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.Uprising wrote: -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.
Parents don't have right to send unvaccinated kids to school
Forum rules
Be Civil. Go Hokies.
Be Civil. Go Hokies.
Re: Parents don't have right to send unvaccinated kids to sc
People who know, know.
- ip_law-hokie
- Posts: 19133
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
- Alma Mater: Manchester
- Location: New York, NY
Re: Parents don't have right to send unvaccinated kids to sc
Yes - you are missing how vaccines are intended to work.Valencia Hokie wrote: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?HokieFanDC wrote: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.
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
Re: Parents don't have right to send unvaccinated kids to sc
Nope.awesome guy wrote: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.hokie80 wrote:awesome guy wrote:LOL, come on. You got check-mated.hokie80 wrote: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.Valencia Hokie wrote: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?HokieFanDC wrote: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.
Bottom line - you don't introduce potential carriers of highly contagious diseases into an area of close contact (like a school).
Not really. But thanks for playing. Also, see uprising response.
Or perhaps we could just eliminate vax requirements for all and take our chances.
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
- Posts: 19133
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
- Alma Mater: Manchester
- Location: New York, NY
Re: Parents don't have right to send unvaccinated kids to sc
[/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.
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.
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
- awesome guy
- Posts: 54187
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
- Party: After 10
- Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified
Re: Parents don't have right to send unvaccinated kids to sc
[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".
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".
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
- ip_law-hokie
- Posts: 19133
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
- Alma Mater: Manchester
- Location: New York, NY
Re: Parents don't have right to send unvaccinated kids to sc
Oftentimes "nanny state" is the proper public policy. Such as here.awesome guy wrote:hokie80 wrote: 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".
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
Re: Parents don't have right to send unvaccinated kids to sc
No they aren't. The parents can still chose not to vaccinate their kids.awesome guy wrote:hokie80 wrote: 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".
- awesome guy
- Posts: 54187
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
- Party: After 10
- Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified
Re: Parents don't have right to send unvaccinated kids to sc
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.ip_law-hokie wrote: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.
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
- awesome guy
- Posts: 54187
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
- Party: After 10
- Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified
Re: Parents don't have right to send unvaccinated kids to sc
hokie80 wrote:No they aren't. The parents can still chose not to vaccinate their kids.awesome guy wrote:hokie80 wrote: 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".
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.
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
- ip_law-hokie
- Posts: 19133
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
- Alma Mater: Manchester
- Location: New York, NY
Re: Parents don't have right to send unvaccinated kids to sc
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 wrote: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.ip_law-hokie wrote: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.
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
-
- Posts: 11324
- Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 8:48 pm
Re: Parents don't have right to send unvaccinated kids to sc
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.
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.
ip_law-hokie wrote: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 wrote: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.ip_law-hokie wrote: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.
If you bend over backwards long enough,
eventually you'll fall down.
eventually you'll fall down.
- ip_law-hokie
- Posts: 19133
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
- Alma Mater: Manchester
- Location: New York, NY
Re: Parents don't have right to send unvaccinated kids to sc
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.oaktonhokie wrote: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.
ip_law-hokie wrote: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 wrote: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.ip_law-hokie wrote: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.
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
- Major Kong
- Posts: 15759
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:35 pm
- Alma Mater: Ferrum VT ASU
- Party: Independent
- Location: Somewhere between Marion and Seven Mile Ford
Re: Parents don't have right to send unvaccinated kids to sc
Should schools require annual flu shots
I only post using 100% recycled electrons.
- ip_law-hokie
- Posts: 19133
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
- Alma Mater: Manchester
- Location: New York, NY
Re: Parents don't have right to send unvaccinated kids to sc
I believe the current thinking is that flu shots are not needed for normal, healthy kids.Major Kong wrote:Should schools require annual flu shots
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
-
- Posts: 11324
- Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 8:48 pm
Re: Parents don't have right to send unvaccinated kids to sc
Is the flu contagious?
Yes.
.............
EDIT.
That's a knottier question than I initially thought. The answer is, I dunno.
