FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Vaccinations - should they be compulsory?

Vaccinations - should they be compulsory?

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

The Australian government has announced that it intends to stop welfare payments to parents who refuse to vaccinate their children.

The "no jab, no pay" policy may cost parents more than A$11,000 a year per child in lost benefit payments.

Families with children not immunised have been able to receive childcare cash if they have a philosophical or religious objection to vaccines.

He said that there would only be a small number of religious and medical exceptions to the new rules - supported by the Labor opposition and due to come into effect in early 2016.

The prime minister said that his government was "extremely concerned" about the risks posed to the rest of the population by families who chose not to immunise their children.

"The choice... is not supported by public policy or medical research nor should such action be supported by taxpayers in the form of child care payments," Mr Abbott said in a joint statement with Social Services Minister Scott Morrison.

Anti-vaccination campaigns have been gaining ground in some Western countries in recent years - coinciding with a resurgence in preventable childhood diseases like measles.

The Australian government estimates that about 39,000 children aged under seven have not been vaccinated because of the objections of their parents.

I understand the wish to reduce the resurgence of diseases , I still believe that a parent has the right to choose though. I can't understand how they won't be challenged on this decision, if it does comes into force. They are giving those receiving welfare payments little or no choice. Plus - not forcing those parents who don't receive welfare to have their children vaccinated. Seems poorly thought out to me !

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

In my opinion, yes, they should.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *icecouple561Couple over a year ago
Forum Mod

East Sussex

I feel very uncomfortable with anything that's imposed on people and enforced by threats.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

If it's going to be compulsory it has to be for everyone not just people who receive government financial support. Pointless doing it if the well off people or people with religious objections, who have 10 un-vaccinated children are exempt. Either everyone is included or it doesn't happen. What the government should do is reassure people that vaccinations are safe and necessary for the well being of their children.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *tarbeckCouple over a year ago

york

and what about my son who is allergic to eggs which a lot off the jabs are incubated in , should i have had him done ?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"and what about my son who is allergic to eggs which a lot off the jabs are incubated in , should i have had him done ?"

That's why, I believe , a degree of choice is necessary. With the MMR jab, some parents I know , paid for their children to have each element separately. Other parents wouldn't be able to afford that option.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *icketysplitsWoman over a year ago

Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound

Compulsory for the poor. What a fair and just society Mr Abbott is creating.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

The no vaccine fashion does upset me.

As a scientist, it makes me very depressed. Why do people not trust science? Science is simply collecting evidence and assessing it logically. What do people object to?

Logic?

Or evidence?

Plus what about the newborn babies who haven't been vaccinated yet and are now exposed to lots of unvaccinated kids carrying around these illnesses?

And what about immuno-compromised people who have weak immune systems due to ill health?

All because of a money and fame grabbing "doctor" (and I use the term in the loosest sense of the word).

Andrew Wakefield started all this to make money by I stilling fear and paranoia in parents. The study he did involved invasive procedures on autistic children WITHOUT the approval of an ethics committee.

What I can't understand is why parents who say they really are about their kids would follow the advice of this guy!!

(Can you tell it annoys me?!)

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"and what about my son who is allergic to eggs which a lot off the jabs are incubated in , should i have had him done ?"

Well are the jabs clear of any allergens from the eggs or is there an allergen free version?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"The no vaccine fashion does upset me.

As a scientist, it makes me very depressed. Why do people not trust science? Science is simply collecting evidence and assessing it logically. What do people object to?

Logic?

Or evidence?

Plus what about the newborn babies who haven't been vaccinated yet and are now exposed to lots of unvaccinated kids carrying around these illnesses?

And what about immuno-compromised people who have weak immune systems due to ill health?

All because of a money and fame grabbing "doctor" (and I use the term in the loosest sense of the word).

What I can't understand is why parents who say they really are about their kids would follow the advice of this guy!!

(Can you tell it annoys me?!)"

Compulsory, no. But i completely agree that it's baffling how many parents seem prepared to be convinced on the shakiest grounds not to have their children vaccinated, and everyone potentially suffers from that.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

No they shouldn't make it compulsory. I actually was told I couldn't give one of my children mmr had to give them separately.

And it should be a parents choice x

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

No.....

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I did make sure my girls had all there vaccinations, my 20yr old and I were discussing this the other day and thanked me for making the decision as many mums started to say no.even that anti cancer vaccination which hasn't been fully tested as we are waiting to find out if it has worked, my mum had womb cancer and I have cin1 so she is a risk, so at the time I definitely wanted her to have it

I feel the way there doing it is only encouraging the poorer to get there children vaccinated, so there still is going to be problem

I think the vaccinations are a good thing and hope that people do, but it is a case of choice and maybe health reasons eg someone said ellergic to eggs surely there is a safer vaccination for those cases

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

No.

