900 Catholic Students suspended for not having vaccination records

[Rakehellion]

If we're talking about a spread-out minority of unvaccinated people amongst a population that has a high enough percentage of vaccinated people, then perhaps. However, stupidity is commonplace, stupid ideas propagate rather quickly, and sometimes people get panicky and do stupid things. It was only in the last few weeks that I heard of a school where something like 25% of the students were off sick due to contracting an illness that vaccines are available for.

So "I know what's best for you better than you do." That's fascism.

Rather than educating people on the importance of vaccines, you'd rather involve children in your politics by denying them an education.

What percentage of whose who got sick were vaccinated or wanted a vaccine but were medically incompatible with it?

There are quite a few people in society who are at much higher risk of serious consequences if they contracted say german measles. There really is no excuse for not vaccinating. I have been on immunosuppressants for a number of years, what should I do, stop going outside because there are some people who are inconsiderate little shits? Are they going to pay my bills?

What about all the diseases for which there are no vaccines?

If you're immunocompromised, you need to stay in a bubble and let everyone else live their lives.

These two (quoted) posts aren't compatible with each other.

Vaccines don't protect against illness, they protect against a small subset of illnesses under a certain set of conditions.

 

[mikeymikec]

So "I know what's best for you better than you do." That's fascism.

Rather than educating people on the importance of vaccines, you'd rather involve children in your politics by denying them an education.

Plenty of things are illegal because they involve endangering the lives of others.

Of course I am all for educating people on this topic.

Since it's illegal to deny a child an education (more fascism?), you're just trying to drum up some hyperbole to aid your point. Yet you're not talking about parents who are endangering their children and other people because of their "politics".

What percentage of whose who got sick were vaccinated or wanted a vaccine but were medically incompatible with it?

If the percentage is significant enough (I doubt it), then that's all the more reason why every other person who can be vaccinated should do so.

What about all the diseases for which there are no vaccines?

What about them? We're talking about diseases that are easy to prevent and could probably be eradicated entirely if some people didn't make stupid choices.

If you're immunocompromised, you need to stay in a bubble and let everyone else live their lives.

So you're saying that, for example, newborns, elderly people and other people with compromised immune systems should have to "live in a bubble" so that some people can make a stupid decision that endangers others for no good reason, and for there to be no personal consequences?

Vaccines don't protect against illness, they protect against a small subset of illnesses under a certain set of conditions.

Do you have a point here, or are you trying to come out with a statement worthy of Captain Obvious in order to try and downplay the role of mass vaccination?

Instead, why don't you admit that you made two very obviously conflicting statements?

 

[Rakehellion]

Plenty of things are illegal because they involve endangering the lives of others.

It's a stretch of the imagination to say that refusing a vaccine will kill people.

Of course I am all for educating people on this topic.

But why educate them when you can just shove a needle in their arm against their will? You don't need one when you can just do the other, right?

Since it's illegal to deny a child an education

Apparently not. These kids were pulled from school, weren't they?

We're talking about diseases that are easy to prevent and could probably be eradicated entirely if some people didn't make stupid choices.

You keep calling things "stupid." You're obviously very wound up about this and can't make rational decisions.

The diseases for which vaccines are available are not the most deadly. It's a fallacy of convenience.

There's no vaccine for HIV, yet developed countries have the lowest rates of HIV in the world. It seems that there are alternatives to fighting a war against autonomy.

And again, who's paying to administer these vaccines to billions of people?

So you're saying that, for example, newborns, elderly people and other people with compromised immune systems should have to "live in a bubble"

Clearly. It's a better idea for a parent to actively keep their kid out of harm's way than to try to sue the restaurant because they left a sharp knife sitting on the table. Or should the entire world be a "safe space" where kids can run free?

Do you have a point here, or are you trying to come out with a statement worthy of Captain Obvious in order to try and downplay the role of mass vaccination?

Mass vaccination is good. Compulsory vaccination is bad. It isn't necessary to try to bully people into taking vaccines to make your point.

