|
What about the real victims in this situation: unfairly maligned neglectful parents!
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 21:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 01:39 |
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:SedanChair posted: You're a hilarious one to mention strawmen, since that's not at all what he was saying. And no, I don't just default to "TAKE AWAY THEIR CHILDREN". I know it may be hard to imagine but we actually go for re-integration into the family as often as possible.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 21:13
|
|
|
GreyPowerVan posted:You're a hilarious one to mention strawmen, since that's not at all what he was saying. except that's exactly what you said. whether you saw it as a permanent solution or not, you advocated for removing the child from the home. Which is totally healthy for the kid, right?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 21:16
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:except that's exactly what you said. whether you saw it as a permanent solution or not, you advocated for removing the child from the home. Which is totally healthy for the kid, right? I think it should be a solution if the parent isn't willing to get their child immunized, which is going to be the very tiny majority who eat the anti-vaccination stuff up. VitalSigns posted:The same place you remove them to when parents refuse even to homeschool their kids: it only happens in a few necessary cases because nearly all parents when faced with that will say "ok fine I'll vaccinate/send them to school/make sure they can pass homeschooling exams." Your average suburban mom who watches a Jenny McCarthy video on YouTube and goes "well I'll skip vaccines just in case" is not the kind of zealot who will hole up David Koresh style when CPS comes by to say "hey you really need to vaccinate your kid, not kidding". This, basically. The power to remove a child is necessary in some cases to get the parents to go along. I don't care if you end up hating me for it, I will get you to take your kid to the doctor if he/she needs it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 21:19
|
|
|
GreyPowerVan posted:I think it should be a solution if the parent isn't willing to get their child immunized, which is going to be the very tiny majority who eat the anti-vaccination stuff up. Again, though, you're confusing duties to seek treatment post illness with duties to engage in preventative care. Once a kid has actually contracted an illness and is facing objectively certain consequences, the analysis changes quite a bit. ActusRhesus fucked around with this message at 21:29 on Jan 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 21:24
|
|
|
GreyPowerVan posted:So do you believe it should be a serious offense worthy of taking their kids away, or no? Not directed at me, but no it should definitely not. I think most other healthcare professionals would agree with me that the risk for a healthy, unvaccinated kid dying of measles is incredibly small and that the risk is overestimated in this thread by some. Most of the European and US cases of measles are import cases, and the US hasn't seen any deaths this year as far as I know. Not vaccinating is stupid on an intellectual basis as vaccinations are safe, and dangerous on a community basis if the practice is widespread, but for an individual mostly harmless: Approximately 5% of the western kids are not vaccinated, that would result in 15 million un-vacinated people. Last year there were 290 confirmed measles cases ( mostly imported cases from outside of the US). Risk of catching measles < 0.001%. Risk of serious adverse event after catching measles as a healthy individual < 0.001%. Al this changes if the community vaccination grade goes below 90% and measles becomes more wide spread, but at the current and past levels of herd immunity skipping the measles vaccine is dumb but mostly harmless. My question for you: do you think childhood obesity should be a serious offence worthy of taking someone's kids away? The risks for the kids is far greater, but taking parenthood away form a fifth of the population seems drastic.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 21:28
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Again, though, you're confusing duties to seek treatment post illness with duties to engage in preventative care. Once a kid has actually contracted an illness and is facing objectively certain consequences, the analysis changes quite a bit. Does this mean we should take no action if it's discovered that a child is malnourished to the point of developing rickets, because it might discourage a parent from taking a sick or injured kid to the doctor if they fear that discovery of malnutrition could lead to them losing their kids?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 21:33
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Does this mean we should take no action if it's discovered that a child is malnourished to the point of developing rickets, because it might discourage a parent from taking a sick or injured kid to the doctor if they fear that discovery of malnutrition could lead to them losing their kids? 1. You kind of answered your own question as to how this is different. So the analogy would be "not taking the child to the doctor after contracting measles" 2. Again, your analogy fails because not feeding a person will kill them to a degree of medical certainty. No food = death. Not vaccinating them, while I agree is scientifically stupid, will not (directly) kill them to a degree of medical certainty or even probability. The risk is still low (Irony alert: because of vaccines) ActusRhesus fucked around with this message at 21:45 on Jan 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 21:36
