CA has mandatory vaccination/CA Bans Personal Belief Exemp

[DuggarsTheEndIsNear]

I'm just curious, from people in general -- virtually everyone here seems extremely strongly pro- mandatory vaccination - with no deviation from whatever the current recommendations and schedule are. Except , of course, if there are medical contraindications. Are the people in your real life just as adamant? Or is there some range of opinion? Or does it just not come up in conversation? I'm honestly just wondering.

The people I know ( when it's come up, which admittedly isn't very often ) -- most of the parents of young children vaccinate, but many will space them out, or start later, or refuse some ( Guardasil or the flu vaccine primarily ) .

Is this like other sensitive subjects where if people disagree in real life they don't really talk about it -- or does it cause real life arguments?

I just looked up the kindergarten complete vaccination rates for schools in my county. As an aside, I believe - but could be wrong -- that these numbers are taken at registration, not at first day of school -- so can be misleading, as many children get various boosters right before school starts. IIRC , this number can be particularly off if new immunizations have been recently added to the schedule.

In any case -- the rates range from 100% from one school where virtually all of the children have received special outreach ( a grant that provides medical / educational / resources to pre- schoolers because most of the parents have limited English and are extremely low income ) ....down to around 60% for a few schools. Many are in the 90% range, but I was surprised to see a large number in the 60. - 80% range. Private and charter schools had a large range as well, but several were below 50%.

What was also interesting ( to me ) was that the lowest immunization rates were represented by a range of demographics. One school in an extremely poor area. A few ( expected ) in an area with many hippies and survivalist / libertarian types . And the rest were the wealthiest schools.

I'm not saying that COMPLETELY mandatory vaccinations are the way to go. But, I do agree that, in a public school setting and in daycares/preschools that are licensed by the state (which the California law is about), the only people who shouldn't be vaccinated are the ones who are medically exempt. Personal belief and religious belief exemptions are ridiculous and have no place in a public school setting. If you want to hold either of those as your reason to not vaccinate, find another way to educate and care for your children (homeschooling, private schools, nannies, tutors, etc).

Also, for the record, these are the ages and immunizations required by law in CA for those childcare and schooling situations:

2-3 months: 1 each of Polio, DTaP, Hib, Hep B

4-5 months: 2 each of Polio, DTaP, Hib, Hep B

6-14 months: 3 each of DTaP; 2 each of Polio, Hib, Hep B

15-17 months: 3 each of Polio, DTaP; 2 Hep B; 1 MMR; 1 Hib

18 months -5 years: 3 Polio; 4 DTaP; 3 Hep B; 1 MMR; 1 Hib; 1 Varicella

4-6 years: 5 (4 if one was given on or after the 4th birthday) DTaP, DTP, or DT

4 (3 if one was given on or after 4th birthday) Polio (OPV or IPV)

3 Hep B

2 MMR

1 Varicella

7-17 years: 3 (4 if last was given before 2nd birthday) DTaP, DTP, DT, Tdap, or Td

4 (3 if one was given on or after 2nd birthday) Polio (OPV or IVP)

1 MMR (with second being required in 7th grade if not given before)

1 Varicella before 13, 2 after

1 additional Tdap dose at 7th grade or if an out of state transfer (grades 8-12)

[OkToBeTakei]

I'm still interested as to why Hep B is a scheduled vaccine in the US. It isn't where I am. I wonder if other countries also differ and their reasons.

(NO because anti-vaxer reasons/rationalisations please :lol: )

[DuggarsTheEndIsNear]

Okay so, I've already said this, but you didn't respond to that post, so I'm going to say it again.

It doesn't matter where you said it.

You told us you're a nurse.

Regardless of what thread it was in, people remember it.

So when you start dispensing healthcare opinions, people are going to bring it up.

If you don't want someone to bring something up in one thread that you said in another thread, don't say it at all.

Sorry, but that's how it works around here.

So for Pete's sake, please stop wailing about this and taking up post after post to tell us you didn't originally say it here. We know. But you said it elsewhere, so here it is. As my sister always said, if you're man enough to go streaking, you're man enough to have everybody talking about it.

