Unvaccinated Children Are Now Barred From Going To School In New York — And Their Anti-Vax Parents Are Really Mad

For every 1,000 children who get measles, one or two will die from it. sclerosingpanencephalitis(SSPE) is a very rare, but fatal disease of the central nervous system that results from a measles virus infection acquired earlier in life.16 Apr 2019

eddie wrote:For every 1,000 children who get measles, one or two will die from it. sclerosingpanencephalitis(SSPE) is a very rare, but fatal disease of the central nervous system that results from a measles virus infection acquired earlier in life.16 Apr 2019

Seems to me that children are more at risk of too much salt, sugar or additives.
But lots of money in salt and sugar. And additives.

In any case, I’m not here to discuss vaccinations but a parents RIGHT to not vaccinate their child.

See my first post.

Outta here for the night. Laters peeps.

eddie wrote:For every 1,000 children who get measles, one or two will die from it. sclerosingpanencephalitis(SSPE) is a very rare, but fatal disease of the central nervous system that results from a measles virus infection acquired earlier in life.16 Apr 2019

You call over a 100k deaths rare? Tell that to the families that have lost lives that were unecesasary due to the fact they could have been protected.

See my last post.

Night.

eddie wrote:

eddie wrote:For every 1,000 children who get measles, one or two will die from it. sclerosingpanencephalitis(SSPE) is a very rare, but fatal disease of the central nervous system that results from a measles virus infection acquired earlier in life.16 Apr 2019

Seems to me that children are more at risk of too much salt, sugar or additives.
But lots of money in salt and sugar. And additives.

In any case, I’m not here to discuss vaccinations but a parents RIGHT to not vaccinate their child.

See my first post.

Outta here for the night. Laters peeps.

And its a socities right to isolate people that place other people in danger through not vaccinating

Is it your right to endanger others with basically negligence?

phildidge wrote:

eddie wrote:

eddie wrote:For every 1,000 children who get measles, one or two will die from it. sclerosingpanencephalitis(SSPE) is a very rare, but fatal disease of the central nervous system that results from a measles virus infection acquired earlier in life.16 Apr 2019

Seems to me that children are more at risk of too much salt, sugar or additives.
But lots of money in salt and sugar. And additives.

In any case, I’m not here to discuss vaccinations but a parents RIGHT to not vaccinate their child.

See my first post.

Outta here for the night. Laters peeps.

And its a socities right to isolate people that place other people in danger through not vaccinating

Is it your right to endanger others with basically negligence?

Guess we should we all stand outside fast food chains, Krispy Kreme doughnuts etc etc etc and tell them how many people they’re killing, huh?

I really am off now.

Laters famalam.

eddie wrote:

phildidge wrote:

And its a socities right to isolate people that place other people in danger through not vaccinating

Is it your right to endanger others with basically negligence?

Guess we should we all stand outside fast food chains, Krispy Kreme doughnuts etc etc etc and tell them how many people they’re killing, huh?

I really am off now.

Laters famalam.

Whataboutism and the worst case scenario.

Sugar is not a disease

Obesity is

Measels is a disease

Both can be prevented. So why are you okay with acting on the former and not the later?

Hence you contradict yourself

As we should help to prevent both

eddie wrote:Vic hates the nanny state. So I will await his answer to my post.

I understand. But you already have his answer.

I can only state whats already been said....you dont want to play by the rules then go home....

The fact is eddie you are all about "whatifs" that have an almost zero possibility of happening...

a vaccination I would be against???

what would that be.

given that in order to arouse my refusal the vaccination would have to be directly and maliciously (note those two words) harmful, designed perhaps to turn people into zombies.....and that in such a case YES of course I would go to war against that kind of society.....but thats more a "social thing than anything to do with vaccinations.

secondly the issue of vaccination is NOT "nanny state" since it is NOT something vastly intrusive done for the sake of it or witout decent reason. It is done to protect EVERYONE in society from killer diseases
the nanny state is the left trying to totally ban recreational and legal gun ownership because of the actions of a few illegal gun owners and the arguments of a few mentally defective veggies and tree hugging cretins.
*(point ....LEGALLY owned guns are responsible for only the most minute fraction of criminal deaths in this country .

and your point about gender neutral clothing is absurd to the point of ridiculous....

clothing does NOT represent a risk to society in general (except in certain and very specific instances...like wearing the full face covering whilst driving...which SHOULD be banned) non vaccinated people DO represent a risk to society in general. they ALSO represent a net cost to society.

