From: ahk@chinet.com

Stephen Sprunk  wrote:
>On 27-Apr-15 11:26, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>Stephen Sprunk  wrote:
>>>On 27-Apr-15 08:36, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

>>>>And our society isn't even enforcing mandatory vaccination laws
>>>>with respect to the most basic vaccinations.

>>>The laws allow exceptions, on the assumption not enough people
>>>would take advantage of them to affect herd immunity.  Thanks
>>>largely to hysteria caused by Jenny McCarthy, that assumption was
>>>wrong.  But the law _is_ being enforced as written, even if not as
>>>intended.

>>Wrong.

>>After the Disneyland epidemic, there have been numerous newspaper
>>stories pointing out schools that are simply failing to follow up
>>with families that failed to immunize their children or take extreme
>>measures to keep unimmunized children at home. In a mere handful of
>>cases, parents expressed objections that might be allowable
>>exceptions, but that sure as hell wasn't true in most cases.

>The problem was traced to a handful of schools, where a large fraction
>of parents had deliberately not immunized their kids.  There is no
>evidence of a widespread enforcement problem.

That would be your evidence right there.

I was still commenting on nonsense in my state; for all I know, Caliphonia
law allows numerous exceptions beyond "sincerely held religious beliefs"
or recognize the latest fad as a religious belief. Schools simply knew
which kids they hadn't received immunization certificates from. The
problem wasn't that parents were asserting an allowable exception to
mandatory immunization, because that just doesn't come up without followup.

>My point is that the law _allows_ parents to not immunize their kids, so
>you can't blame lack of immunization on enforcement anyway; there is
>nothing to enforce.

Do you have a reading comprehension problem? My comment was specific to
SCHOOLS not enforcing immunization requirements. I made no comment that
immunizations aren't mandatory for children under school age, or that the
law doesn't mandate the recommended immunization schedule at the recommended
age. But the kids who got sick in the Disneyland epidemic were generally
school-age children who spread the disease to other children at school.

So, you'd be wrong. There would have been plenty of benefit from schools
following up as the law requires with the families of children who didn't
file immunization certificates.

>Whether those certain schools gave up on asking because so many parents
>were refusing or the schools tried but the parents claimed the exemption,
>the result is the same: the kids of stupid parents got sick from a
>preventable disease, costing the public millions of dollars.

Gee, that's odd: When you're trying to prevent very infectious diseases
from spreading throughout a community, followup can be quite effective.
How the hell do you persuade anybody if you never follow up?

>The only solution is to remove the exceptions--and to provide the
>immunizations for free, as a matter of public policy, to those who
>cannot afford them.

It is free wherever such programs are available, and they are widely
available and have been for many many decades. If you can't find free
immunization for your kid, it's because you live in an isolated rural
area, in which case, who cares. You're not going to spread the disease.

You've been wrong about this for several followups now, and wrong in
particular for defending that earlier stupid statement. Obamacare
has nothing to do with mass innoculation, and it's a lousy way
to achieve it.

>Here, you can't enroll a kid in school without their immunization
>papers--or signing the waiver.  Yes, some churches or charities may
>occasionally offer them for free, but one can't rely on that as a matter
>of public policy, and the very need for free clinics was a damning
>indictment of our entire health care system.

Why aren't they reliable? Charities have always sprung up when public
policy lags behind. In fact, I'll go further: No country would EVER have
social reform if there weren't social reformers. Government has to be
dragged kicking and screaming, and then tends to do too little too late,
but spends a lot of money being ineffective.

You really really have to be determined NOT to get your kids immunized
to avoid these free or low cost mass innoculation programs.

>Also, since Obamacare went into effect, many free clinics have shut
>their doors because most of their patients are insured now, so there is
>no longer enough demand to justify them.  That's a major win.

Not at all, given that insurance is a rather expensive way to go about
paying for ongoing medical care for people that aren't sick enough to
require hospitalization, or just require regular health advice.

>>>But that's not the actual problem in this case; these parents _did_
>>>have access to vaccines and chose not to get them anyway.

>>Yes, Stephen, as I just said in the precursor article. It was in the
>>bit you cut out. Nice selective quoting job there.

>... and then you digressed into matters which weren't relevant, which is
>what I was pointing out.

Let's not be a huge hypocrite, shall we, given that this whole discussion
has been topic drift for a hell of a long time.

Your arguments suck and you rely upon tricks to pretend you've won,
like quoting selectively and then pretending you've made a new point
in followup when in fact the point had already been made. This is
a typical example of that behavior.

--- SoupGate/W32 v1.03
 * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)