Instead, why don't you admit that you made two very obviously conflicting statements?

I dont live in a world of false dichotomies. Both statements are true.

 

[mikeymikec]

It's a stretch of the imagination to say that refusing a vaccine will kill people.

It's a stretch of the imagination that other illegal things that could endanger the lives of others *will* kill people too, but they're illegal nonetheless.

Apparently not. These kids were pulled from school, weren't they?

Kids temporarily being out of school is not "denying them an education". Just as you've ignored my counterpoint regarding "parents playing politics", you'll ignore this too, but the fact of the matter is, if a kid contracts an illness that they could have been vaccinated for, but because their parents said no to a vaccine for no good reason (again something you haven't responded to), they're going to be off school for a while.

You keep calling things "stupid." You're obviously very wound up about this and can't make rational decisions.

So far you still haven't given one good reason why someone should not get their children inoculated. You're arguing for a right that there literally is no point for except in some very specific medical scenarios.

The diseases for which vaccines are available are not the most deadly. It's a fallacy of convenience.

And again, who's paying to administer these vaccines to billions of people?

Have you considered what an epidemic would do in a city that doesn't have any vaccinated people in? Have you considered how much people move around between cities? It's a damn sight more convenient to vaccinate people against an illness that isn't necessarily life-threatening for most, but if enough people went down with it at the same time, medical resources would be stretched way beyond capacity, public services would likely be affected, productivity would take a severe hit, and plenty of people would actually die in an easily preventable epidemic. Mass inoculation is simply a lot cheaper and allows life to go on as normal.

Clearly. It's a better idea for a parent to actively keep their kid out of harm's way than to try to sue the restaurant because they left a sharp knife sitting on the table. Or should the entire world be a "safe space" where kids can run free?

That's not even a vaguely comparable analogy, but then you're advocating that the elderly, newborns and other immunocompromised people should live in seclusion so that some people can enjoy an idiotic privilege without consequences. I think this is the centrepiece of your point of view right here, and all I can saw is "wow" at your lack of empathy.

I dont live in a world of false dichotomies. Both statements are true.

Right, so while it's very unlikely that a healthy, unvaccinated person will ever get sick with an illness that they could have been vaccinated for, an immunocompromised person can and will get sick with that illness? The only reason to argue in favour of both of those statements is because it suits your worldview, because otherwise it makes no sense.

 

[abj13]

The diseases for which vaccines are available are not the most deadly. It's a fallacy of convenience.

False. Measles is still one of the leading causes of death of infectious diseases worldwide, especially in children, with over 100,000 each year still dying of it, despite the availability of a highly effective vaccine.

 

[Victorian Gray]

It's a stretch of the imagination to say that refusing a vaccine will kill people.

<snip>

Mass vaccination is good. Compulsory vaccination is bad. It isn't necessary to try to bully people into taking vaccines to make your point.

I dont live in a world of false dichotomies. Both statements are true.

I'm guessing that you're not old enough to remember this:

Or measles:

Measles has had a severe impact on children in the United States since colonial times. In the early decades of the 20th century, thousands of fatal measles infections were reported each year. During the 1950s an annual average of greater than 500,000 cases of measles and nearly 500 deaths due to measles were reported in the United States. Surveys indicated that 95% of the population had been infected with measles by the age of 15 years. The introduction of measles vaccine and its widespread use, which began in 1963, has had a major impact on the occurrence of measles in the United States. Reported numbers of cases, deaths due to measles, and complications of measles (e.g., encephalitis) have declined dramatically. Accompanying the decline in reported incidence of measles and following it by approximately seven years, has been a decline in the reported incidence of subacute sclerosing panencephalitis (SSPE). In recent years, the incidence of measles has dropped to levels that are less than 1% of those seen in the prevaccine era. In 1981, provisional figures indicated that only 10% of counties in the United States reported any cases of measles. The reported incidence in 1981 was 1.3 cases per 100,000 population, compared with an average incidence of 336.3 cases per 100,000 population in the decade 1950-1959. Thus, the impact of measles in the United States has been markedly reduced, and it is anticipated that indigenous transmission will be eliminated entirely from the country within the year.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6878996

 

[Rakehellion]

It's a stretch of the imagination that other illegal things that could endanger the lives of others *will* kill people too, but they're illegal nonetheless.

