the decsion to vaccinate or not should only have natural consequences. - Page 3 - Mothering Forums
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#61 of 106 Old 02-13-2014, 05:41 AM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,100
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 33 Post(s)

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by kiachu View Post




You misunderstand the purpose of advertising. 

NO, I understand it very well.


 

 pro-transparency advocate

&

lurk.gif  PROUD member of the .3% club!

 

Want to join? Just ask me!

 

"You know, in my day we used to sit on our ass smoking Parliaments for nine months.

Today, you have one piece of Brie and everybody goes berserk."      ROTFLMAO.gif 

serenbat is offline  
#62 of 106 Old 02-13-2014, 07:05 AM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,282
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 139 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post
 

 

Well we certainly do see that as a society these views are changing, and rapidly too.

 

Like it or not, except it or not, things are changing and more are voicing concerns about vaccine on all levels and objecting.        https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2013/related/proposals/ab247

 

 

 

Maybe so, but new research is showing that as more people start objecting to vaccines, the stricter the vaccine policies are getting.  At least for schools, anyway.  Which is something I've predicted for a long time now.  

 

"In recent years, several states have passed bills that make it harder for children to gain exemptions from getting the vaccinations schools usually require, and ethicists say this trend is a good one.

 

Between 2009 and 2012, there were 36 bills addressing the issue of exemptions to school immunization mandates introduced in 18 states, according to a new study.

Although most of these bills (86 percent) sought to make exemptions easier to obtain — for example, by allowing parents to cite their personal beliefs as a reason for vaccine exemption —  none of these bills passed, according to the study. 

 

On the other hand, five bills were introduced that sought to make exemptions harder to obtain — for example, by requiring a doctor's signature for children seeking an exemption. Three of these bills passed in Washington, California and Vermont, the study found."   http://www.livescience.com/43284-school-vaccination-exemptions-restrictions.html

 

I think I read somewhere that Vermont is looking to pass a bill that would only make exemptions harder to achieve if the vaccine rate at the school fell under 90%.  I thought that was a pretty interesting bill.   What do you guys think about that? 

Andrew Lazarus likes this.

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#63 of 106 Old 02-13-2014, 08:50 AM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,100
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 33 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

 

Maybe so, but new research is showing that as more people start objecting to vaccines, the stricter the vaccine policies are getting.  At least for schools, anyway.  Which is something I've predicted for a long time now.  

 

you could turn it around and look at the number of nursing organizations that are starting to support health care workers, legislation starting to protect workers who are objecting, ALCU work in this area, and each year we are hearing more and more stories of those who are publicly coming out against vaccines and mandates

 

like I said, push back will come one way or the other, it's getting very political on other personal lifestyle decisions (legalization of pot, gay issues), vaccine won't be far behind - most Americans are not supportive of being told what to doing in their private lives by governments and that includes decisions as to what to inject into their bodies

 

we have all seen the dismal number on the HPV vaccines rates, people are not buying it no matter how it get packaged, look at Texas and what happened when they pushed on HPV - you keep waning to think people want these strict laws, polling isn't supporting your view point  - many even on here that say they "support"/are PRO vaccine don't want to be mandated into it! 

 

let's remember, if a state wants to push vaccine mandates it makes it easier for challenges at the federal level to proceed, states laws get challenged all the time!  


 

 pro-transparency advocate

&

lurk.gif  PROUD member of the .3% club!

 

Want to join? Just ask me!

 

"You know, in my day we used to sit on our ass smoking Parliaments for nine months.

Today, you have one piece of Brie and everybody goes berserk."      ROTFLMAO.gif 

serenbat is offline  
#64 of 106 Old 02-14-2014, 09:57 AM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,282
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 139 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post
 

you could turn it around and look at the number of nursing organizations that are starting to support health care workers, legislation starting to protect workers who are objecting, ALCU work in this area, and each year we are hearing more and more stories of those who are publicly coming out against vaccines and mandates

 

like I said, push back will come one way or the other, it's getting very political on other personal lifestyle decisions (legalization of pot, gay issues), vaccine won't be far behind - most Americans are not supportive of being told what to doing in their private lives by governments and that includes decisions as to what to inject into their bodies

 

we have all seen the dismal number on the HPV vaccines rates, people are not buying it no matter how it get packaged, look at Texas and what happened when they pushed on HPV - you keep waning to think people want these strict laws, polling isn't supporting your view point  - many even on here that say they "support"/are PRO vaccine don't want to be mandated into it! 