..............
Yes.
.............
EDIT.
That's a knottier question than I initially thought. The answer is, I dunno.
..............
Major Kong wrote:Should schools require annual flu shots
If you bend over backwards long enough,
eventually you'll fall down.
eventually you'll fall down.
- Hokie CPA
- Posts: 2634
- Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 2:50 am
- Alma Mater: Norfolk Academy to Virginia Tech
- Party: I reject your party
- Location: Virginia Beach, VA
Re: Parents don't have right to send unvaccinated kids to sc
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.Major Kong wrote:Should schools require annual flu shots
Sometimes it's good to get the flu and fight it off naturally. Building your anti-bodies is a good thing.
I don't care if you're a Democrat or a Republican... if you refuse to consider alternatives to the two parties, you support the Status Quo and you are a major part of the problem.
- awesome guy
- Posts: 54187
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
- Party: After 10
- Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified
Re: Parents don't have right to send unvaccinated kids to sc
How are other kids at risk? They're vaccinated, no? The only risk is for those without vaccination.
oaktonhokie wrote: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.
ip_law-hokie wrote: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 wrote: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.ip_law-hokie wrote: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.
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
- Major Kong
- Posts: 15759
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:35 pm
- Alma Mater: Ferrum VT ASU
- Party: Independent
- Location: Somewhere between Marion and Seven Mile Ford
Re: Parents don't have right to send unvaccinated kids to sc
I was thinking of the non child component of schools...ya gotta think about them.ip_law-hokie wrote:I believe the current thinking is that flu shots are not needed for normal, healthy kids.
I only post using 100% recycled electrons.
-
- Posts: 11324
- Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 8:48 pm
Re: Parents don't have right to send unvaccinated kids to sc
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.
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.
awesome guy wrote:How are other kids at risk? They're vaccinated, no? The only risk is for those without vaccination.
oaktonhokie wrote: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.
ip_law-hokie wrote: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 wrote: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.ip_law-hokie wrote: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.
If you bend over backwards long enough,
eventually you'll fall down.
eventually you'll fall down.
- awesome guy
- Posts: 54187
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
- Party: After 10
- Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified
Re: Parents don't have right to send unvaccinated kids to sc
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?
oaktonhokie wrote: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.
awesome guy wrote:How are other kids at risk? They're vaccinated, no? The only risk is for those without vaccination.
oaktonhokie wrote: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.
ip_law-hokie wrote: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 wrote: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.ip_law-hokie wrote: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.
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
- ip_law-hokie
- Posts: 19133
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
- Alma Mater: Manchester
- Location: New York, NY
Re: Parents don't have right to send unvaccinated kids to sc
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?
[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?
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
- awesome guy
- Posts: 54187
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
- Party: After 10
- Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified
Re: Parents don't have right to send unvaccinated kids to sc
ip_law-hokie wrote: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.
awesome guy wrote: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.
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
- ip_law-hokie
- Posts: 19133
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
- Alma Mater: Manchester
- Location: New York, NY
Re: Parents don't have right to send unvaccinated kids to sc
Society disagrees, thankfully.awesome guy wrote:ip_law-hokie wrote: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.
awesome guy wrote: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.
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
- Hokie CPA
- Posts: 2634
- Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 2:50 am
- Alma Mater: Norfolk Academy to Virginia Tech
- Party: I reject your party
- Location: Virginia Beach, VA
Re: Parents don't have right to send unvaccinated kids to sc
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+.awesome guy wrote: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?
I don't care if you're a Democrat or a Republican... if you refuse to consider alternatives to the two parties, you support the Status Quo and you are a major part of the problem.
-
- Posts: 11324
- Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 8:48 pm
Re: Parents don't have right to send unvaccinated kids to sc
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.
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.
awesome guy wrote:hokie80 wrote:No they aren't. The parents can still chose not to vaccinate their kids.awesome guy wrote:hokie80 wrote: 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".
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.
If you bend over backwards long enough,
eventually you'll fall down.
eventually you'll fall down.