Forced Vaccination in California

Posted by Abaco 1 week, 6 days ago to Government
41 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

So, our governor signed SB 276 late Friday. Finally. I didn't really like health care being between a doctor and patient. I really was hoping for more involvement by government civil servants who will determine health care decisions without ever seeing the patient. I also like forced medical treatments. Everybody knows there's zero risks associated with "catching up" a child with all their shots before the next school year...even if that means administering 50+ vaccines over a few visits during the summer. We know that there are no risks because that's what we were told by the politicians who receive money from the people who make those products. The bill's author even said that the most dangerous ingredient in a vaccine is water. I believe him because, as he said, people drown sometimes in water. This is good. And, I'm proud to be in the state that sets the precedent for things to come in your state. Everybody knows that Californians are smarter than people in all the other states. So, you're welcome for that, too. As the bill's author said - some doctors were writing medical exemptions and actually (gasp) being paid for their work. This in California has recently been labeled "monetizing" and will no longer be tolerated. Everybody agrees that doctors should work for free. The previous version of the bill actually was going to charge these doctors, retroactively, with perjury for writing such exemptions in the past. And, sure...there are medical boards created solely for the purpose of dealing with unscrupulous doctors. But, in this case the boards weren't acting fast enough to prevent the pandemic that was killing everybody (measles? I forget). So, there you have it. You're welcome!

Add Comment


All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by  $  Stormi 1 week, 5 days ago
    Calif. is a lost cause. These folks do not realize that several of the vaccines are cultured in egg, and if the child is allergic, they could well die. As a young adult, I took the swine flu vaccine, unaware of that allergy, my brain swelled. It was not good. I see the need, but this one size fits all approach to health care is dangerous. This is why immigraaiton should be done slowly and with care.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by rainman0720 1 week, 5 days ago
      I'm allergic to eggs, so until a recently-developed synthetic flu vaccine option appeared, I had to hope I didn't get the flu. I'm glad I discovered this allergy as a child, as it prevented me from facing what you went through. Sorry you had to find out the hard way.

      There was talk in my company about making flu shots mandatory, and nothing was even being considered for any medical exemptions. I would have been faced with a decision: keep my job and risk a life-threatening reaction, or let them fire me in hopes I could sue them and win enough money to keep me going until I found something else.

      They decided to make it optional but recommended (with a lot of emphasis on "recommended"), so I didn't have to make such a life-changing decision.

      And yeah, it is dangerous. But with 300 million people, every government solution to every problem--real or imagined--MUST be a one-size-fits-all solution. No way could they allow even one alternate solution.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by LibertyBelle 1 week, 5 days ago
        A Galt's Gulcher would sue a private employer for a decision in private enterprise? (Or was it a government job?)
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by rainman0720 1 week, 4 days ago

          And yeah, if this potentially life-threatening vaccination (which was not required when they hired me) suddenly became a requirement for keeping my job and they fired me for refusing it, I would sue.

          But notice I said in my original post "...enough money to keep me going until I found something else." I wouldn't be looking to get rich from that legal action; I'd just want them to cover my lost income until I found a reasonable replacement job.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by GaryL 1 week, 5 days ago
    If California had a vaccination to protect against "Early Onset Liberalism" I would be all in!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  exceller 1 week, 5 days ago
      It is not "early" any more.

      It has been around for a long time. It used to be that California was the example of States. Politicians ruined it to a state of no return.

      For conditions with the potential to be fatal, there is no cure in an advanced stage.

      Too late.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by GaryL 1 week, 3 days ago
        Bt "Early" what I mean is vaccinate them in childhood so they don't grow up to be flaming idiots.
        The Dumbocraps are depending upon the millennials to be their next best voting base now that they are losing the Black and Latino base in big numbers. They hate Trump and they just can't believe the Blacks and Latinos are not nearly as dumb as they thought they were.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by LibertyBelle 1 week, 5 days ago
    I have also read the argument that, if people want to be protected from disease, let them get the vaccination. But I have also heard that there are some people, who for health reasons, cannot take some vaccine, so it would be dangerous for them to be around unvaccinated persons.--(Still, those people should be excused from it). And not everybody is a pupil in a school where those diseases could spread.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 1 week, 4 days ago
      To vaccinate or not to vaccinate? Searching for a verdict in the vaccination debate

      "... Importantly, a vaccine protects not only the individual to whom it is administered, but also the entire population. When the number of immunized individuals within a population reaches a critical threshold, herd immunity [10] is conferred (Figure 2). Herd immunity protects the entire population, even those who are not vaccinated are protected from disease. The percentage of the population that must be immunized to achieve herd immunity varies for individual diseases, with thresholds for common diseases ranging from 75-94% [11]. Herd immunity is crucial to protecting those who are not eligible for vaccines, such as infants, pregnant women, and immunocompromised adults. This means that while vaccines may seem like a personal choice, vaccination protects the entire population—and accordingly, failure to vaccinate could have negative population-level consequences."
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  Dobrien 1 week, 4 days ago
        That is a Very collectivist statement .Such as “is crucial to protecting those who are not” and “protects the entire population”.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 1 week, 4 days ago
          Defense in a war “protects the entire population”, too, but national concerns properly pertaining to every individual are not "collectivist". "Those who are not [medically] eligible for vaccines, such as infants, pregnant women, and immunocompromised adults" are all individuals threatened by the physical spread of disease. All individuals threatened form some "group"; that doesn't make it collectivist.