Is it indeed the case that the Aussie government are making it compulsory? NO.

Parents are still entitled to turn down the State's handouts, earn their own way in life and say no to vaccinations.

Importantly, the UK is not far behind. It appears to be the case that anyone opting out of type 2 of the NHS's plans to give, oh sorry replace that with to sell, all your personal info and medical details to big pharma companies will not be able to receive treatments arising from such data. Not much different eh?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *iamondsmiles.Woman over a year ago

little house on the praire

When my son was due his jabs its when all the big scare was on but I had no qualms about him having them.

He still got whooping cough quite badly and it made me wonder how bad it would of been if he hasn't had the jabs

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Did Tony Blair ever publically reveal the matter of the combined MMR inoculations his last child did or did not receive?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"The no vaccine fashion does upset me.

As a scientist, it makes me very depressed. Why do people not trust science? Science is simply collecting evidence and assessing it logically. What do people object to?

Logic?

Or evidence?

Plus what about the newborn babies who haven't been vaccinated yet and are now exposed to lots of unvaccinated kids carrying around these illnesses?

And what about immuno-compromised people who have weak immune systems due to ill health?

All because of a money and fame grabbing "doctor" (and I use the term in the loosest sense of the word).

What I can't understand is why parents who say they really are about their kids would follow the advice of this guy!!

(Can you tell it annoys me?!)"

Iirc in the end he even admitted that he falsified his results after they didn't match with his hypothesis.

The big problem is the media gets any one in a white coat slaps "scientists say" before thier quote and sells it as if one in vitro study is applicable to humans and is accepted by the whole community.

But then "incredibly preliminary research that is currently not applicable to humans may suggest that x causes/prevents y"

Doesn't sell papers compared to

"Scientists confirm steak causes babies brains to explode with cancer"

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Did Tony Blair ever publically reveal the matter of the combined MMR inoculations his last child did or did not receive?

Does the medical history of an individual need to be made public because of their fathers job?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I feel very uncomfortable with anything that's imposed on people and enforced by threats."

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Did Tony Blair ever publically reveal the matter of the combined MMR inoculations his last child did or did not receive?

Does the medical history of an individual need to be made public because of their fathers job?"

Not necessary no, but when a government uses the slogan "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" then stating what they did, or didn't do, could have had a huge impact on the campaign.

Or simply confirm the "one rule for you plebs, one rule for us".

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *icketysplitsWoman over a year ago

Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound

Did Tony Blair ever publically reveal the matter of the combined MMR inoculations his last child did or did not receive?

Does the medical history of an individual need to be made public because of their fathers job?

Not necessary no, but when a government uses the slogan "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" then stating what they did, or didn't do, could have had a huge impact on the campaign.

Or simply confirm the "one rule for you plebs, one rule for us". "

And if his mother, or even the child, objected to their personal medical information being used politically?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Scientists confirm steak causes babies brains to explode with cancer""

OMG does it! OMG!!!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I feel very uncomfortable with anything that's imposed on people and enforced by threats.

Like tax? Speed limits? Child neglect laws?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I agree on this..all mine were given them, and 18 months ago my daughter was given the cervical cancer one.

This is given in year 8 to 9 i wish i had that oppotunity.

Her

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *uke olovingmanMan over a year ago

Gravesend

Would the hpv vaccine work on boys as well

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"The no vaccine fashion does upset me.

As a scientist, it makes me very depressed. Why do people not trust science? Science is simply collecting evidence and assessing it logically. What do people object to?

Logic?

Or evidence?

Plus what about the newborn babies who haven't been vaccinated yet and are now exposed to lots of unvaccinated kids carrying around these illnesses?

And what about immuno-compromised people who have weak immune systems due to ill health?

All because of a money and fame grabbing "doctor" (and I use the term in the loosest sense of the word).

What I can't understand is why parents who say they really are about their kids would follow the advice of this guy!!

(Can you tell it annoys me?!)

What are people actually afraid of by having these vaccinations? The actual pathogen has been weaken, so there's no risk of catching the actual disease from the vaccination. If one does present the diease, it's either because a small percentage hasn't worked. Although that could be solved by a blood test to see if any antibodies exist. Or they caught the diease before having the vaccination.

From the OP, it sounds like the Australian government is putting the blame on spread of these diseases on the poor. If one section of society is being compelled to have vaccinations, then it should be made for all. I believe in the US, all children must be vaccined before attending education.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

It's not about parents having a choice, it's the fact that a child will suffer because of the decision they make.

It may be a case that just the one child catches something but there's always the chance that they will spread it to others.

