State takes away rights of parents again

[venray]

And millions do not....

Not to mention that we have no control over what those from other countries do as far as shots go...

So to sy that vaccinating children ages 6-23 months is going to impact the oeverall public health to any great degree...well....makes no sense....none at all...

 

[MrMacphisto]

No one forces parents in New Jersey to send their children to public schools either. It seems very comparable to me.

Good point. I'll admit, you've got me on that one.

How about this? I'd support a flu mandate in my state if thimerosal was banned from vaccinations. To me, thimerosal is the main sticking point. I realize it hasn't been conclusively proven to be conducive to autism, but even the possibility disturbs me.

 

[Dussicar]

AUTOBOTS! Transform and roll out!!!!!

 

[Icycle]

Good point. I'll admit, you've got me on that one.

How about this? I'd support a flu mandate in my state if thimerosal was banned from vaccinations. To me, thimerosal is the main sticking point. I realize it hasn't been conclusively proven to be conducive to autism, but even the possibility disturbs me.

The flu vaccine is available without thimerosal as a preservative upon request. However, this formulation is more expensive, but because it can only be made in single dose containers.

Not that it should matter anyway. The whole controversy about thimerosal in vaccines was created by a study in 1998 about eight children, which was subsequently discredited and retracted. It was further found that the lead author of the study had taken a large sum of money from a group of lawyers looking for evidence against vaccine manufacturers, suggesting a strong possibility of conflict of interest. Since then, numerous studies have been conducted, and none have found any evidence that MMR vaccination triggers autism. I realize that many on this thread will not be swayed by scientific evidence, but I hope that you would at least consider it. For those who care, this Wikipedia article has a good summary of the whole affair, along with a list, with links, of the subsequent studies:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMR_vaccine_controversy

 

[MrMacphisto]

The flu vaccine is available without thimerosal as a preservative upon request. However, this formulation is more expensive, but because it can only be made in single dose containers.

Not that it should matter anyway. The whole controversy about thimerosal in vaccines was created by a study in 1998 about eight children, which was subsequently discredited and retracted. It was further found that the lead author of the study had taken a large sum of money from a group of lawyers looking for evidence against vaccine manufacturers, suggesting a strong possibility of conflict of interest. Since then, numerous studies have been conducted, and none have found any evidence that MMR vaccination triggers autism. I realize that many on this thread will not be swayed by scientific evidence, but I hope that you would at least consider it. For those who care, this Wikipedia article has a good summary of the whole affair, along with a list, with links, of the subsequent studies:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMR_vaccine_controversy

Eh... Well then, forget what I said... lol

 

[ex_tenebros]

Not to mention that we have no control over what those from other countries do as far as shots go...

What's your point? The millions I was referring to are right here in the US of A.

So to sy that vaccinating children ages 6-23 months is going to impact the oeverall public health to any great degree...well....makes no sense....none at all...

First off, children 6-23 months old don't attend the New Jersey public school system. So this statement is irrelevant to the discussion.

However, vaccinating children that age does make sense as a public health policy - if you know anything at all about how viruses spread. Baby Jimmy's mother gets the flu from a co-worker. She brings it home and passes it to Jimmy. Jimmy gives it to five other toddlers in day care. They bring it home and give it to their parents, brothers, and sisters.

If all those children are immunized then this probably stops with Jimmy's mom.

Some of the statements you've been making here make me wonder if you've actually studied this subject. No offense.

 

[venray]

First off, children 6-23 months old don't attend the New Jersey public school system. So this statement is irrelevant to the discussion.

If all those children are immunized then this probably stops with Jimmy's mom.

Some of the statements you've been making here make me wonder if you've actually studied this subject. No offense.

Sigh obviously you have no clue what the mandate is. It ISNT to innoculate school kids. It IS to innoculate 6-23 MONTH old babies. It will have little or no effect on the general health issues...

Perhaps you should read the articles before running off in tangents and accusing others of not studying the issue.

it is obvious that you have not been paying attention.