 

let's remember, if a state wants to push vaccine mandates it makes it easier for challenges at the federal level to proceed, states laws get challenged all the time!  

 

If you google "hospitals requiring flu vaccine for employees" you'll see that the number of hospitals adopting this policy is increasing by quite a bit, not decreasing. 

 

Hospitals have fired nurses for not complying and as far as I'm aware there has not been any court ruling that indicates that this practice is unethical/illegal/ a violation of rights in any way. 

Andrew Lazarus likes this.

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#65 of 106 Old 02-14-2014, 11:26 AM
 
ss834's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 301
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

So there's the question of severe unnatural consequences like not being able to attend public school, being fired or fined, etc. But what about the temporary, inconvenient (and sometimes very disruptive) quarantines that schools enforce on unvaccinated students during an outbreak?

 

In this case an outbreak exists (presumably in the school, or community) and the chance of catching a highly contagious disease is much higher than the general pink book statistics suggest. While vaccinated kids can also catch the illness, unvaccinated kids are much more likely to catch illness in most cases. Forced quarantine is certainly an unnatural consequence.

 

Is it right for public institutions to enforce quarantines of non-vaxed kids during an active outbreak? 

Andrew Lazarus likes this.
ss834 is offline  
#66 of 106 Old 02-14-2014, 11:40 AM
 
OrmEmbar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 398
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

Hospitals have fired nurses for not complying and as far as I'm aware there has not been any court ruling that indicates that this practice is unethical/illegal/ a violation of rights in any way. 

 

There's something about this that feels soooooo wrong.  These nurses are good at what they do, show up to work, perform their tasks.  Vaccination status does not guarantee that you are not going to come down with the flu.  And you don't know if you are sick until you start feeling symptoms.  Therefore both vaccinated and unvaccinated health care workers will expose their patients to illness.  Vaccination does not guarantee that you will not be an asymptomatic carrier.  Yearly flu vaccines do not cover all flu-like viruses.  How can an employer ethically deny work to an employee based solely on their flu vaccination status?  Regardless of their seniority. . .  regardless of their job performance?  Studies I have read, that show the benefits of vaccination also say that healthcare workers go to work while sick.  That says something to me:  it says that we are trying to find a bandaid to cover up a deeper issue.

 

The most effective way to prevent the spread of illness is to have a system that makes it easier for health care workers to STAY HOME WHILE SICK.  I know that nurses in the US work long shifts.  Often 12 hours . . . I remember 24 and 36 hours shifts a few years ago in my county when there was a shortage of nurses during flu season.  What would flu-like transmission rates be if nurses worked 10 hours shifts and had a higher-than-average number of paid sick days?  Call it hazard pay, since they come in contact with infectious agents much more frequently than the average worker.  Firefighters get hazard pay, why not doctors and nurses?

OrmEmbar is online now  
#67 of 106 Old 02-14-2014, 11:44 AM
 
ma2two's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,465
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)

I don't understand why hospitals don't put nurses on unpaid administrative leave for 21 days following a FluMist vaccine? Instead, they require a flu vaccine (any flu vaccine, including FluMist is allowed), and they fire those nurses who refuse. Even pregnant nurses!

ma2two is offline  
#68 of 106 Old 02-14-2014, 11:46 AM
 
OrmEmbar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 398
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ss834 View Post
 

So there's the question of severe unnatural consequences like not being able to attend public school, being fired or fined, etc. But what about the temporary, inconvenient (and sometimes very disruptive) quarantines that schools enforce on unvaccinated students during an outbreak?

 

In this case an outbreak exists (presumably in the school, or community) and the chance of catching a highly contagious disease is much higher than the general pink book statistics suggest. While vaccinated kids can also catch the illness, unvaccinated kids are much more likely to catch illness in most cases. Forced quarantine is certainly an unnatural consequence.

 

Is it right for public institutions to enforce quarantines of non-vaxed kids during an active outbreak? 