Any exemptions shouldn't be made based on a parents "ideas", they should all be assessed by medical professionals or in court where the child is represented as well as the parents.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *icketysplitsWoman over a year ago

Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound

"Would the hpv vaccine work on boys as well "

It should if given early enough. I think both genders should be given the vaccine.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Would the hpv vaccine work on boys as well "

Yes it can, as it can help not only stopping the spread of the virus, but prevent anal and throat cancer in men. Especially, since there's no screening for it like smears for women.

BTW, recent medical journal studies suggest that any women can have the HPV up to the age of 45 (Boots offer this service at a cost). Furthermore, studies have suggested it could help with women already infected and has a much less reoccurrence than surgery.

Portia

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Smallpox.

That's the reason, right there, why we should vaccinate against that which we can (eventually) hope to eradicate.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *icked weaselCouple over a year ago

Near Edinburgh..

we have had the cure for Cancer and other Diseases for centuries..

But they made it illegal

And no I am not a Hippy - but it seems now that even the hippies were right..

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"The no vaccine fashion does upset me.

As a scientist, it makes me very depressed. Why do people not trust science? Science is simply collecting evidence and assessing it logically. What do people object to?

Logic?

Or evidence?

Plus what about the newborn babies who haven't been vaccinated yet and are now exposed to lots of unvaccinated kids carrying around these illnesses?

And what about immuno-compromised people who have weak immune systems due to ill health?

All because of a money and fame grabbing "doctor" (and I use the term in the loosest sense of the word).

What I can't understand is why parents who say they really are about their kids would follow the advice of this guy!!

(Can you tell it annoys me?!)

All 3 of my children have had all recommend vaccines and are fine and healthy. Their father and I made this choice . I would, however, resent having no choice in my childrens' welfare.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

No.

Is it indeed the case that the Aussie government are making it compulsory? NO.

Parents are still entitled to turn down the State's handouts, earn their own way in life and say no to vaccinations.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *urreyfun2008Man over a year ago

East Grinstead

Who knows in 15 years it might be a vaccination that turns you sterile at 30

Potential to be a slippery slope to something more sinistet and worrying.

Mine has all her jabs btw.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Who knows in 15 years it might be a vaccination that turns you sterile at 30

Potential to be a slippery slope to something more sinistet and worrying.

Mine has all her jabs btw.

You'd be pretty hard pressed to make a vaccine do that.

That would be some miracle of bioengineering

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *icked weaselCouple over a year ago

Near Edinburgh..

"Who knows in 15 years it might be a vaccination that turns you sterile at 30

Potential to be a slippery slope to something more sinistet and worrying.

Mine has all her jabs btw.

You'd be pretty hard pressed to make a vaccine do that.

That would be some miracle of bioengineering"

Really - Well it seems like the "PILL" has been the Miracle that you Mention..

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/jun/02/water-system-toxic-contraceptive-pill

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *icketysplitsWoman over a year ago

Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound

"Who knows in 15 years it might be a vaccination that turns you sterile at 30

Potential to be a slippery slope to something more sinistet and worrying.

Mine has all her jabs btw.

You'd be pretty hard pressed to make a vaccine do that.

That would be some miracle of bioengineering

Really - Well it seems like the "PILL" has been the Miracle that you Mention..

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/jun/02/water-system-toxic-contraceptive-pill"

The Pill isn't a vaccine. The principle it works on is entirely different.

The Pill and other oestrogen factors are affecting our world because we can't work out how to remove them from the water system and the quantities are vast.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *iss_tressWoman over a year ago

London

"I feel very uncomfortable with anything that's imposed on people and enforced by threats."

This!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *phroditeWoman over a year ago

(She/ her) in Sensualityland

"I feel very uncomfortable with anything that's imposed on people and enforced by threats."

Absolutely agree!

It is also (and not wishing to destract from this topic and thread) why I will oppose anything that automatically assumes my consent to become an organ donor.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *icked weaselCouple over a year ago

Near Edinburgh..

"Who knows in 15 years it might be a vaccination that turns you sterile at 30

Potential to be a slippery slope to something more sinistet and worrying.

Mine has all her jabs btw.

You'd be pretty hard pressed to make a vaccine do that.

That would be some miracle of bioengineering

Really - Well it seems like the "PILL" has been the Miracle that you Mention..

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/jun/02/water-system-toxic-contraceptive-pill

The Pill isn't a vaccine. The principle it works on is entirely different.

The Pill and other oestrogen factors are affecting our world because we can't work out how to remove them from the water system and the quantities are vast.

Don't have the link - but the levels of the pill were 4 times higher in the drinking water of LONDON than they were at any other major city....

Maybe its because London recycles most of its River water !!! just a Maybe..