NJ is telling parents of 6-23 month olds that they must innoculate their kids for the flu this will have to be a yearly thing and in the short term will do nothing.

My argument is that the state has no right in this case to do so. I am sure the thousands of outraged NJ parents will have their day in court. there is already a bill proposed that will allow parents to object, not have this done to their kids and have no penalty.

I will be willing to bet the bill passes.

As for yourself. If you have no child your opinion on what should and shouldnt be done to them has no creedence with me. Sorry but you havent done the research til you raised one. Experience changes one's POV....... and no offense taken...

As for the point about other countries...simple...people come in and out of this country by the minute....if they are not innoculated the general health of all (according to what your research says) will be in danger as well...

My point was that if the gov does not mandate this across the board and have everyone in the country get the shot, then focusing on a group where the shot has proven least effective ill do little or nothing to stem the tide of the epidemic you seem to think is at our very door....

Give a needle to babies and the rest of us are safe? Hardly....

 

[ex_tenebros]

Sigh obviously you have no clue what the mandate is. It ISNT to innoculate school kids. It IS to innoculate 6-23 MONTH old babies....

Perhaps you should read the articles before running off in tangents and accusing others of not studying the issue.

it is obvious that you have not been paying attention.

From the OP:

New Jersey is the first state to make it mandatory for children between the ages of 6 mos. – 6 years old to receive flu shots. If they do not, the child cannot attend any state sponsored day care or pre-school.

This is confirmed here.

So, you were saying?

As for yourself. If you have no child your opinion on what should and shouldnt be done to them has no creedence with me.

Part of your problem in this discussion is that the facts of science are the same whether or not one has children. You have made many assertions on this thread that show that either you don't understand basic virology, immunology, or epidemiology; or you're deliberately choosing to ignore what those disciplines say. I think the former is the more charitable interpretation, so that's what I'm going with. The fact that scientific fact has no "creedence" with you says about all that needs to be said.

As for the point about other countries...simple...people come in and out of this country by the minute....if they are not innoculated the general health of all (according to what your research says) will be in danger as well...

Yes? So? The fact that immigrants and tourists represent a public health threat is well-known. To the extent that it's relevant at all in this discussion it supports me, not you.

We can do nothing about the immunization policies of other countries. You seem to be suggesting that therefore nothing we do here can do any good. That's simply wrong. It's not a matter of opinion, it's just factually false, like claiming that the sky is orange. In reality, the fact that we can't control what infections might come across our borders makes immunization of our own citizens more important, not less.

My point was that if the gov does not mandate this across the board and have everyone in the country get the shot, then focusing on a group where the shot has proven least effective ill do little or nothing to stem the tide of the epidemic you seem to think is at our very door....

I understand your point - it's one of the claims that demonstrates that you don't know what you're talking about.

Every single person - of any age - that is immunized increases the protection afforded to those who are not immunized. This is simple common sense as well as provable science: someone who is immunized against the flu cannot be infected with it, and therefore is one less person who might pass it on to someone who is not immunized.

If a person comes into contact with 100 people in a day, and none of them are immunized, then that's 100 potential chances for infection. If 10 of them are immunized, then that's only 90 chances. If 20 are immunized, it's only 80 chances, and so on. This isn't a hard concept to understand. And it will remain true no matter how many times you claim it isn't.

 

[kis123]

This is simple common sense as well as provable science: someone who is immunized against the flu cannot be infected with it, and therefore is one less person who might pass it on to someone who is not immunized.

Too many "what if's" to buy into this statement.

First, the flu immunization only has a 49-51% effectiveness, so you have a large percentage of people immunized that can still catch the flu.

Second, if the strain is different than the vaccination, then 100% of those immunized can still catch the flu.

Other immunizations (MMR) have proven much more effective and they only have to be given ONCE, not annually. I will never agree to mandated immunizations, but at least I could understand the argument if the data and stats were better.