|
|
|
IAMNOTADOCTOR posted:Not directed at me, but no it should definitely not. I think most other healthcare professionals would agree with me that the risk for a healthy, unvaccinated kid dying of measles is incredibly small and that the risk is overestimated in this thread by some. Most of the European and US cases of measles are import cases, and the US hasn't seen any deaths this year as far as I know. Well, IAMNOTADOCTOR, the more parents that go without vaccinations, the more likely a child is to die from it! How nice. (You are all still overstating the amount of children who would be separated from their parents over this --- over 99% of them would go along with the vaccinations) Childhood obesity is a different case, in that it's widely... accepted? in the mainstream, and there is no political will to do much of anything about it. It's very bad for the children and likely will kill a VERY large amount of children before something, if anything, is done about it. I don't really know how to approach that right now. ActusRhesus posted:1. You kind of answered your own question as to how this is different. So the analogy would be "not taking the child to the doctor after contracting measles" If less and less people vaccinate their kids and a large number of them start dying from measles, does your position change?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 22:24
|
|
|
GreyPowerVan posted:Well, IAMNOTADOCTOR, the more parents that go without vaccinations, the more likely a child is to die from it! How nice. (You are all still overstating the amount of children who would be separated from their parents over this --- over 99% of them would go along with the vaccinations) It should be fairly obvious based on previous responses that I am not stating "my" position...I'm stating the legal requirements for a negligence action...and if the risk increases, then yeah...it does change the analysis, as part of a negligence analysis requires "awareness of a significant risk" The irony here is that because of the very thing these parents are fighting: vaccines, the risk is not significant (yet) and therefore, legally they can't be negligent for not pursuing the one proven practice that keeps that risk low. Conundrums.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 22:32
|
|
|
GreyPowerVan posted:Well, IAMNOTADOCTOR, the more parents that go without vaccinations, the more likely a child is to die from it! How nice. (You are all still overstating the amount of children who would be separated from their parents over this --- over 99% of them would go along with the vaccinations) That's not how the calculation works. It's not aggregate societal risk, it's risk to the specific child under analysis.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 22:57
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:That's not how the calculation works. It's not aggregate societal risk, it's risk to the specific child under analysis. What about kids who are attending schools (like the ones in the previously mentioned Hollywood Reporter piece) where 70-80% of them have vaccine exemptions? Could a situation like that start to turn the tables, from a legal point of view?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 23:34
|
|
|
Forcibly vaccinating children sounds way more reasonable than putting kids into the foster system just to get them a shot.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 23:46
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:What about kids who are attending schools (like the ones in the previously mentioned Hollywood Reporter piece) where 70-80% of them have vaccine exemptions? Could a situation like that start to turn the tables, from a legal point of view? nope, the risk would still be extremely low and therefore this type of intervention would not be in the interest of the child. Again, the high mark in the us right now was 290 cases a year. Only 1 in 100.000 get meningitis ( this figure is from the top of my head, will check if necessary). MMR vaccines are a public health wonder, but in a western country with >90% vaccination rate they will not have a significant effect on your survival. A third world country with endemic measles is another story. quote:Well, IAMNOTADOCTOR, the more parents that go without vaccinations, the more likely a child is to die from it! How nice. (You are all still overstating the amount of children who would be separated from their parents over this --- over 99% of them would go along with the vaccinations) Vaccination rate among < 18 years old is 95% generally. There are 80.000.000 kids <18 years old in the US. That means roughly 4 million un-vaccinated kids. If the parents of1% of them are not somehow magically persuaded by a government mandated forced vaccination that would result in 40.000 new foster kids. I'm no social worker, but that sounds both infeasible and unwanted. Foster kids perform worse on almost all outcomes, do you really believe that what you would be doing would be in the best interest of the kid? To me, it seems as silly as placing obese kids or kids from parents that refuse to use an appropriate car seat under foster care. Meanwhile (good) foster places for kids that actually need them are in short supply, vaccination rates remain largely stable ( although more public education to increase the vaccination rate is always useful) and banal stuff like obesity is the stuff we should be more worried about if you want to create a paternalistic government that takes over the role of parents in raising kids.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 00:09