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Who knows in 15 years it might be a vaccination that turns you sterile at 30

Potential to be a slippery slope to something more sinistet and worrying.

Mine has all her jabs btw.

You'd be pretty hard pressed to make a vaccine do that.

That would be some miracle of bioengineering

Really - Well it seems like the "PILL" has been the Miracle that you Mention..

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/jun/02/water-system-toxic-contraceptive-pill"

Well no because the pill isn't given once then have an incredibly specific effect 30 years later is it?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"The no vaccine fashion does upset me.

As a scientist, it makes me very depressed. Why do people not trust science? Science is simply collecting evidence and assessing it logically. What do people object to?

Logic?

Or evidence?

Plus what about the newborn babies who haven't been vaccinated yet and are now exposed to lots of unvaccinated kids carrying around these illnesses?

And what about immuno-compromised people who have weak immune systems due to ill health?

All because of a money and fame grabbing "doctor" (and I use the term in the loosest sense of the word).

What I can't understand is why parents who say they really are about their kids would follow the advice of this guy!!

(Can you tell it annoys me?!)"

There seems to have been an anti scientist agenda in some areas, particularly in the southern Baptist States of the USA, where they believe that logic, deduction, and inference is to be ignored in favour of free will or freedom of speech

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *icketysplitsWoman over a year ago

Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound

"Who knows in 15 years it might be a vaccination that turns you sterile at 30

Potential to be a slippery slope to something more sinistet and worrying.

Mine has all her jabs btw.

You'd be pretty hard pressed to make a vaccine do that.

That would be some miracle of bioengineering

Really - Well it seems like the "PILL" has been the Miracle that you Mention..

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/jun/02/water-system-toxic-contraceptive-pill

The Pill isn't a vaccine. The principle it works on is entirely different.

The Pill and other oestrogen factors are affecting our world because we can't work out how to remove them from the water system and the quantities are vast.

Don't have the link - but the levels of the pill were 4 times higher in the drinking water of LONDON than they were at any other major city....

Maybe its because London recycles most of its River water !!! just a Maybe.. "

London has over 10 million peeing every day. Half of them are women and even with only a quarter of those on the Pill it will be higher than anywhere else in the country. London is also in drought most of the year. Without the recycling we'd have a problem with water full stop.

However, the Pill is not a vaccine. The way a vaccine and a daily dose of a chemical work are completely different.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *icked weaselCouple over a year ago

Near Edinburgh..

The pill is not a vaccine against pregnancy - but its treated like one..

Would be great to a Tetanus Like shot of the Pill every five years or so tho..

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *icketysplitsWoman over a year ago

Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound

"The pill is not a vaccine against pregnancy - but its treated like one..

Would be great to a Tetanus Like shot of the Pill every five years or so tho..

That's what hormone coils and depo injections do. It's still the chemicals being peed out into the water supply. The way it works is not the same as a vaccine.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ophieslutTV/TS over a year ago

Central

Whilst I feel uncomfortable about imposed health treatment, if any of us caught something like Ebola we would be quarantined for the public good. Not vaccinating is imposing risk to others' health as well as your own family's risk, so does have some parallels.

It is antisocial and could kill others, if you don't vaccinate.

Strong educational messages are needed and I would arrest those who publish anti vaccination propaganda.

Evidence is clear that herd immunity is effective and that some diseases can be wiped out, through global effort - we could make more diseases a thing of the past.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *icketysplitsWoman over a year ago

Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound

"Whilst I feel uncomfortable about imposed health treatment, if any of us caught something like Ebola we would be quarantined for the public good. Not vaccinating is imposing risk to others' health as well as your own family's risk, so does have some parallels.

It is antisocial and could kill others, if you don't vaccinate.

Strong educational messages are needed and I would arrest those who publish anti vaccination propaganda.

Evidence is clear that herd immunity is effective and that some diseases can be wiped out, through global effort - we could make more diseases a thing of the past."

It was only last year we had a Scarlet Fever outbreak with nearly 4,000 cases and people weren't following guidance on quarantining their children.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *icecouple561Couple over a year ago
Forum Mod

East Sussex

It is antisocial and could kill others, if you don't vaccinate.

Strong educational messages are needed and I would arrest those who publish anti vaccination propaganda.

Evidence is clear that herd immunity is effective and that some diseases can be wiped out, through global effort - we could make more diseases a thing of the past."