Victorismyhero wrote:I can only state whats already been said....you dont want to play by the rules then go home....

The fact is eddie you are all about "whatifs" that have an almost zero possibility of happening...

a vaccination I would be against???

what would that be.

given that in order to arouse my refusal the vaccination would have to be directly and maliciously (note those two words) harmful, designed perhaps to turn people into zombies.....and that in such a case YES of course I would go to war against that kind of society.....but thats more a "social thing than anything to do with vaccinations.

secondly the issue of vaccination is NOT "nanny state" since it is NOT something vastly intrusive done for the sake of it or witout decent reason. It is done to protect EVERYONE in society from killer diseases
the nanny state is the left trying to totally ban recreational and legal gun ownership because of the actions of a few illegal gun owners and the arguments of a few mentally defective veggies and tree hugging cretins.
*(point ....LEGALLY owned guns are responsible for only the most minute fraction of criminal deaths in this country .

and your point about gender neutral clothing is absurd to the point of ridiculous....

clothing does NOT represent a risk to society in general (except in certain and very specific instances...like wearing the full face covering whilst driving...which SHOULD be banned)  non vaccinated people DO represent a risk to society in general. they ALSO represent a net cost to society.

+1

Victorismyhero wrote:I can only state whats already been said....you dont want to play by the rules then go home....

The fact is eddie you are all about "whatifs" that have an almost zero possibility of happening...

a vaccination I would be against???

what would that be.

given that in order to arouse my refusal the vaccination would have to be directly and maliciously (note those two words) harmful, designed perhaps to turn people into zombies.....and that in such a case YES of course I would go to war against that kind of society.....but thats more a "social thing than anything to do with vaccinations.

secondly the issue of vaccination is NOT "nanny state" since it is NOT something vastly intrusive done for the sake of it or witout decent reason. It is done to protect EVERYONE in society from killer diseases
the nanny state is the left trying to totally ban recreational and legal gun ownership because of the actions of a few illegal gun owners and the arguments of a few mentally defective veggies and tree hugging cretins.
*(point ....LEGALLY owned guns are responsible for only the most minute fraction of criminal deaths in this country .

and your point about gender neutral clothing is absurd to the point of ridiculous....

clothing does NOT represent a risk to society in general (except in certain and very specific instances...like wearing the full face covering whilst driving...which SHOULD be banned)  non vaccinated people DO represent a risk to society in general. they ALSO represent a net cost to society.

But my whole argument in this thread is about being told what to do and I always thought you found that stupid and very “left”. Don’t you?

You see, this thread has become about whether we should or shouldn’t vaccinate (I’m against some vaccinations and for others btw) but I’m picking up on the point that schools are telling parents what to do - which is really worrying to me, because.....where will it end?

I think the big struggle in modern Western countries is balancing individual rights with public safety. There are so many issues you can apply this conflict to -- vaccines, guns, pollution, food, etc.

Of course, you have to respect individual rights as much as possible. But on the other hand, if people abuse those rights -- if they indiscriminately fire their guns in public, for example -- government, acting as the voice of society, has to step in and create laws and policies to keep people safe.

I think vaccines make everyone safer, so it doesn't bother me that the government requires vaccines any more than it bothers me that the government doesn't let small children drive cars.

Others will argue that they own their own bodies, and that nobody has any more right to tell them to get a shot than they do to tell them what to eat. I understand that side of the argument as well, and even kind of agree with it.

I think the only real answer is to treat every conflict between individual rights and public safety as its own unique thing.

Guns and sugary sodas, for example, are both harmful, but different people will come down differently on how, or whether, to regulate or ban either one of them.

Hell, I could easily, EASILY make the argument that keeping guns legal but banning sugary drinks would help more people than banning guns and allowing sugary drinks. After all, not as many people die from guns as die from being in poor health.

And yet, if I was in charge, I'd probably lean more toward banning guns and allowing sugary drinks.