|
|
|
Lets not fight among each other, lets be appalled at what my sister's dumb facebook friends said. I can't believe that people like this really exist! I've included the original quotes I posted and got some more I found in my email notifications from before the whole thing got deleted off of facebook. I'll try to put them in order, but I don't remember all of my responses. Imagine I used logic and reason that they completely ignored and you'll get the gist. In response to my comment including a link to Leon Farrant's infographic that was posted onto forbes.com (here) Emily posted:"If vaccines work on your child, what are you so afraid of? If vaccines work then every child that has shots would not be getting the diseases they are being vaccinated for. To each his own. No, health does not come at the tip of a needle." Jessica posted:"I don't believe there is a one size fits all model for vaccination. I believe Emily is right. Health is not the top a needle. If you believe in vaccines then you should have nothing to fear. The vaccine debate is much more complex than a few articles that make a case for vaccines." In response to my sister's father-in-law who thankfully has some sense. He said "this report is bogus. It was first written in a blog in 2013. The blogger has no training in influenza or viruses" and "We also have the right to our own opinions and choices. We do not have the right to our own facts. To post a blog that is not factual but opinion is not responsible." Jessica posted:"Thankfully we live I a free country and have the freedom to choose what is best for our families. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. We will all have to agree to disagree. Vaccination is a personal choice." In response to me pointing out that commonly recommended childhood vaccines do not contain any Thimerosal, and asking what she was afraid of inside vaccines. Emily posted:"Aluminum and formaldehyde just to name a few are still there as well as MSG. Sorry, not going to pickle my child's brain. And if your child is vaccinated, why would my unvaccinated child be a threat to yours? Rehtorical. To each his own." In response to what I thought was basic enough for a child to understand (but still unsuccessful) attempt to explain herd immunity and how it is for the benefit of immuno-compromised children and the elderly, not her freeloading unvaccinated children. Emily posted:"Sorry but when your friend had a child of 3 months die from a vaccine and two other friends with vaccine damaged children, you tend to do a little homework. Herd immunity is a croc of crap. If herd immunity is what is keeping the community safe then vaccines are not doing it's job for those who are vaccinated... again, if your child is vaccinated, what is the worry of an unvaccinated child? Your vaccinated child is safe right?" She posted this one too, but it was deleted - probably because she realized how stupid it was. Emily posted:I am not opposed to the idea of vaccinations. The truth is that in the last few decades the ingredients are ridiculous in these vaccines! Every doctor should be arrested for malpractice of injecting know heavy metals and toxins directly past the blood brain barrier in infants. I would be less noisy about the subject if the CDC weren't a money driven company who will openly skew the statistics to make them appear safe and effective. The truth is that they are not proven to be safe nor effective. Outright lies on the part of the CDC and the manufactures of these. Again, money driven. Once looking at both sides of the arguments when I was pregnant it was easy to see into the evil that lies behind the makers. The information is out there. Every one should weigh the options and risks. Until they are proven safe and effective... no thanks for me. God made the human body to be perfectly capable to care for itself and fight diseases at birth when NOT compromised through vaccines. Infant vaccinations cause the immune system to shut to a lower level of effeciency. Hence why vaccinated children will get a common cold left and right and still catch what they were vaccinated for. I'm sick of the brainwashing we receive through media and the man in the white coat as being god like and all knowing. http://www.naturalnews.com/042012_vaccine_facts_vaccine-damaged_children_CDC.html" There's a complete lack of understanding basic grammar and spelling that ran throughout this discussion, along with dismissing scientific proof because the CDC is a money driven company pushing the vaccine agenda (jesus christ, really?), and flat out changing the playing field when I dismissed their earlier concerns of mercury as being completely untrue. Now mercury isn't the problem, its FOR-MAL-DE-HIDE AND A-LOOM-E-NUMB AND ITS A-PICKLIN' MUH BABY'S BRAIN  .