I agree with most of what you say except the arresting people who publish anti vaccination stuff.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

While I think the days of people blindly trusting everything anyone in positions of authority says being over is obviously a good thing, this seems like an example of where some people now won't trust anything doctors tell them, look for conspiracy theories, read something on the internet (so it MUST be true) and think they know best. Overuse of antibiotics and low take up of vaccinations are two really big medical issues that I think are connected to this shift in attitude.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *illwill69uMan over a year ago

moston

Not sure if they should be made compulsory, however if a vaccine is available, offered and refused then those who refuse it should have to pay the full cost of their medical treatment if the go on to catch the illness. Further if parents refuses a vaccine on behalf of their child and their child then contracts the illness then the parents should face criminal charges.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

This doesn't make sense, in that they want people to vaccinate their kids.

Why are only people on benefits being forced to? What happens to working people who don't vaccinate their kids, or are they not being forced?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

They probably would sooner all kids be vaccinated it's just if you don't claim benefits they have nothing to blackmail you with

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"While I think the days of people blindly trusting everything anyone in positions of authority says being over is obviously a good thing, this seems like an example of where some people now won't trust anything doctors tell them, look for conspiracy theories, read something on the internet (so it MUST be true) and think they know best. Overuse of antibiotics and low take up of vaccinations are two really big medical issues that I think are connected to this shift in attitude. "

Yes overuse of antibiotics is even more concerning, and why doctors are complicit in this is beyond me.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *empting Devil.Woman over a year ago

Sheffield

"This doesn't make sense, in that they want people to vaccinate their kids.

Why are only people on benefits being forced to? What happens to working people who don't vaccinate their kids, or are they not being forced?

It's exactly the same principle as the bedroom tax. They want people to change their ways but the easiest way to do that will only target the poorest in society. But that's ok cos those people don't contribute to election funds or write intelligent articles or turn up at rallys so we can penalise them and get away with it and make a big todo about what we're doing to get a change.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *arry247Couple over a year ago

Wakefield

"The no vaccine fashion does upset me.

As a scientist, it makes me very depressed. Why do people not trust science? Science is simply collecting evidence and assessing it logically. What do people object to?

Logic?

Or evidence?

Science is not based on fact or evidence but on theory, which holds until the next theroy is advanced.

Vaccinations can and do kill and maime, not very many true but it does happen.

Why should people be made to allow anyone to inject any substance into themsleves or their children when there is any chance of it doing harm?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *arry247Couple over a year ago

Wakefield

"Who knows in 15 years it might be a vaccination that turns you sterile at 30

Potential to be a slippery slope to something more sinistet and worrying.

Mine has all her jabs btw.

You'd be pretty hard pressed to make a vaccine do that.

That would be some miracle of bioengineering"

Though not the same as a vaccine the drug thalidomide was supposed to be safe (according to scientists) to be used to alleviate morning sickness drug in pregnancy.

History shows us the consequences.

Why should we blindly accept that vaccines or drugs are safe to be taken?

People have the right to control what they put in their bodies

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *arry247Couple over a year ago

Wakefield

"Not sure if they should be made compulsory, however if a vaccine is available, offered and refused then those who refuse it should have to pay the full cost of their medical treatment if the go on to catch the illness. Further if parents refuses a vaccine on behalf of their child and their child then contracts the illness then the parents should face criminal charges."

All very good but there are good reasons to refuse many useful vaccines try reading

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/recs/vac-admin/contraindications-vacc.htm

Now are you so sure?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"The no vaccine fashion does upset me.

As a scientist, it makes me very depressed. Why do people not trust science? Science is simply collecting evidence and assessing it logically. What do people object to?

Logic?

Or evidence?

Plus what about the newborn babies who haven't been vaccinated yet and are now exposed to lots of unvaccinated kids carrying around these illnesses?

And what about immuno-compromised people who have weak immune systems due to ill health?

All because of a money and fame grabbing "doctor" (and I use the term in the loosest sense of the word).

What I can't understand is why parents who say they really are about their kids would follow the advice of this guy!!

(Can you tell it annoys me?!)"

With you on that. What if the unvaccinated child becomes contagious and spreads it to those awaiting the vaccine? Is that fair to those awaiting and now contagious? Did they 'have a choice'?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"I agree on this..all mine were given them, and 18 months ago my daughter was given the cervical cancer one.

This is given in year 8 to 9 i wish i had that oppotunity.

Her"

It seems to be a good vaccine, it only protects against some types of cervical cancer though, not all. So the dreaded smear tests are still needed. I'm constantly surprised to discover many women never attend for their smear test. Yes it's undignified, but it's only once every three years.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"and what about my son who is allergic to eggs which a lot off the jabs are incubated in , should i have had him done ?"

Well, that is a medical reason as specified so he would be exempt

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Who knows in 15 years it might be a vaccination that turns you sterile at 30

Potential to be a slippery slope to something more sinistet and worrying.

Mine has all her jabs btw.

You'd be pretty hard pressed to make a vaccine do that.