We're not talking about other things.

Kids temporarily being out of school is not "denying them an education". Just as you've ignored my counterpoint regarding "parents playing politics", you'll ignore this too, but the fact of the matter is, if a kid contracts an illness that they could have been vaccinated for, but because their parents said no to a vaccine for no good reason (again something you haven't responded to), they're going to be off school for a while.

First you say they're "temporarily" out of school, then you say they're out of school for "a while." Which is it? Either way, they're being denied an education. Sugarcoat all you want.

So far you still haven't given one good reason why someone should not get their children inoculated.

People should get vaccinated. People should not be forced into vaccinations. You're arguing against something I never said.

I'll ask again since you dodged my question the last three times, who's paying for all these vaccinations?

Have you considered what an epidemic would do in a city that doesn't have any vaccinated people in?

Hypothetical slippery slope scenario. Millions of people are vaccinated and such scenarios don't exist anymore in developed countries.

There's no vaccine for Ebola and people don't get Ebola.
There's no vaccine for HIV and people aren't expected to get HIV.

Obviously vaccines are not the only preventative measure against disease.

Mass inoculation is simply a lot cheaper and allows life to go on as normal.

Mass inoculation good. Forced inoculation bad.

That's not even a vaguely comparable analogy, but then you're advocating that the elderly, newborns and other immunocompromised people should live in seclusion

You missed my point that newborns and the eldery already do live in seclusion for the most part because there are other threats besides viruses out there.

so that some people can enjoy an idiotic privilege without consequences. I think this is the centrepiece of your point of view right here, and all I can saw is "wow" at your lack of empathy.

It isn't empathy when you force it on someone, now is it? It certainly isn't empathy when you put your vaccine agenda on everyone else to sate a minority of the population.

Right, so while it's very unlikely that a healthy, unvaccinated person will ever get sick with an illness that they could have been vaccinated for, an immunocompromised person can and will get sick with that illness? The only reason to argue in favour of both of those statements is because it suits your worldview, because otherwise it makes no sense.

Everyone will get sick at some point in their lives, vaccinated or not. You have a hardon for this small subset of illnesses for which there are preventative drugs.

 

[Rakehellion]

False. Measles is still one of the leading causes of death of infectious diseases worldwide, especially in children, with over 100,000 each year still dying of it, despite the availability of a highly effective vaccine.

The vast majority of those 100,000 live in third-world countries where the vaccine is not widely available.

I'm guessing that you're not old enough to remember this

Cherry picking. How many vaccinable illnesses are not generally deadly? How many deadly diseases are not vaccinable?

And yes, the childhood death rate was higher half a century ago for reasons other than vaccines. There are lots of things we don't do anymore just because we know we shouldn't, not because they outlawed it.

 

[Strk]

The vast majority of those 100,000 live in third-world countries where the vaccine is not widely available.



Cherry picking. How many vaccinable illnesses are not generally deadly? How many deadly diseases are not vaccinable?

And yes, the childhood death rate was higher half a century ago for reasons other than vaccines. There are lots of things we don't do anymore just because we know we shouldn't, not because they outlawed it.

I'm really confused as to what your argument actually is as far as vaccines go. Is it just the mandatory part? Or is it the efficacy of any and all vaccines? Or that we don't vaccinate for things we don't have vaccines for? Seriously, I'm not sure where you're going with your argument.

Personally, I think if you're going to a public institution, you should be required to get them. Then again, I also think the current vaccines should also be given as well.

 

[Iron Woode]

That's a communicable illness that a person has.