          One can argue that abnormally vulnerable individualse are not the responsibility of normal people engaged in normal living activities, but in advanced civilization immunization against disease is the normal, and the first two kinds, infants and pregnant woman, represent normal stages of living.

          As for the article's terminology sounding collectivist, including the technical term "herd immunity", that is common from Harvard and the mainstream intellectuals. We can still understand it when there is something that makes sense.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  Technocracy 1 week, 4 days ago

            Virtually all published output from a university, especially an "Ivy League" one will appear collectivist simply due to word choice if nothing else.

            Herd Immunity, for example, is one of those terms that appears collectivist on first glance. However it is a term that provides a concise way of stating a much longer description. I prefer the concise "Herd Immunity" to something like: The shared immunity conferred upon a large group of people or animals once a large enough percentage of the group has been effectively immunized against the disease. Two words Vs Twenty Seven words.

            Herd immunity is only two words, but evokes a mental image that reflects the longer description. One of the wonderful things about English as a language.

            Edit - Forgot to add: There was no collectivist intent specific in that use.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Lucky 1 week, 4 days ago
            Right. There are two aspects here,
            1. is the fact that vaccination is very effective despite very odd arguments against,
            2. is the compulsion, or persuasion to the point of bullying on parents.
            I am strong on 1. but uneasy about 2.
            As said, there are people who should/can not for medical reasons be vaccinated eg infants. Another person can carry the disease to the infant. Who is to blame if the infant gets it? The parents/carers? The unvaccinated carrier? Can this form a court case for damages?

            I think the collectivist argument is weak, the argument should focus on inflicting damage (to another's health/property). The act may be unknowing but this is not a get-out.
            Herd immunity this not really an attempt to impose politics, it is a statistical term linking the number of infants (etc) catching the disease from an ignorant or malicious unvaccinated proportion of the population.

            Against killing infants, against compulsion, what to do with an apparent contradiction? If an infant dies from you or your unvaccinated children passing the disease, you have killed.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  straightlinelogic 1 week, 5 days ago
    Because water is so dangerous, I suggest California replace the water from faucets with mercury, another ingredient found in many vaccinations and one that is presumably less dangerous.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 1 week, 5 days ago
      Yes. Yes. Believe your government.

      The Charge Study at the Mind Institute showed that vaccinated children had blood mercury poisoning. But, I believe it was the water causing the developmental problems they were dealing with. Mercury is good for you. It helps you guess the temperature...
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  servo75 1 week, 4 days ago
    Vaccinations have always been a tricky subject. It's not as simple as live and let live. If a parent doesn't vaccinate their child, they're not putting themselves in danger, they're putting their child and other children in danger. Now I thought it would be rational self-interest to at least want to keep your own child healthy. And yet, by forcing vaccinations, are we gasp making the "for the greater good" argument? With most other topics, the socialist "greater good" argument and rational self interest are mostly mutually exclusive. Here the lines are not so clear.

    Just food for thought, but I would use the same argument for vaccination that we use to say that you can't drive if you've been consuming alcohol. You're putting other people in danger by actions which are easily avoidable on your part. Drink something else or have someone else drive. Having a doctor prick your kid with a needle is not living for the sake of society, it's merely so that other kids don't die. Not a big thing to ask in my opinion.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  allosaur 1 week, 5 days ago
    Ma dino yam too stupid to live in Kalifornia.
    So me stay away.
    Far, far, far away.
    Too hard on me little dino brain to tink widout pronouns anyhoo.
    In Kalifornia da elites of smarter peeps seek votes from street zombies smart enough to take dey own vacci-shots, tossing used syrin-needles all over da place.
    Too scary for me dino to be exposed to such way higher intelli-uh-intelli-uh-intelligents.
    Worse, me dino may be ordered to get medieval black death vacci-uh vaccishots. Scary, scary, scary!
    "Leave out ya dead! Leave out ya dead!" Here dey come wid push carts.
    To collect corpses among street zombies sleepin' in their feces.
    Hey, careful! Don't pick up a zonked out live sleeper, y'all!
    Dat what you get from smarter peeps who can only draw public service sidewalk poop maps.
    No, tank you. Me dino rather stay dumb.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Robert_B 1 week, 4 days ago
    Following the removal of individual self-interest is the removal of Objectivity. Union government personnel are the least financially enticed to produce a value when moral value is detached from exchange of values and rather attached to the morality of the floating abstraction.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  


  • Comment hidden. Undo