It was definitely this thread cause I didn't even know who she was until this thread. And I haven't read anything except the Josh being sued thread since starting this thread.

[FakePigtails]

I'm still interested as to why Hep B is a scheduled vaccine in the US. It isn't where I am. I wonder if other countries also differ and their reasons.

(NO because anti-vaxer reasons/rationalisations please :lol: )

In short, because there are too many people who don't know they're infected and the virus is easily transmitted. I can see the need being less in other places where health care is available to more people.

Why should I vaccinate my newborn child if I know that I am not infected with hepatitis B virus?

Before the hepatitis B vaccine, every year in the United States about 18,000 children were infected with hepatitis B virus by the time they were 10 years old. This statistic is especially important because people are much more likely to develop liver cancer or cirrhosis if they are infected early in life, rather than later in life (most people are infected with hepatitis B virus when they are adolescents and young adults).

About 9,000 of the 18,000 children infected in the first 10 years of life caught the virus from their mother during birth. However, many young children didn't catch the disease from their mother. They caught it from either another family member or someone else who came in contact with the child. Because hepatitis B can be transmitted by relatively casual contact with items contaminated with blood of an infected person, and because many people who are infected with hepatitis B virus don't know that they have it, it is virtually impossible to be "careful enough" to avoid this infection.

For these reasons, all young children are recommended to receive the hepatitis B vaccine. The best time to receive the first dose is right after birth. This will ensure that the child will be protected as early as possible from catching the disease from someone that doesn't know that he/she is infected with the virus.

Do the benefits of the hepatitis B vaccine outweigh its risks?

Every year in the United States about 3,000 people die soon after catching hepatitis B virus. In addition, every year about 10,000 people become chronically infected, putting them at high risk of developing the long-term consequences of hepatitis B virus infection: cirrhosis and liver cancer. In fact, with the exception of influenza virus, hepatitis B virus causes more severe disease and death in the United States than any other vaccine-preventable disease. On the other hand, the hepatitis B vaccine is an extremely rare cause of a severe allergic reaction called anaphylaxis. To date, no one has died from this reaction, but it is theoretically possible that this could occur.

Because hepatitis B virus is a common cause of severe disease and death in the United States, and the hepatitis B vaccine does not cause permanent damage or death, the benefits of the hepatitis B vaccine clearly outweigh its risks.

http://vec.chop.edu/service/vaccine-edu ... ccine.html

[DuggarsTheEndIsNear]

I'm still interested as to why Hep B is a scheduled vaccine in the US. It isn't where I am. I wonder if other countries also differ and their reasons.

(NO because anti-vaxer reasons/rationalisations please :lol: )

It was discussed further back in the thread. Children, from birth have a very high risk factor of contracting it. It can be spread child to child even through small amounts (to the point of not being able to notice it) of blood in saliva. Therefore, it's best to vaccinate against it as early as possible.

[OkToBeTakei]

In short, because there are too many people who don't know they're infected and the virus is easily transmitted. I can see the need being less in other places where health care is available to more people.

http://vec.chop.edu/service/vaccine-edu ... ccine.html

That makes sense. Here it is classed only for high risk. For example many moons ago I worked in the harm reduction field so as you can imagine it was advisable. Also advised for those who due to their own risky behaviour may pass it on at birth. It's just not deemed a necessity for the general public.

I'm on tapa but it might be interesting to look at incidence of Hep by country.

Another query I've always had is what on earth do they put in newborn's eyes at birth in the U.S.?

It is always fascinating how different these two cultures are when we always assume how similar we are. As time goes on and I learn more I realise sometimes the differences are quite huge and span every part of life!

[DuggarsTheEndIsNear]

That makes sense. Here it is classed only for high risk. For example many moons ago I worked in the harm reduction field so as you can imagine it was advisable. Also advised for those who due to their own risky behaviour may pass it on at birth. It's just not deemed a necessity for the general public.

I'm on tapa but it might be interesting to look at incidence of Hep by country.

