You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →


[–] satnavtomington 0 points 37 points (+37|-0) ago 

I feel like the latter part of that headline is the most important, if parents don't vaccinate their kids, fine, but schools have a duty to protect their students and having unvaccinated kids could jeopardise that.


[–] oowensby [S] 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

Correct. I posted this article in response to the misleading WAPO story someone posted earlier.


[–] Charlie_Prime 4 points 2 points (+6|-4) ago 

How are vaccinated kids unprotected?


[–] oowensby [S] 0 points 18 points (+18|-0) ago 

Vaccinated kids are of course protected. The kids that are medically precluded from immunizations (allergies, immune system compromised, etc.) need the "herd immunity."


[–] goat_boat 1 points 16 points (+17|-1) ago 

Well that's assuming vaccines are 100% effective and that they stay 100% effective for life. Increasing exposure is inherently risky. Would you like to sit on a train with 100 people with measles? You've got a vaccine, so you are OK, right? No thanks.


[–] poodog 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Diseases mutate, they're not set in stone. I am vaccinated but I still got whooping cough because it mutated. It only mutated because some unvaccinated fuckwhit cought the disease, and it mutated in their body.

You let 100 of these little timebombs into schools, and everyone in the school will catch whatever mutated diseases they have, regardless of vaccination.

The only way to protect everyone is to vaccinate everyone, it's called herd immunity. By not vaccinating a % of these special snowflakes, you're effectively undoing 50-60 years of hard work to get rid of a disease through vaccination by giving it opportunities to mutate.


[–] repoman 1 points 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

How is banning students for the possibility that they may someday have measles any different from banning all men from a college for the possibility that they may someday rape somebody? Society should not make rules based on the assumption that someone is inevitably going to turn into Typhoid Mary or Bill Cosby. It should instead focus on defining and imposing harsh penalties upon those who commit the crime of wittingly or recklessly causing harm to others.

Anti-vax parents could be given a CDC guidebook that they must follow verbatim whenever their child falls ill to ensure their child is isolated, diagnosed and treated without spreading the disease. Failure to follow this guidebook would expose the parents to liability for any others their child infects.

On a side note, insurance companies could also set their insurance rates accordingly higher for non-vaxxed children - I wonder how many parents are so strongly opposed to vaccines that they would pay $1000 extra a year to insure their perfect little snowflake.