Eddie....you entirely miss the point.....it IS your right not to vaccinate

HOWEVER it is also societies right to exclude you if you dont......you do NOT have the right to both not vaccinate AND be accepted into that "club" we call society

Victorismyhero wrote:Eddie....you entirely miss the point.....it IS your right not to vaccinate

HOWEVER it is also societies right to exclude you if you dont......you do NOT have the right to both not vaccinate AND be accepted into that "club" we call society

Yes it is societies right to exclude me, or my child, so then...doesn’t society owe me a place of education where my child can go unvaccinated?
Don’t I have the same rights as those that do vaccinate?

eddie wrote:

Victorismyhero wrote:Eddie....you entirely miss the point.....it IS your right not to vaccinate

HOWEVER it is also societies right to exclude you if you dont......you do NOT have the right to both not vaccinate AND be accepted into that "club" we call society

Yes it is societies right to exclude me, or my child, so then...doesn’t society owe me a place of education where my child can go unvaccinated?
Don’t I have the same rights as those that do vaccinate?

That's an interesting point, and one worth exploring. After all, plenty of institutions are expected to make reasonable accommodations for people who live their lives, for whatever reason, a bit differently from the mainstream.

Ben Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:

Victorismyhero wrote:Eddie....you entirely miss the point.....it IS your right not to vaccinate

HOWEVER it is also societies right to exclude you if you dont......you do NOT have the right to both not vaccinate AND be accepted into that "club" we call society

Yes it is societies right to exclude me, or my child, so then...doesn’t society owe me a place of education where my child can go unvaccinated?
Don’t I have the same rights as those that do vaccinate?

That's an interesting point, and one worth exploring. After all, plenty of institutions are expected to make reasonable accommodations for people who live their lives, for whatever reason, a bit differently from the mainstream.

Thank you! That’s my whole point. Accommodate everyone or else it’s not fair...right?

Would be an interesting experiment too...see how children in the unvaccinated school fared in comparison. Would be interesting, non?

Ben Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:

Yes it is societies right to exclude me, or my child, so then...doesn’t society owe me a place of education where my child can go unvaccinated?
Don’t I have the same rights as those that do vaccinate?

That's an interesting point, and one worth exploring. After all, plenty of institutions are expected to make reasonable accommodations for people who live their lives, for whatever reason, a bit differently from the mainstream.

No you don't have the same rights, precisely because you are unwilling to follow the rules. Your question is like, don't criminals have the same right to freedom as non-criminals? No, because they didn't follow the laws.

Ben, the 'reasonable accommodation' doctrine is based on a law, such as right to religious practice or disability accommodation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Reasonable accommodation is a half-way measure--finding middle ground between the extremes--whereas infecting fellow students, particularly with a life-threatening disease, is total and final.

eddie wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

That's an interesting point, and one worth exploring. After all, plenty of institutions are expected to make reasonable accommodations for people who live their lives, for whatever reason, a bit differently from the mainstream.

Thank you! That’s my whole point. Accommodate everyone or else it’s not fair...right?

Would be an interesting experiment too...see how children in the unvaccinated school fared in comparison.  Would be interesting, non?
.

Nope...

"Fair(ness)" doesn't come into it...

Providing seperate educational facilities for every whining little minority simply isn't affordable..

The overruling consideration here is one of looking after the greater majority of people, and putting the 'common good' ahead of imagined "rights" for one clearly insane group of selfish mums.

Let them find a private school to send their sniffling and snoffling dieease-ridden little ferals to --  and let them foot the extra fees and transport costs..

The Amish in America are given a pretty free rein to live as they choose. They really aren't part of the rest of the "herd". Seems to be working OK.

Maddog wrote:The Amish in America are given a pretty free rein to live as they choose.  They really aren't part of the rest of the "herd". Seems to be working OK.  

Amish schools are not public schools. The Amish Order have shunned vaccinations on religious grounds in past outbreaks of disease.

However, Amish children who have not been vaccinated are not allowed to ride on school buses in New York state. New York will not honor any religious exemptions.

Once again, follow the rules or don't participate. It's the best solution.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:The Amish in America are given a pretty free rein to live as they choose.  They really aren't part of the rest of the "herd". Seems to be working OK.  

Amish schools are not public schools.  The Amish Order have shunned vaccinations on religious grounds in past outbreaks of disease.

However, Amish children who have not been vaccinated are not allowed to ride on school buses in New York state.  New York will not honor any religious exemptions.

Once again, follow the rules or don't participate.  It's the best solution.

I never said they were public schools. I dont see anything in the link that says this only applies to public schools. Do you?