Has anyone actually had their school enforce this policy?  Our school did not enforce it when we had a few families with active cases of pertussis.  I was curious if the school would ask non-vaxxing families to keep their kids home for 3 weeks but they did not.  The parents in the classes where kids had the illness were very on top of getting tested if cold-like symptoms showed up and no new cases appeared.  This is in a very small school, with a lot of exposure both on and off campus due to a tight-knit community.

OrmEmbar is online now  
#69 of 106 Old 02-14-2014, 11:47 AM
 
ma2two's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,465
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrmEmbar View Post
 

Has anyone actually had their school enforce this policy?  Our school did not enforce it when we had a few families with active cases of pertussis. 

 

It is a decision made by the Department of Health, not the school. It does happen sometimes.

ma2two is offline  
#70 of 106 Old 02-14-2014, 12:04 PM
 
OrmEmbar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 398
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ma2two View Post
 

 

It is a decision made by the Department of Health, not the school. It does happen sometimes.

That makes sense.  The health dept was involved in the pertussis cases at our school.

OrmEmbar is online now  
#71 of 106 Old 02-14-2014, 01:25 PM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,100
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 33 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

 

If you google "hospitals requiring flu vaccine for employees" you'll see that the number of hospitals adopting this policy is increasing by quite a bit, not decreasing. 

 

Hospitals have fired nurses for not complying and as far as I'm aware there has not been any court ruling that indicates that this practice is unethical/illegal/ a violation of rights in any way. 

well IF YOU GOOGLE you can see how many organizations there are to help health care works fight mandatory flu shots, it's increasing, not decreasing.

http://www.infowars.com/nurse-speaks-out-on-mandatory-flu-shot-vaccines/

http://www.nationalnursesunited.org/press/entry/largest-national-nurses-union-opposes-mandatory-flu-vaccination

https://www.facebook.com/NursesAgainstMandatoryVaccines

https://www.change.org/organizations/nurses_against_mandatory_vaccines

here since you are unaware now you will be aware - Nurses Win Federal Court Decision on Virginia Mason's Mandatory Flu Vaccination Policy :joy

 

 http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/nurses-win-federal-court-decision-on-virginia-masons-mandatory-flu-vaccination-policy-53163492.html

 

 

This decision stops VMMC from forcing RNs to get a flu vaccination
 against their will.  It's a basic right for people to make decisions regarding
 their own health care treatment.  As health care professionals, we know that
 education, accessibility and incentives -- not brute force -- are the best way
 to encourage people to comply," said Barbara Frye, RN, Director of Labor
 Relations at WSNA.

 

you can read more about it here as well - 

http://www.wsna.org/labor/Victories/Mandatory-Immunization/documents/VMMC-2012-07.pdf

Turquesa likes this.

 

 pro-transparency advocate

&

lurk.gif  PROUD member of the .3% club!

 

Want to join? Just ask me!

 

"You know, in my day we used to sit on our ass smoking Parliaments for nine months.

Today, you have one piece of Brie and everybody goes berserk."      ROTFLMAO.gif 

serenbat is offline  
#72 of 106 Old 02-14-2014, 03:52 PM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Outside the hive mind
Posts: 7,302
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrmEmbar View Post
 
 

Has anyone actually had their school enforce this policy?  Our school did not enforce it when we had a few families with active cases of pertussis.  I was curious if the school would ask non-vaxxing families to keep their kids home for 3 weeks but they did not.  The parents in the classes where kids had the illness were very on top of getting tested if cold-like symptoms showed up and no new cases appeared.  This is in a very small school, with a lot of exposure both on and off campus due to a tight-knit community.

My DD's high school did not enforce this either during a recent pertussis outbreak. However, they did have this one little problem: the outbreak was in the vaccinated. 46 of the 48 kids that got whooping cough were fully vaccinated including Tdap booster required for 7th grade entry, of the remaining two, they were classified as 'non-compliant' which could mean anything from unvaccinated to missing the 7th grade Tdap booster. So in this case the unvaccinated (like my DD who did not get WC) were not at more risk of contracting the disease. 

BeckyBird likes this.

