Parents don't have right to send unvaccinated kids to school

[TheH2]

-Perhaps most importantly, many children can't be vaccinated due to health issues (leukemia, cancer, heart problems, etc.). I'm assuming that the schools still allow these children to attend. They heavily rely on herd immunity to prevent them from contracting diseases that would likely be a death sentence to them.

This may be the nail in the coffin. I certainly didn't think about that aspect of it. You may have just ruined a perfectly good thread with the worst devil's advocate ever. Of course, I think it is a tough subject to play devil's advocate so I give him some benefit of the doubt for trying.

[ip_law-hokie]

Yes. They have a duty to keep kids safe when they go to public school. That includes keeping out kids that will put them at risk, which unvaccinated kids do.

Maybe I'm missing something. If the other kids are vaccinated, doesn't that protect them from contracting the various illnesses/diseases? Aren't the un-vaccinated kids the ones at risk?

Yes - you are missing how vaccines are intended to work.

[hokie80]

Yes. They have a duty to keep kids safe when they go to public school. That includes keeping out kids that will put them at risk, which unvaccinated kids do.

Maybe I'm missing something. If the other kids are vaccinated, doesn't that protect them from contracting the various illnesses/diseases? Aren't the un-vaccinated kids the ones at risk?

Which is why they have that requirement. If they didn't (in theory) the school could fill with unvaccinated kids and create a huge health issue.

Bottom line - you don't introduce potential carriers of highly contagious diseases into an area of close contact (like a school).

LOL, come on. You got check-mated.

Not really. But thanks for playing. Also, see uprising response.

Or perhaps we could just eliminate vax requirements for all and take our chances.

that's what it gets down to, a personal choice. The bottom line is your vaccinated kid isn't at risk from an unvaccinated kid. It's just nanny state. Uprisng's response dodged the issues and was as illogical as yours. Firstly, a kid who couldn't be vaccinated would not go to school either. The rule is no vaccination, no public school. Cause doesn't matter. And the rest is just silly. They'll encounter unvacinated people throughout their daily lives. Immunizations are completed by the time of school age. It gets down you wanting to tell others how to live their lives.

Nope.

They aren't telling anyone how to live their lives. They simply are saying this is a condition of enrollment. if they don't agree with that condition, they are free to find other ways to provide education for their kids.

[ip_law-hokie]

[/quote]

Nope.

They aren't telling anyone how to live their lives. They simply are saying this is a condition of enrollment. if they don't agree with that condition, they are free to find other ways to provide education for their kids.[/quote]

This is a teachable moment here. AG's point, though logical if people lived on an island, unattached to their surroundings, ignores the realities that we all must live together in a community. We can apply this to other matters as well.

[awesome guy]

[quote="hokie80"]
Why do you keep coming back to this nonsense? They are just telling people how to live their lives. There is no risk to your vaccinated children. They're forcing the parents into vaccinating because they don't agree with the parents, not to limit damage to the other kids. It's nanny state. You're telling the parents and kids to "take their medicine".

[ip_law-hokie]

Why do you keep coming back to this nonsense? They are just telling people how to live their lives. There is no risk to your vaccinated children. They're forcing the parents into vaccinating because they don't agree with the parents, not to limit damage to the other kids. It's nanny state. You're telling the parents and kids to "take their medicine".

Oftentimes "nanny state" is the proper public policy. Such as here.

[hokie80]

Why do you keep coming back to this nonsense? They are just telling people how to live their lives. There is no risk to your vaccinated children. They're forcing the parents into vaccinating because they don't agree with the parents, not to limit damage to the other kids. It's nanny state. You're telling the parents and kids to "take their medicine".

No they aren't. The parents can still chose not to vaccinate their kids.

[awesome guy]

This is a teachable moment here. AG's point, though logical if people lived on an island, unattached to their surroundings, ignores the realities that we all must live together in a community. We can apply this to other matters as well.

The teachable moment is your vaccinated kids are not at risk. Living in a commune doesn't give you the authority to dictate the medical care others take. I'm sure you and 80 are also happy to force 13 year olds into getting cervical cancer vaccines.

[awesome guy]

Why do you keep coming back to this nonsense? They are just telling people how to live their lives. There is no risk to your vaccinated children. They're forcing the parents into vaccinating because they don't agree with the parents, not to limit damage to the other kids. It's nanny state. You're telling the parents and kids to "take their medicine".

No they aren't. The parents can still chose not to vaccinate their kids.

Yeah, and then lose the income of one parent becoming a home school teacher or paying tens of thousands for a private school. They're being forced into compliance.

[ip_law-hokie]

This is a teachable moment here. AG's point, though logical if people lived on an island, unattached to their surroundings, ignores the realities that we all must live together in a community. We can apply this to other matters as well.

The teachable moment is your vaccinated kids are not at risk. Living in a commune doesn't give you the authority to dictate the medical care others take. I'm sure you and 80 are also happy to force 13 year olds into getting cervical cancer vaccines.

I will only speak for myself, but I'm happy to give 13 year old girls with silly dads the opportunity to opt-out of cervical vaccines.