An unvaccinated person does not have any illness and likely never will. They are not infected, they are unvaccinated.

LMAO

is this even a serious post?

 

[Iron Woode]

I'm really confused as to what your argument actually is as far as vaccines go.

that's because he and Texas Hiker are just trolling everyone.

just ignore them and don't even think about responding to them.

 

[abj13]

The vast majority of those 100,000 live in third-world countries where the vaccine is not widely available.

Uh, that in no way changes your BS statement that "The diseases for which vaccines are available are not the most deadly."

In fact your statement reinforces the point that measles vaccines should be disseminated even further given all the deaths. That vaccine saves thousands of lives. Good job on contradicting yourself.

Cherry picking. How many vaccinable illnesses are not generally deadly? How many deadly diseases are not vaccinable.

So we should only vaccinate if a vaccine prevents deaths? That's woefully shortsighted and makes zero sense. Vaccines provide more than just saving a life. If a single vaccine (guess which one) reduces the complications associated with a vaccine preventable infection of:

1/10 risk of otitis media
1/10 risk of severe diarrhea
1/20 risk of pneumonia
1/1000 risk of encephalitis
1/1,000,000 risk of SSPE

On top of saving thousands of lives, why should we neglect that vaccine? We have a vaccine that prevents encephalitis, but according to you, we should neglect that vaccine because we have to focus on whether it is "deadly" or not.

 

[OverVolt]

Don't even get Louis Pastour started on rabies. He had to suck a sample out of a rabid dogs mouth with a pipette if he wanted to study it. They settled on injecting the neurons of rabid dogs until they developed the vaccine.

 

[Strk]

Uh, that in no way changes your BS statement that "The diseases for which vaccines are available are not the most deadly."

In fact your statement reinforces the point that measles vaccines should be disseminated even further given all the deaths. That vaccine saves thousands of lives. Good job on contradicting yourself.



So we should only vaccinate if a vaccine prevents deaths? That's woefully shortsighted and makes zero sense. Vaccines provide more than just saving a life. If a single vaccine (guess which one) reduces the complications associated with a vaccine preventable infection of:

1/10 risk of otitis media
1/10 risk of severe diarrhea
1/20 risk of pneumonia
1/1000 risk of encephalitis
1/1,000,000 risk of SSPE

On top of saving thousands of lives, why should we neglect that vaccine? We have a vaccine that prevents encephalitis, but according to you, we should neglect that vaccine because we have to focus on whether it is "deadly" or not.

Yeah, but measles is something for third world countries, so we're good.... So I'm told

 

[Rakehellion]

measles vaccines should be disseminated even further given all the deaths. That vaccine saves thousands of lives.

No shit. Most people want vaccines.

according to you, we should neglect that vaccine because we have to focus on whether it is "deadly" or not.

I never said anything like that, sparklepony. Don't put words in my mouth.

 

[abj13]

No shit. Most people want vaccines.

I never said anything like that, sparklepony. Don't put words in my mouth.

Nice hole you've dug. What did you say?

The diseases for which vaccines are available are not the most deadly. It's a fallacy of convenience.

Cherry picking. How many vaccinable illnesses are not generally deadly? How many deadly diseases are not vaccinable.

I suggest you go back and edit your posts and apologize for your purposeful distortion.

And we're still waiting for you to correct your BS statement of "The diseases for which vaccines are available are not the most deadly."

 

[Iron Woode]

It gets worse for Canadians apparently: an online poll indicates that nearly 1/3 of Canadian parents believe that vaccines cause autism.

 

[Rakehellion]

Nice hole you've dug. What did you say?

Mass inoculation good. Forced inoculation bad.

^^^

 

[abj13]

^^^

Hilarious. Why don't you use words like a civilized person. You state

The diseases for which vaccines are available are not the most deadly. It's a fallacy of convenience.

Cherry picking. How many vaccinable illnesses are not generally deadly? How many deadly diseases are not vaccinable.