Rainbow.giftstillheart.gifsmile.gif

 

"If you find from your own experience that something is a fact and it contradicts what some authority has written down, then you must abandon the authority and base your reasoning on your own findings"~ Leonardo da Vinci

Mirzam is offline  
#73 of 106 Old 02-14-2014, 04:02 PM - Thread Starter
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,870
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 91 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post
 

My DD's high school did not enforce this either during a recent pertussis outbreak. However, they did have this one little problem: the outbreak was in the vaccinated. 46 of the 48 kids that got whooping cough were fully vaccinated including Tdap booster required for 7th grade entry, of the remaining two, they were classified as 'non-compliant' which could mean anything from unvaccinated to missing the 7th grade Tdap booster. So in this case the unvaccinated (like my DD who did not get WC) were not at more risk of contracting the disease. 

 

Intriguing.  You don't know the non-vax rate for her school and the number of students by any chance?

There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#74 of 106 Old 02-14-2014, 04:11 PM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Outside the hive mind
Posts: 7,302
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post
 

My DD's high school did not enforce this either during a recent pertussis outbreak. However, they did have this one little problem: the outbreak was in the vaccinated. 46 of the 48 kids that got whooping cough were fully vaccinated including Tdap booster required for 7th grade entry, of the remaining two, they were classified as 'non-compliant' which could mean anything from unvaccinated to missing the 7th grade Tdap booster. So in this case the unvaccinated (like my DD who did not get WC) were not at more risk of contracting the disease. 

 

Intriguing.  You don't know the non-vax rate for her school and the number of students by any chance?

No, but the county has a notoriously low vax rate, 60% fully vaxed, 40% un or under-vaxed, the MMR, Varicella and DTaP being the vaxes most refused. (information came from a 2011 article in local newspaper). Note, the last case of measles in the county was in 2007, a 7 month old baby who had visited India and Thailand. It was an isolate case and no one else caught measles from her.


Rainbow.giftstillheart.gifsmile.gif

 

"If you find from your own experience that something is a fact and it contradicts what some authority has written down, then you must abandon the authority and base your reasoning on your own findings"~ Leonardo da Vinci

Mirzam is offline  
#75 of 106 Old 02-14-2014, 04:14 PM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,100
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 33 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post
 

No, but the county has a notoriously low vax rate, 60% fully vaxed, 40% un or under-vaxed, the MMR, Varicella and DTaP being the vaxes most refused. (information came from a 2011 article in local newspaper). Note, the last case of measles in the county was in 2007, a 7 month old baby who had visited India and Thailand. It was an isolate case and no one else caught measles from her.

and are they all dropping like flies? 

BeckyBird likes this.

 

 pro-transparency advocate

&

lurk.gif  PROUD member of the .3% club!

 

Want to join? Just ask me!

 

"You know, in my day we used to sit on our ass smoking Parliaments for nine months.

Today, you have one piece of Brie and everybody goes berserk."      ROTFLMAO.gif 

serenbat is offline  
#76 of 106 Old 02-14-2014, 04:21 PM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Outside the hive mind
Posts: 7,302
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post
 
 

and are they all dropping like flies? 

 

LOL, not quite.

 

ETD: the most common infectious diseases we see are whooping cough (apparently in fully vaccinated people) and chicken pox (because parents want their kids to catch it).

BeckyBird likes this.

Rainbow.giftstillheart.gifsmile.gif

 

"If you find from your own experience that something is a fact and it contradicts what some authority has written down, then you must abandon the authority and base your reasoning on your own findings"~ Leonardo da Vinci

Mirzam is offline  
#77 of 106 Old 02-15-2014, 05:12 AM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,100
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 33 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post
 

 

LOL, not quite.

 

ETD: the most common infectious diseases we see are whooping cough (apparently in fully vaccinated people) and chicken pox (because parents want their kids to catch it).

well you know the rates among the school age kids, but who really knows among adults in a certain area yet we only seem to freak out over children don't we:bgbounce


 

 pro-transparency advocate

&

lurk.gif  PROUD member of the .3% club!

 

Want to join? Just ask me!

 

"You know, in my day we used to sit on our ass smoking Parliaments for nine months.

Today, you have one piece of Brie and everybody goes berserk."      ROTFLMAO.gif 

serenbat is offline  
#78 of 106 Old 02-15-2014, 05:48 AM
 
ss834's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 301
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Parents against polio vaccination to be prosecuted: Karachi Central Administration

http://tribune.com.pk/story/670740/fir-to-be-registered-against-parents-who-stand-in-way-of-polio-vaccine-dc-central-karachi/

 

Has anyone seen this? I wonder what kind of punishments result from the prosecution.