Another query I've always had is what on earth do they put in newborn's eyes at birth in the U.S.?

It is always fascinating how different these two cultures are when we always assume how similar we are. As time goes on and I learn more I realise sometimes the differences are quite huge and span every part of life!

To prevent neonatal conjunctivitis, most hospitals are required by state law to put drops or ointment in a newborn's eyes to prevent disease. In the past, silver nitrate was used; it has been mostly replaced with antibiotic eye drops, such as erythromycin.

http://www.cdc.gov/conjunctivitis/newborns.html

[OkToBeTakei]

Oh! Yup they don't do that here. I'd be a bit unhappy even though it's only a topical antibiotic. My baby got a sticky eye at about 4 months I was advised to use breastmilk!! Super crunchie but actually advised by my GP.

Prophylactic antibiotics are a complicated issue. Although I recall from other threads here antibiotic use is very different in the U.S.

The drive here is very much against overuse, although to be honest that thread got a bit heated :(

[Mama Mia]

Oh! Yup they don't do that here. I'd be a bit unhappy even though it's only a topical antibiotic. My baby got a sticky eye at about 4 months I was advised to use breastmilk!! Super crunchie but actually advised by my GP.

Prophylactic antibiotics are a complicated issue. Although I recall from other threads here antibiotic use is very different in the U.S.

The drive here is very much against overuse, although to be honest that thread got a bit heated :(

My daughter had the chronic sticky eye for many months, we used the antibiotic ointments, and massaging the area, and warm compresses and Lord only knows what else ---which didn't help. We were at the point where they were going to do surgery to open the tear duct it was so severe. Luckily it finally cleared up right before.

Her baby daughter had the same issue and was going through the same thing when she was advised to use breastmilk. Cleared it up immediately! Apparently breastmilk also is very effective on cradle cap and other baby skin issues. One of the few times I'll say thank God for Facebook - because that's where she got the advice. :D

The antibiotic overuse is a big issue here. I think it's gotten better recently - but I have co- workers who were constantly trying to get antibiotics for various kid bugs.

[Snarkylark]

My daughter had the chronic sticky eye for many months, we used the antibiotic ointments, and massaging the area, and warm compresses and Lord only knows what else ---which didn't help. We were at the point where they were going to do surgery to open the tear duct it was so severe. Luckily it finally cleared up right before.

Her baby daughter had the same issue and was going through the same thing when she was advised to use breastmilk. Cleared it up immediately! Apparently breastmilk also is very effective on cradle cap and other baby skin issues. One of the few times I'll say thank God for Facebook - because that's where she got the advice. :D

The antibiotic overuse is a big issue here. I think it's gotten better recently - but I have co- workers who were constantly trying to get antibiotics for various kid bugs.

My daughter had the same thing but her tear ducts never opened by themselves so she had to have the probing procedure. Your friend's child may have had an infection or the ducts opened eventually or both. Many times the ducts will eventually open on their own or with massage, etc. The infection on top of that is from the tears sitting in the eye and then becoming infected that way from not draining, different then pinkeye, for example. Tear ducts usually open up at birth from coming through the birth canal, but not always.

[OkToBeTakei]

My daughter had the chronic sticky eye for many months, we used the antibiotic ointments, and massaging the area, and warm compresses and Lord only knows what else ---which didn't help. We were at the point where they were going to do surgery to open the tear duct it was so severe. Luckily it finally cleared up right before.

Her baby daughter had the same issue and was going through the same thing when she was advised to use breastmilk. Cleared it up immediately! Apparently breastmilk also is very effective on cradle cap and other baby skin issues. One of the few times I'll say thank God for Facebook - because that's where she got the advice. :D

The antibiotic overuse is a big issue here. I think it's gotten better recently - but I have co- workers who were constantly trying to get antibiotics for various kid bugs.

Yes I was quite surprised in the other thread what people seek anti-biotics for which just does not occur here......or should I say does occur but is just viewed as a common illness/occurrence which happens. That people view anti-biotics as a catch all cure and that doctors are pressured and just as at much fault.