That would be some miracle of bioengineering

Though not the same as a vaccine the drug thalidomide was supposed to be safe (according to scientists) to be used to alleviate morning sickness drug in pregnancy.

History shows us the consequences.

Why should we blindly accept that vaccines or drugs are safe to be taken?

People have the right to control what they put in their bodies

And they also have the option to work rathercthan claimed. Benefits then they can refuse any vaccine they want

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"The no vaccine fashion does upset me.

As a scientist, it makes me very depressed. Why do people not trust science? Science is simply collecting evidence and assessing it logically. What do people object to?

Logic?

Or evidence?

Science is not based on fact or evidence but on theory, which holds until the next theroy is advanced.

Vaccinations can and do kill and maime, not very many true but it does happen.

Why should people be made to allow anyone to inject any substance into themsleves or their children when there is any chance of it doing harm?

Measles, rubella, pertussis maim and kill a lot more.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"The no vaccine fashion does upset me.

As a scientist, it makes me very depressed. Why do people not trust science? Science is simply collecting evidence and assessing it logically. What do people object to?

Logic?

Or evidence?

Science is not based on fact or evidence but on theory, which holds until the next theroy is advanced.

Vaccinations can and do kill and maime, not very many true but it does happen.

Why should people be made to allow anyone to inject any substance into themsleves or their children when there is any chance of it doing harm?

Not true! Science formulates a theory based on the evidence. It then tests that theory based on collecting more umm... what was it again? Oh yes, evidence!

Very much evidence based.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ophieslutTV/TS over a year ago

Central

"The no vaccine fashion does upset me.

As a scientist, it makes me very depressed. Why do people not trust science? Science is simply collecting evidence and assessing it logically. What do people object to?

Logic?

Or evidence?

Science is not based on fact or evidence but on theory, which holds until the next theory is advanced.

Vaccinations can and do kill and maime, not very many true but it does happen.

Why should people be made to allow anyone to inject any substance into themsleves or their children when ...

Not true! Science formulates a theory based on the evidence. It then tests that theory based on collecting more umm... what was it again? Oh yes, evidence!

Very much evidence based."

Exactly! With vaccinations done in the mult-millions, there is enormous evidence available.

The tragic thing is that many people who have refused vaccinations and promoted others not to have been higher income types, such as in the USA, California, where they likely contributed to the Disney outbreak.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *arry247Couple over a year ago

Wakefield

"The no vaccine fashion does upset me.

As a scientist, it makes me very depressed. Why do people not trust science? Science is simply collecting evidence and assessing it logically. What do people object to?

Logic?

Or evidence?

Science is not based on fact or evidence but on theory, which holds until the next theroy is advanced.

Vaccinations can and do kill and maime, not very many true but it does happen.

Why should people be made to allow anyone to inject any substance into themsleves or their children when there is any chance of it doing harm?

Not true! Science formulates a theory based on the evidence. It then tests that theory based on collecting more umm... what was it again? Oh yes, evidence!

Very much evidence based."

Not so science is based on theory in which assumptions are tested, observations are made and conclusions drawn.

When rational observers have different background beliefs, they may draw different conclusions from the same scientific experiments.

That is how science evolves each hypothesis is tested by other scientists and the original “facts” are adapted and changed as new observations are advanced.

All scientific “facts” are open to question

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"The no vaccine fashion does upset me.

As a scientist, it makes me very depressed. Why do people not trust science? Science is simply collecting evidence and assessing it logically. What do people object to?

Logic?

Or evidence?

Science is not based on fact or evidence but on theory, which holds until the next theroy is advanced.

Vaccinations can and do kill and maime, not very many true but it does happen.

Why should people be made to allow anyone to inject any substance into themsleves or their children when there is any chance of it doing harm?

Not true! Science formulates a theory based on the evidence. It then tests that theory based on collecting more umm... what was it again? Oh yes, evidence!

Very much evidence based.

Not so science is based on theory in which assumptions are tested, observations are made and conclusions drawn.

When rational observers have different background beliefs, they may draw different conclusions from the same scientific experiments.

That is how science evolves each hypothesis is tested by other scientists and the original “facts” are adapted and changed as new observations are advanced.

All scientific “facts” are open to question

I think you may be talking about GCSE science, I hope you are!

By background beliefs do you mean bias as in they want the experiment to support their theory? Or do you mean religious or ideological beliefs?

I hope you also know that theory is different to a fact.

It just goes to show that by being misinformed or having incomplete information can lead to the wrong conclusion being reached!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Thanks to the people who replied to me, you make sense.

I can see all kinds of conspiracies coming up now, some of which might even be true.