 

I suspect this prosecution wasn't a decision made by Pakistani officials acting alone, since polio eradication is a major goal of the World Health Organization. I can't tell if this is just to punish parents simply for prolonging the eradication efforts, or if they are accusing parents who refuse vaccines of working for/with those groups who are killing polio workers.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post
 

well you know the rates among the school age kids, but who really knows among adults in a certain area yet we only seem to freak out over children don't we:bgbounce

 

Also, it seems like only children are being vaccinated in these polio campaigns.

ss834 is offline  
#79 of 106 Old 02-15-2014, 06:53 AM
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,050
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 29 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by erigeron View Post

I'm kind of torn on this one. I don't at all like the government mandating people receive a particular medical treatment. So while I support the premise behind vaccines being "required" for school, I also favor exemptions from this process being obtained fairly readily so those who have a sincere objection to vaccines for whatever reasons are not forced into treatment. On the one hand, I don't really have a problem with a hospital or health system requiring certain vaccines of employees or of patient-care employees or having protocols for dealing with staff members who don't want to get vaccines for personal reasons. I don't think that a philosophical objection to the flu shot justifies exposing all of your patients to an increased risk of contracting the flu. Comparing that to sending an unvaccinated kid into public school (full of people who are generally healthy, and a location to receive an education, which is a legal right) is kind of apples and oranges. 

How big of an increase is this risk, though? Given everything that science has confirmed about the flu shot's many weaknesses, it seems fanatical and draconian to force it on hospital employees with the feeble rationale of "some protection is better than none."
BeckyBird likes this.

In God we trust; all others must show data. selectivevax.gifsurf.gifteapot2.GIFintactivist.gif
Turquesa is online now  
#80 of 106 Old 02-15-2014, 07:04 AM
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,050
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 29 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ss834 View Post

So there's the question of severe unnatural consequences like not being able to attend public school, being fired or fined, etc. But what about the temporary, inconvenient (and sometimes very disruptive) quarantines that schools enforce on unvaccinated students during an outbreak?

In this case an outbreak exists (presumably in the school, or community) and the chance of catching a highly contagious disease is much higher than the general pink book statistics suggest. While vaccinated kids can also catch the illness, unvaccinated kids are much more likely to catch illness in most cases. Forced quarantine is certainly an unnatural consequence.

Is it right for public institutions to enforce quarantines of non-vaxed kids during an active outbreak? 

By "public institutions," are you referring to schools and day cares only?

It would depend on the outbreak. If some kid gets pre-cancerous HPV, it's preposterous to send non-vaxxed teens home. Ditto on tetanus and even Hep A and Hep B. If pertussis comes to town, schools need to close their doors. Period. I don't care if vaxxed kids are getting a milder version. They can still bring that mild version to babies and other vulnerable people.

I do think that quarantines and even school closures give a false sense of confidence. There's a big, big world out there full of pathogens and transmitters in stores, workplaces, city buses, etc.
BeckyBird likes this.

In God we trust; all others must show data. selectivevax.gifsurf.gifteapot2.GIFintactivist.gif
Turquesa is online now  
#81 of 106 Old 02-15-2014, 07:33 AM
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,050
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 29 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiachu View Post

Have you read HIPPA at all? HIPPA prevents covered entities from discussing your healthcare information with a third party with certain exemptions. Not that someone cant require a health status for you to participate. You have the opportunity not to divulge that info and move along. Daycares are not a covered entity and are actually are well within their rights to demand vaccine compliance under the public health umbrella.

And I think people confuse "rights" with "things we don't think is fair".
You dont have a right to a particular daycare or doctor because you CHOOSE not participate in a vaccination program as outline by the rules of that facility. When I was younger I could not play soccer unless I provided a birth certificate and documentation that I had a physical and was fit to play. In the UFC players have to submit to testing of blood borne pathogens.

You can remedy your unvaccinated status regardless if it is your original natural state. There is nothing I can do to wipe my DNA of my black skin and African heritage and change the fact I came from a black woman's womb.