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 00:26
|
|
If you let vaccination rates fall to the point where it becomes a real problem you've already lost and more importantly many children have either died outright or have been crippled for life. This do nothing attitude from some people is only going to make things worse. 
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 00:30
|
|
|
Roving bands of doctors with vaccine tranq guns.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 00:31
|
|
|
An Angry Bug posted:Roving bands of doctors with vaccine tranq guns. unironically support this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 00:48
|
|
|
Minor success story here, at least: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/jan/08/sydney-venue-cancels-seminar-us-anti-vaccine-activist-sherri-tenpenny
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 01:00
|
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:If you let vaccination rates fall to the point where it becomes a real problem you've already lost and more importantly many children have either died outright or have been crippled for life. This do nothing attitude from some people is only going to make things worse. Except that vaccination rates are increasing in the US: MMR : 2009 -- 90% coverage. 2013 -- 91.9% ( With a confidence interval of 0.9%) Source http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6334a1.htm
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 01:15
|
|
|
In regards to Autism and vaccines there was a very thorough paper that attributed the increase in Autism diagnoses to changes in diagnostic criteria and more aggressive methods of collecting data but I don't have it anymore. I want to say it was from the CDC but I'd have to look around. I used it in a debate once but I just got a bunch of anecdotal bullshit in return. "Better at diagnosing it? Hah! Just look around you, it's obvious children are sick today."
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 03:29
|
|
|
Presumably if CPS were to be adequately funded, health care would be as well. Though honestly, the kids I have seen with the shittiest dental health are the ones who have been in state care for years, jumping from placement to placement. Stuff like "take your kid to the dentist with the free health care they receive from the state" gets lost in the shuffle I guess.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 03:52
|
|
|
IAMNOTADOCTOR posted:Except that vaccination rates are increasing in the US: That's just the national average; what's really important is the local vaccination rate. If you're immunocompromised and living in a doctor-mommy neighborhood that gets most of its medical advice from naturalnews.com, the national vaccination rate might not be very comforting
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 04:27
|
|
|
UrbanLabyrinth posted:Minor success story here, at least: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/jan/08/sydney-venue-cancels-seminar-us-anti-vaccine-activist-sherri-tenpenny This is awesome. Elderbean posted:In regards to Autism and vaccines there was a very thorough paper that attributed the increase in Autism diagnoses to changes in diagnostic criteria and more aggressive methods of collecting data but I don't have it anymore. There was a recently publish paper in JAMA Pediatrics that analyzed a bunch of Danish data that supports that as well. This Forbes piece discusses the study in some detail and has links to other studies as well. Here is an excerpt that I am sure will be hand waved away as well: Forbes posted:In Denmark in particular, the diagnostic criteria for autism expanded in 1994 to include a spectrum of disorders with a broader list of symptoms, thereby widening the definition of autism. Then in 1995, national data tracking began to include diagnoses made from outpatient patient visits rather than just diagnoses of those admitted to a healthcare facility. Since every Danish resident has a complete health record maintained by the Danish government, researchers can use this national health registry to study an entire population with lower likelihood of bias from those included or excluded in a study.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 05:39
|
|
|
9 People Contracted Measles While Visiting SoCal Disneyland Resortsquote:The confirmed California cases range in age from 8 months to 21 years old. Six of them were unvaccinated -- two being too young, state officials said. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 12:36
|
|
|
