how about SB 277?
I disagree.
The great thing about science is that it doesn’t require your belief in it to work.
Like the rest of the post says: “likely as not”, and “back when govt was on the peoples side”
Me not understand question… Try again?
Vaccines didn’t suddenly become sinister when bad people were elected to government. For that matter, there have always been bad people in government. That’s why you have to evaluate policy on a case-by-case basis.
There should be mandatory, universal vaccination as a matter of public health and national security. The only exemptions should be for people who cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons. Those exemptions need to be decided on a case-by-case basis by a State board of physicians. No doctor shopping by the human smallpox blankets
You’ve already ignored the answer. Nobody is being forced to vaccinate.
Schools aren’t obligated to put students in danger if you refuae to vaccinate yours so they don’t have to accept them.
Belief absolutely does not affect science, but it does affect some peoples’ willingness to trust the results provided by science. If you are of the “Science is just another religion” cult, then you have no reason to trust it anymore than you would anyone commenting on the internet. If you understand that “science” refers to a method of investigating the nature of the universe, it becomes easier to trust that it is our best tool to comprehend it’s workings. Not a perfect tool, but far and away the best one.
Nobody ever told them about nature, red in tooth and claw.
great. The apocalypse is right around the corner, I figured finally, we’re gonna get to eat the rich, and just to get out of being eaten they’ve infected the livestock with all sorts of easily preventable crap.
Wouldn’t it be better to have them all in the same school?
‘A second ago you were stepping into college with your lungs full of fresh air. Today you’re an old man.’
‘Old?’ asked Clevinger with surprise. ‘What are you talking about?’
‘Old.’
‘I’m not old.’
'You’re inches away from death every time you go on a mission. How much older can you be at your age?
Not if you actually want vaccines to work.
If all you want to do is punish the kids whose parents don’t like science (or who actually have a legitimate reason for the exemption!) then, yes, you ensure an outbreak.
If you want to stop the spread of disease, keep the vaccinated percentage at above 95 (or different, depending on what science says about the effectiveness of the vaccine) in any particular location, so you have herd immunity (the reason vaccines work!)
ETA: grammar and not unvaccinated, but vaccinated above 95%
Problem with that is it is a recipe for an serious outbreak. To use the forest fire analogy, if you get a rip-roaring fire going with lots of kindling, it will burn lots of stuff you maybe don’t want burned. Unless you also isolate them from social contacts with the vaxxed majority, all you do is make for more nice, dry kindling.
It’s the legislation in question in the article. And as you said, they don’t have to let the kids in if they’re a danger to everyone else. They can go to a private school or be home schooled. They do have a choice.
I am quite familiar with SB277. I am uncertain as to how the questioner meant this “What about” question as related to my statement.
For my arthritis… honest!
There is this case:
Not vaccination per se, but I approve. Parents are the guardians of children, but the children are not chattel. The same goes for religions that ban blood transfusion as well.
Different story entirely. The child was unvaccinated, but this fact was only peripherally germane to the situation. An alternative healthcare provider called the cops for essentially child endangerment. After the situation in Canada, I would hope this was taken very seriously.
Priests and rabbis were also granted exemptions for things like sacramental wine during Prohibition. So using religion to get out of vaccinating kids isn’t an original tactic, either.