Your scientists and doctors you are so entrusted to need to get back in the lab and bring something better for parents to understand. To mandate this with such pathetic stats is just turning children into lab rats. As a parent, I find it appalling and there would be no way I'd subject my child to it.

 

[Icycle]

First, the flu immunization only has a 49-51% effectiveness, so you have a large percentage of people immunized that can still catch the flu.

Second, if the strain is different than the vaccination, then 100% of those immunized can still catch the flu.

The "anti-immunization" folks in this thread have been inappropriately throwing around the numbers 49% and 51%, and I now feel compelled to correct them.

If you re-read the information that Spiffy posted earlier in the thread, you will see that in a year where the flu strain did not match, researchers observed that the flu shot was still between 49% and 87%. Those were the worst case numbers.

When the flu strain did match, the vaccine was much more effective, in some studies up to 100% effective.

What this means is that when vaccine manufacturers predict well for a given year, the flu vaccine works extremely well, and even when they miss a prediction it works pretty good and is a heck of a lot better than nothing.

Other immunizations (MMR) have proven much more effective and they only have to be given ONCE, not annually. I will never agree to mandated immunizations, but at least I could understand the argument if the data and stats were better.

The reason the flu vaccine has such variable effectiveness and must be given again each year is because the flu virus itself is different in an important way from the viruses that MMR protects against. The flu virus mutates very rapidly and can swap genes between human flu strains, bird flu strains, and pig flu strains in the bodies of farm animals. Basically, the flu virus puts on a different mask every year that makes it so our bodies can't recognize it any more.

We get are able to lifelong immunity to diseases like measles and mumps because those diseases don't change nearly as fast.

 

[kis123]

The "anti-immunization" folks in this thread have been inappropriately throwing around the numbers 49% and 51%, and I now feel compelled to correct them.

If you re-read the information that Spiffy posted earlier in the thread, you will see that in a year where the flu strain did not match, researchers observed that the flu shot was still between 49% and 87%. Those were the worst case numbers.

When the flu strain did match, the vaccine was much more effective, in some studies up to 100% effective.

What this means is that when vaccine manufacturers predict well for a given year, the flu vaccine works extremely well, and even when they miss a prediction it works pretty good and is a heck of a lot better than nothing.




The reason the flu vaccine has such variable effectiveness and must be given again each year is because the flu virus itself is different in an important way from the viruses that MMR protects against. The flu virus mutates very rapidly and can swap genes between human flu strains, bird flu strains, and pig flu strains in the bodies of farm animals. Basically, the flu virus puts on a different mask every year that makes it so our bodies can't recognize it any more.

We get are able to lifelong immunity to diseases like measles and mumps because those diseases don't change nearly as fast.

Who told you I was anti-immunization? I and my children are completely immunized thank you very much. I'm against state mandates especially when it puts children through annual immunizations with vaccines that might or might not work.

Let the docs and scientists go back to the lab and improve the effectiveness before they use the state to obtain human test subjects!

 

[ex_tenebros]

The "anti-immunization" folks in this thread have been inappropriately throwing around the numbers 49% and 51%, and I now feel compelled to correct them.

I really don't get this "only 50%" complaint. It's just screwy from the get-go.

Let's say that a particular vaccine is "only 50% effective." That means that it prevents half of the infections that would have happened without it in the vaccinated population. Or to put it another way, of you compare 1000 vaccinated people with 1000 unvaccinated people, the second group would have twice as many flu cases as the first group.

If the media announced a wonder drug that would cut the risk of a serious illness in half, people would be lining up to get it for themselves and for their children. But call it a "vaccine" and all of a sudden a 50% worse case scenario is grounds to refuse to use it at all. They'd rather have no protection at all than cut their risk in half.

Craziness.

 

[kis123]

I really don't get this "only 50%" complaint. It's just screwy from the get-go.

Let's say that a particular vaccine is "only 50% effective." That means that it prevents half of the infections that would have happened without it in the vaccinated population. Or to put it another way, of you compare 1000 vaccinated people with 1000 unvaccinated people, the second group would have twice as many flu cases as the first group.