What I did learn from the other thread is how education is required ....also that there is always somebody who has a story that is exceptional that therefore tries to negate the general population..because their experience :lol:

I also learned to respect more than I have the differences in our healthcare systems and that where in the past I could be disparaging I learned to see that it must be hard to not trust your healthcare provider not just because they may be shit, we all may fall prey to that. But because money. Also the sick time issue. That was awful to read. A real eye-opener.

As for sticky eye. Like most childhood issues. It's common but wait and see and growth can resolve these issues. Like ears. I think as parents we always fear the worst and look at the potential worst case scenarios and with eyes and ears it's a real concern.

ETA. It's OK Nurse who does not like to be called a nurse has spoken.Get a knife out....STAT :lol:

[Petrel]

Oh! Yup they don't do that here. I'd be a bit unhappy even though it's only a topical antibiotic. My baby got a sticky eye at about 4 months I was advised to use breastmilk!! Super crunchie but actually advised by my GP.

Prophylactic antibiotics are a complicated issue. Although I recall from other threads here antibiotic use is very different in the U.S.

The drive here is very much against overuse, although to be honest that thread got a bit heated :(

The eyedrops for newborns are to prevent against conjunctivitis due to gonorrhea or chlamydia. Those are common STIs and many people are infected without knowing it. Untreated chlamydia conjunctivitis can cause lung infection as well, and conjunctivitis with either can cause permanent eye damage if not treated. It's better to prevent it than deal with the ensuing infection.

Later on conjunctivitis is not as big a deal because it's different bacteria, but still warrants a doctor's opinion.

Edit: I'm not a doctor, I just read stuff. If you have any concerns about your kid please talk to yours.

[formergothardite]

So back from my shitty 4th of July. Here is what has seemed to have happened:

~Snarkylark is saying she has never said that the Cali Vax Choice website is reliable. She has never said it isn't reliable so she either thinks it is reliable or uses unreliable websites for information. Can't figure out which, she will have to clear that up.

~She is vague about her opinion on gay marriage(same as with abortion, I never did figure out if she is pro-choice). Some people don't like gay people getting married and would rather they have a civil union. Snarkylark might be one of those people, but she isn't saying.

~I don't know if the two states who have had the same laws as California have turned into China yet. How long does it take to slide down the slippery slope of becoming China?

~She admits she should have taken out the Hitler part of that FB quote she copied, but has never said if she agreed with that part of it. Another thing she will have to clear up.

The thing I have mostly learned most from this thread is:

~Even though it is a conversation that needs to happen, it is almost impossible to have this discussion without someone jumping on the fake science, China, and abortion band wagon. And wading through and debunking fear mongering fake shit puts a damper on a real discussion.

I'm also not entirely sober, so it could be none of this makes sense.

[OkToBeTakei]

The eyedrops for newborns are to prevent against conjunctivitis due to gonorrhea or chlamydia. Those are common STIs and many people are infected without knowing it. Untreated chlamydia conjunctivitis can cause lung infection as well, and conjunctivitis with either can cause permanent eye damage if not treated. It's better to prevent it than deal with the ensuing infection.

Later on conjunctivitis is not as big a deal because it's different bacteria, but still warrants a doctor's opinion.

Edit: I'm not a doctor, I just read stuff. If you have any concerns about your kid please talk to yours.

So because of this minority every single newborn baby is treated and nobody has an issue with this?

[FakePigtails]

So because of this minority every single newborn baby is treated and nobody has an issue with this?

I've heard of quite a few people declining them, but the drops being a requirement has been shown to be beneficial, while the risks are minimal: http://www.aafp.org/afp/2012/0115/p195.html

edited to add this link: http://childrensmd.org/browse-by-age-gr ... -ointment/

Here's some more info on the reasoning (in short, STDs can easily go undiagnosed, and remember we have a lot of people who got horrible sex education and little access to health care): https://www.midwesteyecare.com/library/ ... -newborns/

[DarkAnts]

Snark Lark has not addressed my comments about choice and community reaponsibility. There are many thing in life that we have have no control of. ONe of them is the diseases we expose our community to. The other is the fact that we have no choice about which diseases we are exposed to. We have no choice about our immune system (thanks genetics). I believe that the community is responsible for protecting those with weak immune systems. Part of that is vacillation. If you as a parent are not willing to take responsibility for the well being of the community, then you need to leave and find a place where your choices will not impact the community at large.

