch of Africans dying, what's the big deal?)
The libertarians are of the mind that as a matter of principle they don't want gov't mandating such things, even if they (the Libertarians) agree with general vaccination requirements and have their own kids vaccinations up to date.
So when you take Rand Pauls' full comments, he isn't making the anti vaccination argument that the left seems to be suggesting he's making. He's not saying he's anti vaccinations.
"Q: Senator, maybe you’re not aware, but there’s a huge problem right now with Disney theme parks having to close down because of mumps. Not enough children being vaccinated against measles, mumps, and rubella because their parents for whatever reason have decided that it is voluntary. And I can tell you plenty of the people who I work with are really concerned about their kids getting sick at school.
PAUL: Here’s the thing is, I think vaccines are one of the biggest medical breakthroughs that we’ve had. I’m a big fan and a great fan of the history and the development of the smallpox vaccine for example. But for most of our history they have been voluntary, so I don’t think I’m arguing for anything out of the ordinary, we’re arguing for what most of our history has had.
Q: I understand you’re all for the choice. But again, if we’re left in a situation where diseases that were once almost wiped out are now coming back because people are deciding not to vaccinate their kids, isn’t that a problem?
PAUL: I think public awareness of how good vaccines are for kids and how they are good for public health is a great idea. We just appointed a Surgeon General. These are some of the things that are things that we should promote as good for our health. But I don’t think there’s anything extraordinary about resorting to freedom. I’ll give you a good example. The Hepatitis B vaccine is now given to newborns, we sometimes give 5 and 6 vaccines all at one time. I chose to have mine delayed. I don’t want the government telling me that I have to give my newborn a Hepatitis B vaccine which is transmitted by sexually transmitted disease, and/or blood transfusions. Do I think it’s ultimately a good idea? Yeah. And I’ve had mine staggered over several months.
I’ve heard of many tragic cases of walking, talking normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines. I’m not arguing vaccines are a bad idea, I think they’re a good thing. But I think the parent should have some input. The state doesn’t own your children. Parents own the children and it is an issue of freedom."
So regarding the HepB vaccine, maybe we don't need to vaccinate babies when they are born for diseases that you don't get unless you blood transfusions or sex. There is some latitude there for parents say no. Or parents saying lets have them spread out over a period of time.
That is a far cry from the Jenny Mccarthy's (or the parents in upper class schools in CA) who aren't vaccinating their kids from saying they won't vaccinate.
i'm willing to cut him more slack. Because all I had heard was that he had said "I’ve heard of many tragic cases of walking, talking normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines. I’m not arguing vaccines are a bad idea, I think they’re a good thing. But I think the parent should have some input. "
If you take all of his words in context he's not coming across like the extremist I thought he was.
Yet another smear job from the left.
Better to find out Paul is a moron now rather than after a nomination or election. Then again, this isn't any big surprise.
Very true, the state doesn't have the right to own our children unless if they're assaulted with crime, hence they must be responsible for it.
Try to watch this! warwick associates scam
So this is what Paul said: "I’ve heard of many tragic cases of walking, talking normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines."
This is what other people seem to hear: "I've heard that vaccination causes autism."
But "profound mental disorders" does not simply equate to "autism," and Paul's wording may have been more carefully chosen than people are giving him credit for.
Two of the most valuable childhood vaccines -- the MMR and DTaP -- have a risk of high fever and seizures as side effects. This may only be 1 in 3,000 for MMR and 1 in 14,000 for DTaP, but it is a measurable risk, and responsible pediatricians will make parents aware that there is a risk. It means that each year, somewhere between a few hundred and a few thousand children run the risk of brain damage simply from the high fever.
To the CDC and other public health officials, the risk is negligible. But to a parent to whom that baby is an individual rather than a statistic, the risk may seem too high. It's certainly a higher risk than "stranger abduction," which has parents refusing to let their children play outside unsupervised in these days of zero risk tolerance.
Post a Comment