If the media announced a wonder drug that would cut the risk of a serious illness in half, people would be lining up to get it for themselves and for their children. But call it a "vaccine" and all of a sudden a 50% worse case scenario is grounds to refuse to use it at all. They'd rather have no protection at all than cut their risk in half.

Craziness.

And if you put a state mandate to it, you're going to piss off a lot of people! That's the biggest problem with all of this as far as I'm concerned. The state doesn't give me one dime to help me raise my children; who the hell are they to tell me how to parent my children? They should be spending their time dealing with real problems like the children who are actually abused instead of mandating good parents to do anything.

Now that's craziness for you

 

[venray]

And my point was that if you are going to have a mandate, then it has to be across the board NOT just for kids and not just for kids of a certain age group...

Those of you who are so hot for letting the government make your decisions for you should have no problem with this...they tell us all to get it, or they mandate it to nobody....Wht should we pay copays and deductibles for DR. visits because the state decides we should while others do not have to...

Basic principal here in America....always has been....freedom of choice for all, not just some.....

Why should those raising families be the only ones subject to being innoculated if there is such a major health issue here?

You want it both ways...tell others what they must do but not you....

 

[ex_tenebros]

And my point was that if you are going to have a mandate, then it has to be across the board NOT just for kids and not just for kids of a certain age group...

Those of you who are so hot for letting the government make your decisions for you should have no problem with this...they tell us all to get it, or they mandate it to nobody....Wht should we pay copays and deductibles for DR. visits because the state decides we should while others do not have to...

Basic principal here in America....always has been....freedom of choice for all, not just some.....

Interesting principle. Let's run with it and see where it goes.

Henceforward in New Jersey, every person from the age of 6 months on must take a driver's test. It's not fair to apply this mandate only to those who wish to get a driver's license from the state. Either every single person must do it, or no one should have to.

New Jersey hereby requires all water in the state to be fluoridated. It's not fair to make only those who wish to use the public water system drink fluoride in their water. All bottled water brought into the state must be inspected at the state line to ensure that it meets the state's fluoridation requirements. The state's lakes, rivers, and swimming pools will be fluoridated as time and resources allow. It's only fair.

Once these projects are accomplished, then we can say with a straight face that every person in New Jersey must be vaccinated against the flu, and not merely children whose parents choose to use the state's public school system.

Either that, or we can just admit up front that this whole "everyone or no one' idea is a ridiculous misuse of "free choice" and save ourselves a lot of wasted time.

Free choice is alive and well in New Jersey. If you choose to use the state's public schools then you will meet the state's requirements, including vaccination certificates.

 

[venray]

Interesting principle. Let's run with it and see where it goes.

Henceforward in New Jersey, every person from the age of 6 months on must take a driver's test. It's not fair to apply this mandate only to those who wish to get a driver's license from the state. Either every single person must do it, or no one should have to.

New Jersey hereby requires all water in the state to be fluoridated. It's not fair to make only those who wish to use the public water system drink fluoride in their water. All bottled water brought into the state must be inspected at the state line to ensure that it meets the state's fluoridation requirements. The state's lakes, rivers, and swimming pools will be fluoridated as time and resources allow. It's only fair.

Once these projects are accomplished, then we can say with a straight face that every person in New Jersey must be vaccinated against the flu, and not merely children whose parents choose to use the state's public school system.

Either that, or we can just admit up front that this whole "everyone or no one' idea is a ridiculous misuse of "free choice" and save ourselves a lot of wasted time.

Free choice is alive and well in New Jersey. If you choose to use the state's public schools then you will meet the state's requirements, including vaccination certificates.

Flouridation i can agree with...

But when you start comparing innoculation to kids gettting a drivers test you have just blown all credibility...talk about apples to hand grenades...

As I said...the state is penalizing one portion of the poulation under the guise of public health and not ALL of those who would affect the so called well being of others...

Lets give shots only to males age 20-30 that frequent public places, but no one else has to get the shot...