HIPAA, (note the correct acronym, ladies), requires patient consent prior to the sharing of personal health information. In most medical clinics, it's just announced that your info will be shared and sign that you received info about HIPAA.

Now consider this. All 50 states have vaccine registries, databases that track the vaccination status of children and adults. In many states, there is no-opt out provision. Where I used to live, you could opt out, but adults were unaware that they were entered in the first place, e.g. for flu shots. Registry information is available not just to providers, but also to daycare provider and public and private school personnel, including teachers and principals. I'm not comfortable with my own and my children's PHI being shared with such a wide array of people.

I argue that consumer health advocates can and should challenge these registries on the grounds they violate HIPAA, specifically the provision requiring patient consent before PHI is shared.
BeckyBird likes this.

In God we trust; all others must show data. selectivevax.gifsurf.gifteapot2.GIFintactivist.gif
Turquesa is online now  
#82 of 106 Old 02-15-2014, 08:11 AM
 
ss834's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 301
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turquesa View Post


By "public institutions," are you referring to schools and day cares only?

It would depend on the outbreak. If some kid gets pre-cancerous HPV, it's preposterous to send non-vaxxed teens home. Ditto on tetanus and even Hep A and Hep B. If pertussis comes to town, schools need to close their doors. Period. I don't care if vaxxed kids are getting a milder version. They can still bring that mild version to babies and other vulnerable people.

I do think that quarantines and even school closures give a false sense of confidence. There's a big, big world out there full of pathogens and transmitters in stores, workplaces, city buses, etc.

To answer your question: not necessarily schools and daycares, universities, too. I would say workplaces, except I have never heard of it happening. Hospitals obviously remain open during disease outbreaks (but unvaccinated people might be treated differently upon arriving at the hospital). So just those places that are likely to be shut down during some kind of outbreak, whichever institutions have a history of such closures/quarantines.

 

I agree with you about pertussis, and meningitis is another one that should be automatic school closure. No one should be going to school during those outbreaks.

To address your last point, another benefit of quarantine IMO (selective or not) is that it would make more people aware of the outbreak so that they might avoid other places where they could contract illness. It's not foolproof, obviously. I would think spending 1 hr in the grocery store is less risky than spending 8 hours locked up in a building with tons of other people though.

 

I have heard of sending unvaxed kids home with prophylactic antibiotics for pertussis. I am not sure if this approach is practiced anymore, since it's most likely not beneficial.

I've also heard of selective quarantines, or monitoring of students, and school closures for measles.

 

Even if we just look at this question for measles alone, it's still valid. Unvaccinated people during a measles outbreak are far more likely to be selectively quarantined or monitored AND that's supported by known scientific data. Is this unnatural consequence unjust?

 

I think health officials have some obligation to protect the community in ways that might inconvenience families who don't vaccinate. In some cases they may overreact.

Even in those cases where the quarantine or school closure might not be scientifically supported, I don't think these types of "unnatural consequences" are nearly as objectionable as the more severe consequences-- like prosecution of parents who don't vaccinate. That's where it goes too far.

ss834 is offline  
#83 of 106 Old 02-15-2014, 08:30 AM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Outside the hive mind
Posts: 7,302
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ss834 View Post
 
I agree with you about pertussis, and meningitis is another one that should be automatic school closure. No one should be going to school during those outbreaks.

To address your last point, another benefit of quarantine IMO (selective or not) is that it would make more people aware of the outbreak so that they might avoid other places where they could contract illness. It's not foolproof, obviously. I would think spending 1 hr in the grocery store is less risky than spending 8 hours locked up in a building with tons of other people though.

 

I have heard of sending unvaxed kids home with prophylactic antibiotics for pertussis. I am not sure if this approach is practiced anymore, since it's most likely not beneficial.

I've also heard of selective quarantines, or monitoring of students, and school closures for measles.

 

I think health officials have some obligation to protect the community in ways that might inconvenience families who don't vaccinate. In some cases they may overreact.

Even in those cases where the quarantine or school closure might not be scientifically supported, I don't think these types of "unnatural consequences" are nearly as objectionable as the more severe consequences-- like prosecution of parents who don't vaccinate. That's where it goes too far.