And you cannot even defend those statements now, and would rather run and hide from them.

 

[zinfamous]

His hyperbole extends to hand washing police which is unenforcable. This is enforcable because of record keeping. Its also ludicrus because its proven science around public health that works for a SOCIETY ,which if you want to be part of, comply. No? again backwoods cabin that way

fucking bravo man. Been shoving the message down TexasTwiddle's throat for 8 years now.

Maybe now he will listen? doubt it!

 

[mikeymikec]

It isn't empathy when you force it on someone, now is it? It certainly isn't empathy when you put your vaccine agenda on everyone else to sate a minority of the population.

Everyone will get sick at some point in their lives, vaccinated or not. You have a hardon for this small subset of illnesses for which there are preventative drugs.

I'm done arguing with you, simply because you ignore any points and questions that don't suit your viewpoint, so this is my last response to you on this topic. I and others have already pointed out what the stakes are and so why mass inoculation is a good thing, yet you're arguing for a consequence-free right for which you haven't made any basis for whatsoever. You're basically advocating that ignorant people making an ignorant decision that endangers the lives of others are more important than those who don't have that option.

Furthermore, the fact that you basically have said "fuck 'em" with regard to those that can't be inoculated makes me not even vaguely interested in the rest of your opinion. If people live in seclusion in a modern society then they will get sick for other reasons; people need to be active, mobile and social.

But I'll tell you what, I'll give you responses to the questions that you feel are so very important to your argument:

First you say they're "temporarily" out of school, then you say they're out of school for "a while." Which is it? Either way, they're being denied an education. Sugarcoat all you want.

I would define "being denied an education" as way more than a week or two. Kids get ill or injured all the time and are out of school for a week or two. Parents take their kids on holidays in term time sometimes. Kids sometimes are suspended from school for bad behaviour for a week or two. If that was a problem then schools would not be able to effectively function. This is business as usual. If that school was suspending kids for several months even though their vaccination records had been put in order within say a week then I would have a problem with it.

I'll ask again since you dodged my question the last three times, who's paying for all these vaccinations?

It'll be different depending on the country, surely? The UK has the NHS so the NHS will likely be footing the bill, just as they would be footing a bill (indirectly through taxes) that is likely to be thousands of times greater in the event of an epidemic. The US mostly has a private insurance system so either citizens are paying through insurance or they're paying through taxes and the government foots that particular bill, but again, the bill would likely be thousands of times greater in the event of an epidemic.

Now that I've answered the questions that you felt I was ignoring, how about you go back and answer all the points that I've made that you have so far ignored?

"I got mine, so fuck you" mentality, awesome

I think this guy nailed your opinion early on. You're advocating a point of view that entitles some people to be ignorant, selfish assholes who refuse inoculation for no good reason and they should be allowed to do so because enough other people have been immunised in order to make an mass epidemic scenario more or less hypothetical. Have you considered what would happen if your ignorant point of view caught on in the general population?

I don't think this is really about mass immunisation at all, but your narrow-minded, selfish perspective through which you're viewing this topic. Epidemics are problems that other countries have because most people in your country don't share your opinion. The immunocompromised should live in seclusion away from people like you. Little details like "why mass immunisation is a good thing", "what would happen if mass immunisation wasn't possible", are like hypothetical annoyances that you'd prefer not to worry your pretty little head about.

 

[Rakehellion]

I'm done arguing with you

And then writes paragraphs of text...

mass inoculation is a good thing

No shit. I've said that repeatedly. You're arguing against a strawman.

You're basically advocating that ignorant people making an ignorant decision that endangers the lives of others are more important than those who don't have that option.

It is an overstatement to say that the few outliers who don't want vaccinations are a public health risk. The majority of people can and do get vaccines without being forced. I've even cited examples of diseases for which there are no vaccinations that are under control.