In Wales (my home country) in 2013 there was a measles outbreak. There were 1,219 confirmed cases, and 1 death. A vast majority of these cases were believed to be linked to the decline in MMR uptake during the 90s and the 'autism scare' The chickens have already come home to roost here. The only real reason it didn't become even bigger is because the vast majority are not idiots and got their children vaccinated.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 12:40
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Presumably if CPS were to be adequately funded, health care would be as well. so clearly removing more kids from their otherwise stable parents on the basis of inadequate preventative medicine care is a viable solution.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 15:21
|
|
|
The state, after all, has historically shown strong competence at providing viable alternatives. All those well run orphanages you hear about.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 15:31
|
|
|
Don't forget all those studies that show the undeniable benefits of being shuffled from foster home to foster home...builds character! Seriously, I also would like to see 100% vaccination rates absent medical counter-indication. But I think you are better off achieving this by 1. investing more money in information and awareness campaigns 2. making vaccinations free. Hell, have "vaccination day" at schools like they used to do with the polio shot. 3. Aggressively go after people like Dr. Wakefield with all available license revocation/criminal sanctions available 4. Removing "exemptions" from public school vaccine requirements, as the over-availability of exemptions make the policy effectively useless 5. Doing anything that focuses on convincing parents that vaccination is the right thing to do shy of "taking away their kids"
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 15:38
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:3. Aggressively go after people like Dr. Wakefield with all available license revocation/criminal sanctions available This is something we need to take more seriously in the United States in general. The fact that folks like Dr. Oz can still practice medicine should be a crime.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 15:47
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:This is something we need to take more seriously in the United States in general. The fact that folks like Dr. Oz can still practice medicine should be a crime. It seems it would be an easy thing to do, as generally professional licenses are a matter of administrative law, not criminal. There's some right to appeal in the courts, but if the state board says "you aren't an MD anymore, that's usually the end of it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 15:55
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:This is something we need to take more seriously in the United States in general. The fact that folks like Dr. Oz can still practice medicine should be a crime. Isn't he like an insanely skilled heart surgeon, though?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 16:00
|
|
|
GreyPowerVan posted:Isn't he like an insanely skilled heart surgeon, though? I'm not sure what his specialty is, but someone of his caliber should understand the unethical nature of his show and the widespread harm he causes because of it. As he can't seem to handle the responsibility that comes with being a doctor, he should no longer be allowed the privilege of that license.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 16:06
|
|
|
GreyPowerVan posted:Isn't he like an insanely skilled heart surgeon, though? he's a professor at Columbia and directs one of the departments at NY Presbyterian. However...that doesn't make him an expert on all things medicine. Like, I'm a criminal attorney. If I started spouting off advice on tax law I'd be committing malpractice. Like, just his weight loss bullshit alone is enough to question his medical validity. There is one healthy way to lose weight: Eat less, move more. Caloric output > caloric intake: you will lose weight. The end. No trick. No secret. If you can't cut calories, exercise more. If you hate exercising, cut your calories. Or do something in between. ActusRhesus fucked around with this message at 16:12 on Jan 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 16:08
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:I'm not sure what his specialty is, but someone of his caliber should understand the unethical nature of his show and the widespread harm he causes because of it. As he can't seem to handle the responsibility that comes with being a doctor, he should no longer be allowed the privilege of that license. Like, I've never watched his show and maybe the good outweighs the bad on balance but we'd be doing everyone a favor if we endorsed near-zero tolerance for that kind of bad and made an example out of him (and maybe whatever producer put the content in front of him).