Same thing....different group discriminated against...

 

[Icycle]

As I said...the state is penalizing one portion of the poulation under the guise of public health and not ALL of those who would affect the so called well being of others...

What do you mean when you say the state is penalizing one portion of the population? The flu shot has extremely low risk, and provides substantial health benefits to those who receive it.

Lets give shots only to males age 20-30 that frequent public places, but no one else has to get the shot...

Children under 6 are one of the groups at highest risk for serious complications from the flu. It makes sense from a public health perspective for them to be specifically targeted for flu shots. Furthermore, most of the people that children under 6 interact with are other children their age, and their family and caretakers, so by immunizing all the children under 6 in pre-schools and daycares, you drastically reduce the risk of the flu spreading amongst the children.

I realize you were being facetious, but males age 20-30 are at very low risk for serious flu complications. The CDC doesn't even recommend the flu shot for people in this group unless they live with or care for a high risk individual, or if the person wants to reduce their risk of flu. This group is simply a lower public health priority.

Same thing....different group discriminated against...

I have a serious question: Aside from your philosophical objection to the government coercion, what harm to you fear from the flu shot? You won't even voluntarily get it for you or your son, so you must have some reason. Why don't you get a flu shot?

 

[tickledgirl]

And my point was that if you are going to have a mandate, then it has to be across the board NOT just for kids and not just for kids of a certain age group...

Those of you who are so hot for letting the government make your decisions for you should have no problem with this...they tell us all to get it, or they mandate it to nobody....Wht should we pay copays and deductibles for DR. visits because the state decides we should while others do not have to...

Basic principal here in America....always has been....freedom of choice for all, not just some.....

Why should those raising families be the only ones subject to being innoculated if there is such a major health issue here?

You want it both ways...tell others what they must do but not you....

Just jumping in on what might be the end of this thread. But as a preschool teacher, I can tell you that there's a very practical reason for targetting a certain age group. Pre-K and kindergarten kids are much much more likely to spread the flu, because they haven't yet learned basic personal hygeine habits. Just this morning a little girl came up to me, gave me a big hug, and then sneezed right in my face, spraying me with...well, I won't go into detail. But it was gross. There's no doubt that I've been exposed to any respiratory infection she might be carrying.

Requiring vaccination for those most likely to spread infection isn't unfair discrimination. It's just common sense. If 20-30 year old males were most reponsible for spreading the flu, it'd be reasonable to ask them to get vaccinated before receiving state services, especially in a group setting.

 

[venray]

Just jumping in on what might be the end of this thread. But as a preschool teacher, I can tell you that there's a very practical reason for targetting a certain age group. Pre-K and kindergarten kids are much much more likely to spread the flu, because they haven't yet learned basic personal hygeine habits. Just this morning a little girl came up to me, gave me a big hug, and then sneezed right in my face, spraying me with...well, I won't go into detail. But it was gross. There's no doubt that I've been exposed to any respiratory infection she might be carrying.

Requiring vaccination for those most likely to spread infection isn't unfair discrimination. It's just common sense. If 20-30 year old males were most reponsible for spreading the flu, it'd be reasonable to ask them to get vaccinated before receiving state services, especially in a group setting.

I totally understand all of that. i object to the government madating that parents pay for a flu shot to "protect the general population" without mandating that said population also get the shot to protect themselves.

 

[venray]

I realize you were being facetious, but males age 20-30 are at very low risk for serious flu complications. The CDC doesn't even recommend the flu shot for people in this group unless they live with or care for a high risk individual, or if the person wants to reduce their risk of flu. This group is simply a lower public health priority.



I have a serious question: Aside from your philosophical objection to the government coercion, what harm to you fear from the flu shot? You won't even voluntarily get it for you or your son, so you must have some reason. Why don't you get a flu shot?

I dont get one cause I dont need one. Never have. Never will.

And though you say you realize my sarcasm, you miss the point. Where the general health of a population is concerned then it is not right to mandate that one small group be immunized over all others...that is the issue here.