[FundieFarmer]

Don't worry, DarkAnts. We've all got questions she's ignored. Mine are identical to FormerGothardite's, and yet...nothing.

[DarkAnts]

Don't worry, DarkAnts. We've all got questions she's ignored. Mine are identical to FormerGothardite's, and yet...nothing.

It showed a weakness in her defense. I am annoyed that she will not consider what we have to say, but, expect us to read the links she provides.

She also claimed that this should be about choice, and gives us false information about vaccinations. There is a difference between having a choice and making a medical decision based on public health.

[formergothardite]

Yeah it is very hard to take anyone, even a Degreed Medical Expert, seriously when they refuse to admit fake science websites aren't reliable sources of information. Especially on a topic like this where the decision impacts the entire community.

[Mama Mia]

I've heard of quite a few people declining them, but the drops being a requirement has been shown to be beneficial, while the risks are minimal: http://www.aafp.org/afp/2012/0115/p195.html

R

edited to add this link: http://childrensmd.org/browse-by-age-gr ... -ointment/

Here's some more info on the reasoning (in short, STDs can easily go undiagnosed, and remember we have a lot of people who got horrible sex education and little access to health care): https://www.midwesteyecare.com/library/ ... -newborns/

But the problem is that this is one of many issues where people just kind of fall in line without even thinking about the continued necessity . Those links basically say nothing except " do it, it's safe" . Since testing for STI's during pregnancy is basically universal now is it really still needed? How many cases of blindness are prevented? What are concerns people have with the drops? This kind of pat on the head, don't you worry you're pretty little heads about it," reassurances drive me nuts.

Maybe they do prevent blindness in thousands of newborns. Maybe there really is a huge issue. Maybe there really are NO serious risks from the drops. I don't know. But I sure couldn't tell by this dumbed down " informational" pap.

Plus, this sounds like something where maybe they should see if breastmilk works just as well. Think of the boon that would be! It would surely increase breastfeeding rates as parents see the incredible benefits. It would be free. It wouldn't involve some sticky goop being being put in their eyes as basically their first " outside" experience ( that article did state that the goop in the eyes can interfere with first nursing and the baby finding the breast. Considering how much trouble many women have with nursing - that alone should be reason enough to look at this practice !)

But I can pretty much guarantee they will never, ever look into effectiveness because they will never, ever replace a standard medical procedure with a purchased product with something that can be provided easily, for free, by the mother.

[FakePigtails]

But the problem is that this is one of many issues where people just kind of fall in line without even thinking about the continued necessity . Those links basically say nothing except " do it, it's safe" . Since testing for STI's during pregnancy is basically universal now is it really still needed? How many cases of blindness are prevented? What are concerns people have with the drops? This kind of pat on the head, don't you worry you're pretty little heads about it," reassurances drive me nuts.

Maybe they do prevent blindness in thousands of newborns. Maybe there really is a huge issue. Maybe there really are NO serious risks from the drops. I don't know. But I sure couldn't tell by this dumbed down " informational" pap.

I don't have any skin in this game (yet) and once I do, a few drops that don't hurt anything are small fish compared to the rest of the process for me at least. I feel like the information justifies it enough even if they don't give exact numbers and doesn't come across as head-patting. I don't really care if others want to decline it, but I also don't blame states for requiring these just like they do screening programs and other interventions at birth, especially given the drop in blindness cases (also reported here) and the number of women in the US who go without prenatal care where they would receive STD testing.

It's just not something I can get myself upset over either way (besides my annoyance at it being made a huge deal when there are plenty of other interventions and issues in the birth process worth reconsidering). I do consider myself a skeptic but I just don't think Canada and most states would be doing this unless it were justified. I am, of course, supportive of continued study to determine if we hit a point where routine use of the drops is no longer needed.