 

Given that those vaccinated for whooping cough can still be colonized for up to 35 days without symptoms, you cannot know who is a potential carrier - do you close the whole school? During the outbreak at my DD's school, there was no suggestion of sending kids home with prophylactic antibiotics which strikes me as very heavy-handed and unethical if forced on people.

BeckyBird likes this.

Rainbow.giftstillheart.gifsmile.gif

 

"If you find from your own experience that something is a fact and it contradicts what some authority has written down, then you must abandon the authority and base your reasoning on your own findings"~ Leonardo da Vinci

Mirzam is offline  
#84 of 106 Old 02-15-2014, 08:34 AM
 
ss834's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 301
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post
 

 

Given that those vaccinated for whooping cough can still be colonized for up to 35 days without symptoms, you cannot know who is a potential carrier - do you close the whole school? During the outbreak at my DD's school, there was no suggestion of sending kids home with prophylactic antibiotics which strikes me as very heavy-handed and unethical if forced on people.

1- Yes, that was what was discussed.

 

2- I agree, and that's not a reasonable response IMO.  But I don't think anyone has to actually take the antibiotics if they choose not to.

ss834 is offline  
#85 of 106 Old 02-15-2014, 09:25 AM
 
ss834's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 301
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Some examples in the US:

2008- Waldorf School closes and requires ALL students to take antibiotics before returning. "Those choosing not to take the antibiotic treatment will be kept out of school for the three-week incubation period." -http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local&id=6131662

 

2006 Measles outbreak in Boston, where "Hundreds of people at three workplaces have been ordered to stay home until they can prove they aren't susceptible or until they have passed the incubation period for the disease."  - http://www.boston.com/yourlife/health/diseases/articles/2006/06/10/measles_outbreak_shows_a_global_threat/

 

2007 Measles outbreak in Ann Arbor "Now, district officials are telling all students who have not been immunized to stay home for 21 days." -http://blog.mlive.com/study_hall/2007/10/measles_outbreak_may_have_spre.html

 

2008 Voluntary 21-day quarantine for unvaccinated students: - http://www.cdc.gov/mmwR/preview/mmwrhtml/mm57e222a1.htm

ss834 is offline  
#86 of 106 Old 02-15-2014, 10:56 AM - Thread Starter
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,870
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 91 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ss834 View Post
 

 

 

Even if we just look at this question for measles alone, it's still valid. Unvaccinated people during a measles outbreak are far more likely to be selectively quarantined or monitored AND that's supported by known scientific data. Is this unnatural consequence unjust?

 

 

I think this is a valid point.

 

Personally, I have no issues with my children being excluded from school if there is a genuine outbreak going on and if the science warrants it for that particular disease.  

 

I suspect that some non-vaxxers might disagree with me, although I am not sure. 

 

I will add this quarantine or exclusion on my part would be voluntary.  

 

For fun, I looked up involuntary quarantine and this is what the CDC has to say:

http://www.cdc.gov/sars/quarantine/qa-isolation.html

 

"Under the procedures required by the PHS Act, the list of diseases for which quarantine is authorized must first be specified in an Executive Order of the President, on recommendation of the HHS Secretary. Since 1983, this list has included cholera, diphtheria, infectious tuberculosis, plague, smallpox, yellow fever, and viral hemorrhagic fevers. It was amended in April 2003 to include SARS."


There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#87 of 106 Old 02-15-2014, 11:01 AM
 
babymommy2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 406
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
~~I'm trying to figure out if we have anything else that is comparable to this as a society: "Do this medical procedure or else there will be social, educational, financial and health-access consequences."

yes, there are lots of examples of this and they relate to how one person's decision relates to the health of other people. Public health mandates people be treated for active infectious TB, you have to give contact information to public health if you have HIV and certain other infectious diseases. If you have confirmed measles disease, public health will be looking for contact information. Certain infectious disease require quarantines. Not all are infectious disease related though. Certain disease its not safe to drive or operate machinery. If you become blind and there is treatment and you refuse and you are a surgeon, no one is going to let you operate on them (not that its too likely!). Certain mental health diseases require a person be on medications, and monitored for the safety of the public. Drug addicts can have their children taken away if not getting treatment. There are lots of circumstances when the greater good takes precedent over individual rights, and I think that is a good thing.

