Hacker News Reader

Comment by ChuckMcM | Hacker News Reader

I certainly hope this makes it past the Assembly and into law. I am stunned at how rancorous the debate has been though. If I ever questioned if there was a problem with science education, that question has been soundly answered. Way too many people are getting through our primary education system with absolutely no understanding of how science, as a process and discipline works. And that is a very sad thing indeed.

View on HN

It's astounding how the more educated and affluent areas are the ones with the highest level of exemptions. So its not so much as science education, but people's disconnect between science in theory and how it's applied in real life.

It's not the middle class or lower middle class and poor who opt out the most but upper middle and wealthy out of irrational fear.

But yes, glad this loophole gets closed.

I keep seeing articles that blame liberals for being anti-vax, but it's the Republicans who actually voted against this measure.

The trouble is, the purpose of the exemption supports traditionally "Republican" ideals of government not getting involved in their religious beliefs. However, there are large numbers of people taking advantage of the exception and they tend to fall into the more "crunchy granola" crowd typically aligned with liberal politics.

Isn't this because the affluent and educated have the time to read about it on the internet and in books? If you don't have the time to read the material, you no choice but to trust your doctor's recommendations.

Should you do so, and keep your objectivity, you'll see that the sensible option is to get all proposed 'mandatory' vaccines. The diseases prevented by them are nothing short of horrible.

> It's astounding how the more educated and affluent areas are the ones with the highest level of exemptions.

Not necessarily. There's also a tragedy of the commons here. If all children but mine are vaccinated, then my child is the safest, since I avoid both disease risk and vaccination risk.

So it can actually be rational to not vaccinate on an individual basis, depending on the state of vaccinations in the population. (On the other hand it is also rational to support a law forcing everything to vaccinate, since that fixes the tragedy by fiat).

What vaccination risk are you referring to, other than people with identified risk, immune deficiency, ec. There is no risk posed by vaccinations.

One other point, is while a local population might be vaccinated, you don't know who is coming in and out, i.e. going through town, one of those could be carrying the disease, so it's still irrational.

Way too many people are getting through our primary education system with absolutely no understanding of how science, as a process and discipline works.

It's a question of trust in scientific authorities, not about their knowledge or lack thereof.

No amount of understanding or attempt at education will dissuade anti-vaccine parents.

Ah, see, these anti-vax parents aren't like yesterday's anti-vax parents: "The parents who do it now do it for very legitimate reasons. We don't do it because we are uninformed."

http://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines...

How does one interpret this document? We laugh at the side effects associated with medications when it's on the television but not the FDA documentation for such medications?

Under "CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY" it reads that MMR "may" cause serious complications and/or death. Further down it reads that the MMR Vaccination may cause serious complications and/or death.

I am confused

I'm not sure if you're trolling or simply misreading that document, but under the section you cited it says that getting Measles, mumps, and rubella can cause serious complications or death. Not the shot which vaccinates against those diseases.

Not trolling. Under "Adverse Reactions", death is included under "Other".

That listing is all of the adverse events that occurred during clinical testing. We don't know if it's the vaccine, or because a kid slipped and hit his head, causing death. If you were to continue reading, you'd see this:

> No deaths or permanent sequelae were reported in a published post-marketing surveillance study in Finland involving 1.5 million children and adults who were vaccinated with M-M-R II during 1982 to 1993.

It's quite unlikely that any of the marketed MMR vaccines have ever caused a death.

I'm having a hard time believing you are not willfully misreading this document.

I nearly died from an MMR shot. I didn't read the linked doc but I can assure you people can die or have very serious complications from the MMR shot.

And was that better or worse than nearly dying from measles?

There's a very small chance of dying from the MMR vaccine. I imagine one is more likely to die from measles itself if unvaccinated.

I had both, the MMR and measles. Clearly the shot didn't work and nearly killed me and so did the measles. Yes a small chance but when you are in that small percentage it really stinks.

Well that sucks. How long ago was this?

The problem is that the word "may" covers a wide range of probabilities. Yes, there is a small but non-zero chance of adverse reactions to the vaccine. But it's orders of magnitude less dangerous than contracting one of the diseases it prevents.

Under "Clinical Pharmacology" it reads that Measels, Mumps and Rubella MAY be associated with serious complications and death. Which "may" is better?

The one in which people get vaccinated.

The one that leads to fewer serious complications and death.

Which is vaccination, by a margin so close to 100% that presenting it as the greater harm and refusing it on that basis is completely untenable.

I am not so sure it is an issue of understanding science as it is about personal liberties. While I am not opposed to vaccinations, lord knows I have had them all, but I am not keen on government mandates. Especially when the example they give, at least in this article, to support the bill is 136 people out of a state of 37MIL.

If you wish to force vaccination then there needs to be copious oversight of those supplying them.

I wonder if the price for the mandated vaccinations will go up in California if this bill becomes law.

They're free under Obamacare.

They might be free to the consumer but someone is being charged an amount per dose. I wonder if that charge/cost will go up [faster than inflation]. (Why do healthcare and higher-ed costs go up faster than inflation?... because there's guaranteed money involved.)

Note that the 136 do not consist entirely of people who have made the informed choice to opt out.

I'm having trouble seeing the difference between this and the "government mandate" against drunk driving. In both cases, the government is preventing you from recklessly endangering the lives of others (in addition to your own).

If you are anti-DUI laws, then I have questions about your value system, but I will admit that you're at least consistent.

How many peoole have died in this country as a result of someone else not being vaccinated?

Probably thousands (millions?), in times past mostly, because that is when the mass population was not vaccinated. Diseases transmit with much more difficulty if people are vaccinated. Diseases kill some people (let's call them "the weak ones"). If people are vaccinated, diseases do not kill that much (because they do not reach the weak ones). If people are not vaccinated, diseases reach the weak ones, and kill them.

One mandate requires an individual to take risk against their will?

If you don't see the difference between the two mandates above, do you see a difference between government mandating vaccinations and government mandated sterilization or abortion of certain individuals with certain genes/DNA?

> One mandate requires an individual to take risk against their will?

The vaccinations being required provably decrease death rates, which sounds a lot like the opposite of taking a risk.

It's also worth noting that this is not a true mandate. Like how DUI laws only apply to people who choose to drive, vaccines are simply the cost of entry to the public school system.

> do you see a difference between government mandating vaccinations and government mandated sterilization or abortion of certain individuals with certain genes/DNA?

If you can bypass the law by a simple step like not sending your children to public school, and the abortion/sterilization significantly decreases both the risk of death to the person receiving the operation and the general public, then I suspect I would not be opposed to such a measure. I'm having trouble imagining what that scenario looks like, though.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com