[oaktonhokie]

Vaccinations against communicable diseases should be required. Parents do no have the right to put other people's children at risk.

But unless cervical diseases are routinely passed between 13 year old girls, I do not see the need to require kids to be vaccinated. Parents should be informed of the availability of the vaccine. They may get recommendations from the government school to protect their kids....but the health of the kid is the parents' responsibility, not the government's.

So unless the parents are doing something that is harming the kid, or are grossly derelict in their responsibilities, the government should stay out.

Cue the libiots to say, "Typical phony conservative. They are against the government except when they are for the government."

Conservatives are not against all government, only overbearing and invasive government. That line is drawn differently for different people.

This is a teachable moment here. AG's point, though logical if people lived on an island, unattached to their surroundings, ignores the realities that we all must live together in a community. We can apply this to other matters as well.

The teachable moment is your vaccinated kids are not at risk. Living in a commune doesn't give you the authority to dictate the medical care others take. I'm sure you and 80 are also happy to force 13 year olds into getting cervical cancer vaccines.

I will only speak for myself, but I'm happy to give 13 year old girls with silly dads the opportunity to opt-out of cervical vaccines.

[ip_law-hokie]

Vaccinations against communicable diseases should be required. Parents do no have the right to put other people's children at risk.

But unless cervical diseases are routinely passed between 13 year old girls, I do not see the need to require kids to be vaccinated. Parents should be informed of the availability of the vaccine. They may get recommendations from the government school to protect their kids....but the health of the kid is the parents' responsibility, not the government's.

So unless the parents are doing something that is harming the kid, or are grossly derelict in their responsibilities, the government should stay out.

Cue the libiots to say, "Typical phony conservative. They are against the government except when they are for the government."

Conservatives are not against all government, only overbearing and invasive government. That line is drawn differently for different people.

This is a teachable moment here. AG's point, though logical if people lived on an island, unattached to their surroundings, ignores the realities that we all must live together in a community. We can apply this to other matters as well.

The teachable moment is your vaccinated kids are not at risk. Living in a commune doesn't give you the authority to dictate the medical care others take. I'm sure you and 80 are also happy to force 13 year olds into getting cervical cancer vaccines.

I will only speak for myself, but I'm happy to give 13 year old girls with silly dads the opportunity to opt-out of cervical vaccines.

I agree with all that, I think. Vaccines for communicable diseases should be mandatory. I have no problem with cervical vaccines being made available, but they should not be mandatory.

[Major Kong]

Should schools require annual flu shots

[ip_law-hokie]

Should schools require annual flu shots

I believe the current thinking is that flu shots are not needed for normal, healthy kids.

[oaktonhokie]

Is the flu contagious?

Yes.

.............

EDIT.

That's a knottier question than I initially thought. The answer is, I dunno.
..............

Should schools require annual flu shots

[Hokie CPA]

Should schools require annual flu shots

Interesting question.... I don't think so. Flu shots are recommended for children and the elderly, but I've heard we may be overdoing that. The virus keeps mutating and becoming more resistant. We'll create super-strains at this point and we won't be able to treat them at all.

Sometimes it's good to get the flu and fight it off naturally. Building your anti-bodies is a good thing.

[awesome guy]

How are other kids at risk? They're vaccinated, no? The only risk is for those without vaccination.

Vaccinations against communicable diseases should be required. Parents do no have the right to put other people's children at risk.

But unless cervical diseases are routinely passed between 13 year old girls, I do not see the need to require kids to be vaccinated. Parents should be informed of the availability of the vaccine. They may get recommendations from the government school to protect their kids....but the health of the kid is the parents' responsibility, not the government's.

So unless the parents are doing something that is harming the kid, or are grossly derelict in their responsibilities, the government should stay out.

Cue the libiots to say, "Typical phony conservative. They are against the government except when they are for the government."

Conservatives are not against all government, only overbearing and invasive government. That line is drawn differently for different people.

This is a teachable moment here. AG's point, though logical if people lived on an island, unattached to their surroundings, ignores the realities that we all must live together in a community. We can apply this to other matters as well.

The teachable moment is your vaccinated kids are not at risk. Living in a commune doesn't give you the authority to dictate the medical care others take. I'm sure you and 80 are also happy to force 13 year olds into getting cervical cancer vaccines.

I will only speak for myself, but I'm happy to give 13 year old girls with silly dads the opportunity to opt-out of cervical vaccines.

[Major Kong]

I believe the current thinking is that flu shots are not needed for normal, healthy kids.

I was thinking of the non child component of schools...ya gotta think about them.

[oaktonhokie]

OK.

If there are 500 kids in the school and 50 choose not to be vaccinated, one infected kid can spread the disease to the other 49. And whomever else is in contact with the kid.

How are other kids at risk? They're vaccinated, no? The only risk is for those without vaccination.

Vaccinations against communicable diseases should be required. Parents do no have the right to put other people's children at risk.

