That's just not how a society should work. Children should get a fair chance at life no matter how ignorant or negligent their parents are. Fluoridated water keeps teeth in mouths and students behind desks instead of missing school.
I agree in principle. But this just isn’t the country we live in. Smart states and communities can still think this through logically. But it may be for the best to let the antivax rural areas do their own thing and stick to themselves.
Even subjects like corporeal punishment and surgical modification are murky at best. Dental hygiene seems incredibly far down the list.
Yup. It’s also something that can be mostly fixed later in life. So turning it into a hill to die on seems strategically unwise.
I would be careful with what size brush you are painting.
>There are, of course, the familiar anti-vaxxers, who spoke up as early as February with concerns about a mandatory vaccine. There are also new groups. One is connected to far-right extremism and conspiracy theories (about the virus and otherwise). The other, termed “vaccine-hesitant,” is more surprising. It includes members of the opposite demographic — highly educated, liberal, not libertarian
>While a majority of those unwilling to get a vaccine are Republicans, 42% of Democrats agree with them
Part of the problem is presenting it as a choice makes people think it is legitimate to choose "no".
I believe the consequence of not vaccinating should be social exclusion until you catch up: anything else is stochastically depraved heart murder.
I think it should be even stronger than that: no public services or public spaces for you. No driver's license, no public school, no library card, nothing, unless you can demonstrate a medical reason why you cannot receive a specific vaccine, and then you get an exception for only that one.
If you want to live in your own world where you're disconnected from society then that's fine, you can do that, but it doesn't and shouldn't come consequence free given the damage you can do to others.
I believe society suffers from lower IQs, and that targeted interventions against childhood caries can be applied effectively without dosing the whole population. Why don’t schools teach toothbrushing? Why not have the school nurse check children’s teeth, or have a dentist come to school periodically?
Even if it _were_ real science [Note: actual science engages with criticism and can withstand critique], the effect size being claimed is smaller than the margin of error on the tests.
Being a programmer, I know plenty of miserable, incompetent and outright criminal people with high IQs: the idea that IQ alone is something to maximize is just weird eugenics.
The impact of fluoride on actual social outcomes, measured by a double-blind study? That would be interesting. Maybe then we could talk about the ethics of inflicting life-long pain and suffering on children in favor of reducing their risk of unemployment by some small percentage.
What is being put forward right now, though, offers chem trail levels of rigor: it isn't going to be convincing to anyone who doesn't really, REALLY want to believe.
Some schools used to have a fluoride rinse students would be forced to do. It looks like it still happens in some rural places.
Edit add: I wonder if the swish is better overall as the fluid is spit out after rather than continuous ingestion?
The most effective treatment was combining fluoride mouth wash and fluoride tablets.
Anecdotal, but I am 40 and have never had a cavity. rarely floss and brush <2 times per day.