Hate it when they force anything on the poor, our AID we send is sometimes used on forced programmes for the poor. Was a big scandal about our AIDS supplied to India for contraception ended up having many people conned into being sterilised because the doctors doing the programme got paid more.

http://pop.org/content/who%E2%80%99s-behind-india%E2%80%99s-barbaric-mega-sterilization-camps

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/11/indian-women-die-mass-sterilisation-camp

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"This doesn't make sense, in that they want people to vaccinate their kids.

Why are only people on benefits being forced to? What happens to working people who don't vaccinate their kids, or are they not being forced?

That's where their entire argument falls down. If its to stop pandemics, then if a few thousand catch something, what's the problem? Everyone else is vaccinated.

The threat of withdrawing benefits is simply blackmail. No other word for it.

I had my VAC's, my kids had theirs. If they decide to play with little johnny whose parents saw fit for him not to be vaccinated, then they are safe. Where is the problem?

Its just one more way to cut the benefits of the poor. Expect another reason soon!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"This doesn't make sense, in that they want people to vaccinate their kids.

Why are only people on benefits being forced to? What happens to working people who don't vaccinate their kids, or are they not being forced?

That's where their entire argument falls down. If its to stop pandemics, then if a few thousand catch something, what's the problem? Everyone else is vaccinated.

The threat of withdrawing benefits is simply blackmail. No other word for it.

I had my VAC's, my kids had theirs. If they decide to play with little johnny whose parents saw fit for him not to be vaccinated, then they are safe. Where is the problem?

Its just one more way to cut the benefits of the poor. Expect another reason soon!"

Yeah 'austerity' cuts, and taking away poor poeples choices because they don't deserve them. Tbh most people do vaccinate their kids anyway, because it is free and most people agree it's safe. Not sure if they story is also to stigmatise people on benefits as unclean or to be avoided in case they infect anyone?

I've not had all my baby jabs, but most of them. I had eczema as a child, really badly, and the jabs made me ill so my mum decided not to let them give me all of them, just in case i died or anything.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *fcdTV/TS over a year ago

Southend

Unless there is a medical contra indication, they should be compulsory.

Most people around today have no experience of most of these diseases and how nasty they can be. It's not just the individual's health at risk but also the heard immunity of the wider public. We've managed to completely eradicate some diseases and many more are do-able but having people opt out on the basis of fear and no evidence is madness.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Unless there is a medical contra indication, they should be compulsory.

So why make it compulsory? If some people want to take their chance going without, let them. It won't effect the rest of us that had the jabs. The government us NOT our parent. It needs to remember that.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Unless there is a medical contra indication, they should be compulsory.

Problem is, it does affect other people. If it was just the people themselves, I wouldn't give a shit. Read about the concept of herd immunity. Also what about people who are genuinely unable to have vaccinations? Babies who are too young, people who are immunosuppressed?

People ought to remember that, and not just think of themselves.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Unless there is a medical contra indication, they should be compulsory.

People ought to remember that, and not just think of themselves. "

I know what herd immunity is. But just how do you intend to force immunisation on the population? Plenty of middle class people won't do the immunisation. They are trying to blackmail poor people into it. It only works if you are going to MAKE everyone subject to the jabs. Who is going to hold the people down and inject them when they are fighting against it? Do you really want to live in a society that has more say over your body than you do? There are wider implications to this route.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *gNeMan over a year ago

Harrogate

It all just boils down to wether you believe in the nanny state or not doesn't it really.

You have to wear a helmet on a motor bike for your own safety, or face a penalty. How is this any different..?

In terms of benefits, although i agree the poor are unfairly targeted the majority of the time. My thought process here is, if you want to rely of the safety net of society, then you must actively participate also.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Unless there is a medical contra indication, they should be compulsory.

People ought to remember that, and not just think of themselves.

my daughter caught Rubella at 10 months old. too young for the vaccination, that was due at 13months. the yr before there had been just 1 recorded case in england and wales, the yr she got it the numbers had jumped up. Iv already lost 1 child, some ignoramous choosing to veccinate, put my other child in danger.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"It all just boils down to wether you believe in the nanny state or not doesn't it really.

You have to wear a helmet on a motor bike for your own safety, or face a penalty. How is this any different..?

So, if your poor, you do as your told. If you can afford it, then you get the choice to put others in danger? It has to be either compulsory meaning EVERYONE, or its not compulsory.

By the way I don't agree with compulsory crash helmets or seatbelts ( for the person in charge of the vehicle). I don't need anyone to tell me what is safe and what isn't. Why should my behaviour be controlled because of the lowest common denominator? Many people are alcoholics. Why is that not banned for our own good? How soon before the "sugartax" becomes a reality. We are headed for total state control, and people really believe it's for their benefit. You couldn't make it up. Well, Orwell did, but then I suppose if he was writing now, people would just call him a conspiracy theorist. Look after yourselves and stop expecting nanny to do it for you.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Unless there is a medical contra indication, they should be compulsory.