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 16:12
|
|
|
Yeah I was reading, it says 50 percent of the advice on his show has no basis in medical knowledge, 35 percent follows medical knowledge, and 15 percent directly contradicts.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 16:32
|
|
|
someone posted this on facebook. I was about to flamespray them based on the title...then I read it. Well played. http://nightofthelivingdad.net/2014/08/13/why-we-didnt-vaccinate-our-child/ However, I still got my flame spray in when one of their friends, without reading the article, started talking about how great it was that more people were anti-vaccine.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 16:50
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:not vaccine related, but chemotherapy related...this is how these people think: Is it really that hard to understand? Or do you just think it's not worth trying to understand? Chemotherapy is a toxin, which almost literally works on the principle of "it'll probably kill the cancer before it kills you", and it does a loving number on the body in some very visible ways. It's also most effective if the cancer was caught early enough that it's not displaying severe symptoms. Ironically, in the situations in which cancer is most likely to be cured, the cure often looks worse than the disease - at least, if you forget (through denial, shock, or alternative medicine flimflam) the fact that the disease will eventually get much worse if left untreated. This isn't the first time parents have tried to pull their kid out of chemo and flee the medical system after their precious little angel came back from a few chemo sessions miserably sick, and it won't be the last. Not only is it understandable, but we have to understand it in order to be able to prevent it. Having a child with cancer is incredibly stressful in the first place, and chemo is a hell that we only put people through because the alternatives are even worse. It's a golden opportunity for alternative medicine practitioners, because chemo is practically tailor-made for the "what's really killing your kid is the toxins from Big Pharma, and they'll get better if they stop seeing doctors and eat a bunch of vitamin pills instead" theory - at least until the cancer symptoms get severe enough that it's impossible to deny that the vitamin pills aren't actually helping, but by then it's probably too late. VitalSigns posted:Right, so if you find out the kid isn't vaccinated, you require the parents to vaccinate him or take the kid away. If the parent tries to avoid this by keeping a sick kid at home until he dies, then that's criminal. I wonder if that's really politically possible right now. The growing prevalence of religious and now "philosophical" exemptions in schools didn't just spring up out of thin air - it's a political concession to growing numbers of highly opinionated antivaxxer parents with enough localized political power to push exemptions to mandatory vaccination policies. If it was ever possible to combat the modern antivaxxer movement with legislation alone, it's probably too late for that now. Maybe if it were federal legislation, it'd be possible, but it'd probably have to be a state law and there's at least a few states where antivaxxers definitely have the numbers and influence necessary to block or defang mandatory vaccinations. Solkanar512 posted:What about kids who are attending schools (like the ones in the previously mentioned Hollywood Reporter piece) where 70-80% of them have vaccine exemptions? Could a situation like that start to turn the tables, from a legal point of view? In a district where 70-80% of kids have vaccine exemptions, who do you think juries/voters/etc will side with? The antivaxxer parents or the mean old judge/politician/CPS agent who wants to take away kids for not being vaccinated? The areas with high concentrations of antivaxxers aren't just the most dangerous, they're also the most able to fight any legal sanction imposed against antivaxxers. It's too late to just assume the system will be wholly on the side of vaccination, or that we will simply be able to end a social movement through legal fiat - or that it is genuinely desirable to do so.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 17:12
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:In a district where 70-80% of kids have vaccine exemptions, who do you think juries/voters/etc will side with? The antivaxxer parents or the mean old judge/politician/CPS agent who wants to take away kids for not being vaccinated? The areas with high concentrations of antivaxxers aren't just the most dangerous, they're also the most able to fight any legal sanction imposed against antivaxxers. It's too late to just assume the system will be wholly on the side of vaccination, or that we will simply be able to end a social movement through legal fiat - or that it is genuinely desirable to do so. These aren't whole school districts, they're specific private schools.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 17:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 01:39 |
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:These aren't whole school districts, they're specific private schools. http://blogs.kqed.org/stateofhealth/2013/09/06/more-california-parents-opting-out-of-vaccines-look-up-your-school-online/ Unless I miscounted, in 2013 there were 31 public schools in California where 50% or more of kindergarten students had personal belief exemptions from vaccination, and at least nine counties where the exemption rate for the entire county was over 10%. Besides, when you start talking politics, it's misleading to compare the number of parents who don't vaccinate to the number of parents who do - you have to compare the number of parents who care enough about antivaxxing to fight for exemptions to the number of parents who care enough about vaccination to fight for mandatory vaccines and against exemptions. Nobody really collects stats for that, but the sheer fact that personal belief exemptions have become so broad and widespread suggests that there isn't enough political force behind mandatory vaccinations to shut down antivaxxer resistance.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 18:33
|
|