Widespread epidemics don't happen because of lack of vaccines, they happen because of lack of education. I gave examples of Ebola and HIV which are under control without a vaccine. Even swine flu, avian flu, and SARS were completely overblown and nothing happened even without a vaccine. Your forced vaccination rhetoric is sensationalist fearmongering based on a slippery slope and zero evidence.

You've gleefully ignored the core of my argument.

If people live in seclusion in a modern society then they will get sick for other reasons; people need to be active, mobile and social.

Which you can't do if you're immunosuppressed. All the vaccines in the world won't change that.

Sure you won't get rubella, but you'll still get pneumonia, botulism, or the flu That's just a fact of life.

I would define "being denied an education" as way more than a week or two. Kids get ill or injured all the time and are out of school for a week or two. Parents take their kids on holidays in term time sometimes. Kids sometimes are suspended from school for bad behaviour for a week or two. If that was a problem then schools would not be able to effectively function. This is business as usual. If that school was suspending kids for several months even though their vaccination records had been put in order within say a week then I would have a problem with it.

So it's okay to deny a child an education but only if they're one of those evil kids who didn't get vaccinated. Or do they let them back into school even without the records?

It'll be different depending on the country, surely?

The current situation is that in America, you pay for it. In undeveloped countries, no one's paying for it. Neither of those are acceptable.

Have you considered what would happen if your ignorant point of view caught on in the general population?

More slippery slope fearmongering bullshit. *yawn*

I addressed that above.

Hilarious. Why don't you use words like a civilized person.

I used more words than you. Try coming up with a retort next time.

 

[MrPickins]

Which you can't do if you're immunosuppressed. All the vaccines in the world won't change that.

Sure you won't get rubella, but you'll still get pneumonia, botulism, or the flu That's just a fact of life

So, what you're saying is, because we don't have vaccines for every illness, people shouldn't be required to be vaccinated against the major diseases for which we do?

 

[Rakehellion]

I don't think this is really about mass immunisation at all, but your narrow-minded, selfish perspective through which you're viewing this topic. Epidemics are problems that other countries have because most people in your country don't share your opinion. The immunocompromised should live in seclusion away from people like you. Little details like "why mass immunisation is a good thing", "what would happen if mass immunisation wasn't possible", are like hypothetical annoyances that you'd prefer not to worry your pretty little head about.

Here in America we have freedom of choice, freedom of religion. Take your fascism elsewhere. If we're making it illegal to be selfish, we might as well ban your childish namecalling and label it hate speech.

 

[abj13]

I used more words than you. Try coming up with a retort next time.

Yes, using a bunch of carets is words. We are still awaiting your explanation of your factually false statements of:

The diseases for which vaccines are available are not the most deadly. It's a fallacy of convenience.

Cherry picking. How many vaccinable illnesses are not generally deadly? How many deadly diseases are not vaccinable.

Widespread epidemics don't happen because of lack of vaccines, they happen because of lack of education. I gave examples of Ebola and HIV which are under control without a vaccine. Even swine flu, avian flu, and SARS were completely overblown and nothing happened even without a vaccine. Your forced vaccination rhetoric is sensationalist fearmongering based on a slippery slope and zero evidence

This is moronic. Around 1.5 million people die each year of HIV, that is in no way "under control." And this is a virus that is very difficult to transmit (the risk of a health care worker directly injecting blood into him/herself is only 0.4%). At least this is one virus we can manage with daily medications. Ebola killed over 10,000 in a single region in one year. SARS has one of the highest death rates of any viral infection. Swine flu infected millions, ask any healthcare worker the impact of that virus in the 2009 season.

A vaccine can save millions of hospitalizations, thousands of medical complications and secondary infections, save thousands of lives, if existed, prevent a chronic infection like HIV, and saving billions upon billions of dollars in medical care. Your analysis reflects how little of medical knowledge of these infections you hold. I suggest you actually get off your butt and read a little on the CDC and WHO websites to educate yourself, instead of claiming "nothing happened." Your posts are nothing but ignorance of the medical facts of the benefits of vaccination and the risks of medical diseases you cite.