 

Perhaps there is more back story to this thread than I know of, but I think the natural consequence of not vaccinating/Vaccinating is taking on the rick of disease/risk of side effects. People can decide for themselves. The unnatural consequence is that  public policy would remove an unvaccinated child from school during an outbreak, and quarantine a person with natural disease for the the benefit of the public. healthy populations are the entire point of public health policy.

babymommy2 is offline  
#88 of 106 Old 02-15-2014, 11:19 AM - Thread Starter
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,870
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 91 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by babymommy2 View Post
 

yes, there are lots of examples of this and they relate to how one person's decision relates to the health of other people. Public health mandates people be treated for active infectious TB, you have to give contact information to public health if you have HIV and certain other infectious diseases. If you have confirmed measles disease, public health will be looking for contact information. Certain infectious disease require quarantines. Not all are infectious disease related though. Certain disease its not safe to drive or operate machinery. If you become blind and there is treatment and you refuse and you are a surgeon, no one is going to let you operate on them (not that its too likely!). Certain mental health diseases require a person be on medications, and monitored for the safety of the public. Drug addicts can have their children taken away if not getting treatment. There are lots of circumstances when the greater good takes precedent over individual rights, and I think that is a good thing.

 

 

I am not sure if you read this whole thread or not…but many of us differentiate between having an active disease and being at (possibly) a slightly higher risk of getting one.

 

Ex - If a person has  epilepsy and does not have epilepsy under control, they should should not drive.  Active disease.

 

Saying unvaccinated children need to stay out of school  (which I realise you did not say), though, would be like saying a person who had febrile seizures as a child and therefore has a slightly higher risk of developing a seizure disorder later in life should not be allowed to drive.  Or that anyone who ever drinks alcohol should not get a license because they have the potential to drink and drive.  

BeckyBird likes this.

There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#89 of 106 Old 02-15-2014, 11:37 AM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,097
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by babymommy2 View Post
 

 Certain mental health diseases require a person be on medications, and monitored for the safety of the public....There are lots of circumstances when the greater good takes precedent over individual rights, and I think that is a good thing.

 

 

[edit mine]

 

I think you make a valid point.


However, I strongly take issue with your point about mental health "diseases" and the requirement to be on medication.  There is a very strong argument that many "mental health diseases" are actually easily-reversible issues with known causes; depression is one of many such conditions that has as root causes sleep deprivation, food allergies, vitamin D deficiency, lack of exercise, etc.  Many of these conditions, when combined with the psychiatric industry's medications, result in brain damage, sometimes permanent--just as use of illicit drugs can result in brain damage.

 

This is an issue where the pharmaceutical industry has caused more problems than they have solved, and these problems have become political and societal ones that are often misunderstood (to the profit of the pharmaceutical industry).

I know far too many people--mostly women, mostly mothers--who were diagnosed with depression when they were not clinically depressed, and/or given depression meds that caused an avalanche of both mental problems and health problems.

From what I am learning, this is more and more common in all demographics, but especially in children.


Sorry to go off-topic, but I do feel very strongly about this, and I believe that most people, unfortunately, believe the propaganda that the pharmaceutical industry puts out about "mental health" that is only there to sell prescription drugs.

Mirzam, rachelsmama and BeckyBird like this.
Taximom5 is offline  
#90 of 106 Old 02-15-2014, 12:05 PM
 
erigeron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,345
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turquesa View Post


How big of an increase is this risk, though? Given everything that science has confirmed about the flu shot's many weaknesses, it seems fanatical and draconian to force it on hospital employees with the feeble rationale of "some protection is better than none."

I don't agree. Flu is a serious threat to many hospitalized patients. The risk of side effects from the vaccine pales in comparison to the risks of the flu for this population. If a person in healthcare is unwilling to take this risk for the sake of their patients, I don't really want that person caring for a newborn or a pneumonia patient or a person on chemo or with lung disease or ??? They should get a job working with a patient population that is less at risk if this is such a big deal to them. It's not just about yourself anymore in that line of work. 

ss834 likes this.

WOHM to a girl jog.gif (6-11) and a new baby boy stork-boy.gif (2-14) and adjusting to the full-time life and husband being a SAHD. 
erigeron is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off