But unless cervical diseases are routinely passed between 13 year old girls, I do not see the need to require kids to be vaccinated. Parents should be informed of the availability of the vaccine. They may get recommendations from the government school to protect their kids....but the health of the kid is the parents' responsibility, not the government's.

So unless the parents are doing something that is harming the kid, or are grossly derelict in their responsibilities, the government should stay out.

Cue the libiots to say, "Typical phony conservative. They are against the government except when they are for the government."

Conservatives are not against all government, only overbearing and invasive government. That line is drawn differently for different people.

This is a teachable moment here. AG's point, though logical if people lived on an island, unattached to their surroundings, ignores the realities that we all must live together in a community. We can apply this to other matters as well.

The teachable moment is your vaccinated kids are not at risk. Living in a commune doesn't give you the authority to dictate the medical care others take. I'm sure you and 80 are also happy to force 13 year olds into getting cervical cancer vaccines.

I will only speak for myself, but I'm happy to give 13 year old girls with silly dads the opportunity to opt-out of cervical vaccines.

[awesome guy]

yep. And the parents of all 50 of those kids choose to accept that risk. The other 450 didn't have nothing to worry about. So what's the problem?

OK.

If there are 500 kids in the school and 50 choose not to be vaccinated, one infected kid can spread the disease to the other 49. And whomever else is in contact with the kid.

How are other kids at risk? They're vaccinated, no? The only risk is for those without vaccination.

Vaccinations against communicable diseases should be required. Parents do no have the right to put other people's children at risk.

But unless cervical diseases are routinely passed between 13 year old girls, I do not see the need to require kids to be vaccinated. Parents should be informed of the availability of the vaccine. They may get recommendations from the government school to protect their kids....but the health of the kid is the parents' responsibility, not the government's.

So unless the parents are doing something that is harming the kid, or are grossly derelict in their responsibilities, the government should stay out.

Cue the libiots to say, "Typical phony conservative. They are against the government except when they are for the government."

Conservatives are not against all government, only overbearing and invasive government. That line is drawn differently for different people.

This is a teachable moment here. AG's point, though logical if people lived on an island, unattached to their surroundings, ignores the realities that we all must live together in a community. We can apply this to other matters as well.

The teachable moment is your vaccinated kids are not at risk. Living in a commune doesn't give you the authority to dictate the medical care others take. I'm sure you and 80 are also happy to force 13 year olds into getting cervical cancer vaccines.

I will only speak for myself, but I'm happy to give 13 year old girls with silly dads the opportunity to opt-out of cervical vaccines.

[ip_law-hokie]

The problem is that you are maintaining a system in which diseases that can be eradicated are not eradicated, and the costs associated therewith. Some of that cost is also borne by immunocompromised people who can not receive the vaccines through no fault of their own.




[quote="awesome guy"]yep. And the parents of all 50 of those kids choose to accept that risk. The other 450 didn't have nothing to worry about. So what's the problem?

[awesome guy]

The problem is that you are maintaining a system in which diseases that can be eradicated are not eradicated, and the costs associated therewith. Some of that cost is also borne by immunocompromised people who can not receive the vaccines through no fault of their own.

yep. And the parents of all 50 of those kids choose to accept that risk. The other 450 didn't have nothing to worry about. So what's the problem?

so? They're still the same risk as those who don't vaccinate.

Free will trumps your collectivist beliefs.

[ip_law-hokie]

The problem is that you are maintaining a system in which diseases that can be eradicated are not eradicated, and the costs associated therewith. Some of that cost is also borne by immunocompromised people who can not receive the vaccines through no fault of their own.

yep. And the parents of all 50 of those kids choose to accept that risk. The other 450 didn't have nothing to worry about. So what's the problem?

so? They're still the same risk as those who don't vaccinate.

Free will trumps your collectivist beliefs.

Society disagrees, thankfully.

[Hokie CPA]

yep. And the parents of all 50 of those kids choose to accept that risk. The other 450 didn't have nothing to worry about. So what's the problem?

Smallpox was eradicated. Wouldn't it be cool if Diphtheria were eradicated? Or Measles or Whooping Cough? Don't we want to keep the number of cases as low as possible? I would think zero cases is infinitely better than 50+.

[oaktonhokie]

I take your point. But we disagree on how to protect the kids.

And maybe, the 50 did not choose to accept the risk. Maybe they live in trailer parks on the edge of Blacksburg with a single parent who's a drug addicted pig and doesn't take her kids to the doctor, the dentist or any place else.

And if it is not REQUIRED, and if some volunteer does not make this happen, the kid will not be vaccinated and is at risk.

I realize my example is rare, hopefully. But I think kids in a confined space should be vaccinated against communicable diseases. All the kids.

Why do you keep coming back to this nonsense? They are just telling people how to live their lives. There is no risk to your vaccinated children. They're forcing the parents into vaccinating because they don't agree with the parents, not to limit damage to the other kids. It's nanny state. You're telling the parents and kids to "take their medicine".

No they aren't. The parents can still chose not to vaccinate their kids.

Yeah, and then lose the income of one parent becoming a home school teacher or paying tens of thousands for a private school. They're being forced into compliance.