[DuggarsTheEndIsNear]

But the problem is that this is one of many issues where people just kind of fall in line without even thinking about the continued necessity . Those links basically say nothing except " do it, it's safe" . Since testing for STI's during pregnancy is basically universal now is it really still needed? How many cases of blindness are prevented? What are concerns people have with the drops? This kind of pat on the head, don't you worry you're pretty little heads about it," reassurances drive me nuts.

Maybe they do prevent blindness in thousands of newborns. Maybe there really is a huge issue. Maybe there really are NO serious risks from the drops. I don't know. But I sure couldn't tell by this dumbed down " informational" pap.

Plus, this sounds like something where maybe they should see if breastmilk works just as well. Think of the boon that would be! It would surely increase breastfeeding rates as parents see the incredible benefits. It would be free. It wouldn't involve some sticky goop being being put in their eyes as basically their first " outside" experience ( that article did state that the goop in the eyes can interfere with first nursing and the baby finding the breast. Considering how much trouble many women have with nursing - that alone should be reason enough to look at this practice !)

But I can pretty much guarantee they will never, ever look into effectiveness because they will never, ever replace a standard medical procedure with a purchased product with something that can be provided easily, for free, by the mother.

1. Not everyone can produce breastmilk, so relying on breastmilk isn't helpful.

2. Colostrum is produced for the first few days (even up to two weeks), and doesn't come in plentiful amounts, so using it on eyes instead of for feeding seems ridiculous

3. I've yet to find ANY studies that prove that breastmilk works. I'm sure that it has definitely helped in some cases, but that doesn't mean that it's actually an effective form of treatment in all cases.

4. In most states that require them, you can opt out if you've been tested for STIs and you're free of an infection

5. They're just a couple drops to kill any bacteria on the eye from the childbirth process. It's not like you're sending the kid home with them ore anything. It's fundamentally no different than using antibacterial soap.

[nelliebelle1197]

So back from my shitty 4th of July. Here is what has seemed to have happened:

~Snarkylark is saying she has never said that the Cali Vax Choice website is reliable. She has never said it isn't reliable so she either thinks it is reliable or uses unreliable websites for information. Can't figure out which, she will have to clear that up.

~She is vague about her opinion on gay marriage(same as with abortion, I never did figure out if she is pro-choice). Some people don't like gay people getting married and would rather they have a civil union. Snarkylark might be one of those people, but she isn't saying.

~I don't know if the two states who have had the same laws as California have turned into China yet. How long does it take to slide down the slippery slope of becoming China?

~She admits she should have taken out the Hitler part of that FB quote she copied, but has never said if she agreed with that part of it. Another thing she will have to clear up.

The thing I have mostly learned most from this thread is:

~Even though it is a conversation that needs to happen, it is almost impossible to have this discussion without someone jumping on the fake science, China, and abortion band wagon. And wading through and debunking fear mongering fake shit puts a damper on a real discussion.

I'm also not entirely sober, so it could be none of this makes sense.

The mandatory vaccines in Mississippi have been in place for decades. Here is an interesting quote:

But attempts to add a religious excuse there have failed. In 1979, the Mississippi Supreme Court wrote a strongly worded defense of the state program, “Is it mandated by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution that innocent children, too young to decide for themselves, are to be denied the protection against crippling and death that immunization provides because of a religious belief adhered to by a parent or parents?â€

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/stor ... heres-why/

[Snarkylark]

Ya, as some of the other posters have said, the drops can be declined. Many hospitals will wait until about an hour after birth to do some of those things like eye drops, weighing, etc to give mom and baby time to bond and breastfeed with a normal uncomplicated delivery. Interesting tho is that I'm pretty sure that even planned csection babies get them even tho there was no trip through the birth canal or exposure from ROM. And yes, I'd compare it to putting triple antibiotic ointment on a cut. It's not a systemic antibiotic. Afaik there aren't concerns with the eye drops causing antibiotic resistance but I truly haven't looked into it.

[Snarkylark]

I really thought I'd answered every question you guys had asked.