 

[tickledgirl]

I totally understand all of that. i object to the government madating that parents pay for a flu shot to "protect the general population" without mandating that said population also get the shot to protect themselves.

Ah, I misunderstood! I thought you were against the mandate itself, not against payment. I've no idea if this is the case, but would you object to the mandate if the state were also providing free shots?

 

[ex_tenebros]

Flouridation i can agree with...

Why? It "unfairly discriminates" against those who choose to use public water supplies. It improperly favors bottled water users.

But when you start comparing innoculation to kids gettting a drivers test you have just blown all credibility...talk about apples to hand grenades...

Your whole gripe here is that the vaccination policy is "discriminatory." It should apply to everyone, you say, or it should apply to no one. You simply ignore the fact that the state has the right - even the responsibility - to regulate what goes on in its facilities and less right everywhere else.

You recognize how absurd this is when it's pointed out in an obvious analogy. But the fact is your "everyone or no one" idea is just as silly applied to vaccination.

Children are required by the state to be vaccinated as a condition for receiving certain state services, just as a person who wants the state to grant him a license must meet certain conditions. The state doesn't set those conditions on the whole population because the whole population isn't asking the state for those services. It's as simple - and as non-discriminatory - as that.

 

[venray]

Ah, I misunderstood! I thought you were against the mandate itself, not against payment. I've no idea if this is the case, but would you object to the mandate if the state were also providing free shots?

BAck in my early years, we got our immunizations at school. we all lined up in the gym and got our vaccines and went about our day. It was paid for and administered by those mandating we have them...

But the bigger issue IS the mandate itself....to be immunized for measles, chicken pox and other diseases that are controled by one shot and perhaps one booster is much different from having to get a shot each year for a strain of an illness (NOT a disease) that changes from year to year and may not be affected by the vaccine at all if the guys in charge do not "guess" right about the strain that will come out a year down the road...

I see this as an unnecessary medical procedure that is being forced upon a specific group of kids....and not the population at large which means it will have a minimal effect on stopping the spread of the flu.....and quite frankly it is wrong to require it of some and not of others...

 

[venray]

Children are required by the state to be vaccinated as a condition for receiving certain state services, just as a person who wants the state to grant him a license must meet certain conditions. The state doesn't set those conditions on the whole population because the whole population isn't asking the state for those services. It's as simple - and as non-discriminatory - as that.

I shall begin lobbying for state mandates for drivers tests for kids...long before I would force my son to get this shot..

The thing is, we pay taxes that support the schools and it is law that our kids attend school which makes it their right to go to public school...

it isnt really a choice as we have no choice but to pay taxes...

We shall have to see in the long run how it all plays out and let the courts decide if the stae has said rights in this case..it will be decided there as I am sure many parents will want to test this out by taking legal action..

Note the feds have not isued this as a national mandate and I believe other immunizations are covered by federal law, not state law...

Also, I have yet to see any other states try to jump in to support NJ in this matter and doubt that many (if any) will do so...

 

[Icycle]

...an illness (NOT a disease)...

What do you mean by this distinction? The flu is a viral infection just like most of the other things one gets immunization shots for.

I see this as an unnecessary medical procedure that is being forced upon a specific group of kids....and not the population at large which means it will have a minimal effect on stopping the spread of the flu.....and quite frankly it is wrong to require it of some and not of others...

This policy will be quite effective at minimizing the risk of infection and spread of the flu amongst a high risk population: children under 6. It is not intended to be a policy to prevent the spread of flu amongst the general population.

We shall have to see in the long run how it all plays out and let the courts decide if the stae has said rights in this case..it will be decided there as I am sure many parents will want to test this out by taking legal action..

I don't see how this policy differs significantly from existing other immunization mandates.

Note the feds have not isued this as a national mandate and I believe other immunizations are covered by federal law, not state law...

The federal government does not have any immunization mandates. Immunization mandates are imposed by the state and local governments.