People ought to remember that, and not just think of themselves.

I don't agree with benefit sanctions for this, I think that would be a rubbish way to do it. But there is some evidence that takeup is particularly low among the socioeconomic groups who are likely to be receiving benefits so targeted methods would be needed. At the other end of the scale, the "yummy mummy" London type set is also where there seems to be an issue, but I don't know what mechanism the goverment would have to try to influence them since people like that don't have much interaction with the state.

I believe in a nanny state when peoples' own stupidity puts others in danger.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"It all just boils down to wether you believe in the nanny state or not doesn't it really.

You have to wear a helmet on a motor bike for your own safety, or face a penalty. How is this any different..?

So, if your poor, you do as your told. If you can afford it, then you get the choice to put others in danger? It has to be either compulsory meaning EVERYONE, or its not compulsory.

Look after yourselves yes, but take a bit of responsibility for the impact of your stupid decisions on other people. By your logic, benefit sanctions on the poor wouldn't matter anyway, because those people shouldn't be relying on nanny to do it for them, they should be looking out for themselves.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Yes. Everyone should be fully vaccinated. Unless there are extreme/religious circumstances why they should not be.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *alandNitaCouple over a year ago

Scunthorpe

Yes I do think vaccination should be compulsory apart from in exceptional circumstances. BUT people must not be blackmailed into it. Education and provision on vaccination at school if necessary.

As someone else said.. my teenage daughter has also thanked me for making sure she got all her jabs. She is concerned about those who aren't vaccinated and the impact it is already having.

However, to threaten to remove benefits if they don't get their child vaccinated horrifies me.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

If they were truly serious about immunisation, they would make it illegal to not submit to it.

Lots if (poor and affluent) people made the choice not to immunise after careful consideration and they believe it is in their child's best interests not to do it. Now, if they have the strength of feeling on this issue, the removal of benefits is still not going to force them to immunise their children. It will simply cut the benefit bill. There are thousands of families this would effect. Just how much money does that add up to? Its an austerity measure spun to look like a health and safety issue. Everyone in industry knows, if you want something done, quickly without question, put it under the H&S banner and nobody questions anything.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Yes. Everyone should be fully vaccinated. Unless there are extreme/religious circumstances why they should not be.

Its either compulsory or not. Is it okay for a religious nutter to spread disease because his god said its okay?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Yes. Everyone should be fully vaccinated. Unless there are extreme/religious circumstances why they should not be.

Its either compulsory or not. Is it okay for a religious nutter to spread disease because his god said its okay? "

I was thinking more along the lines of the ones who don't agree with medical intervention (can't remember what religion they are).

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"If they were truly serious about immunisation, they would make it illegal to not submit to it.

I can't reconcile your support for benefits with your 'no nanny state'/don't rely on the state/ look after yourself mantra. You can't have it both ways.

Everybody in which industry? It's not being called a health and safety issue, it's being called a public health problem, because that's what it is.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Unless there is a medical contra indication, they should be compulsory.

People ought to remember that, and not just think of themselves.

I believe in a nanny state when peoples' own stupidity puts others in danger. "

They interact with the state when they get a birth certificate. If the governments truly serious, the patents could have criminal charges brought against them. But that sounds too "hardline" and smacks of authoritarianism. Hit them in the pockets and pretend your giving them a choice. They think we're fucking stupid. Most of us are.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *allipygousMan over a year ago

Leicester

I have no problem with compulsory immunisation. All my children received their jabs.

I believe the benefit to the many outweigh the (minute) risk to the few.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"If they were truly serious about immunisation, they would make it illegal to not submit to it.

I can't reconcile your support for benefits with your 'no nanny state'/don't rely on the state/ look after yourself mantra. You can't have it both ways.

Everybody in which industry? It's not being called a health and safety issue, it's being called a public health problem, because that's what it is. "

You can have it both ways. I have no issue with state benefits. People pay there tax and NI and are entitled to them. What their decisions about what goes into their body is fuck all to do with the state.

Which industry? All the ones I have ever worked in. Paper, brewing and chemical manufacturing.

It is a H&S issue. Public HEALTH

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *gNeMan over a year ago

Harrogate

"If they were truly serious about immunisation, they would make it illegal to not submit to it.

Oh yes it is definitely killing two birds with one stone from the perspective of the government. However it is still leaving people with a choice.

The welfare state isn't all about taking, it's about everyone doing their part for the good of society, and mass immunisation is a part of that. If you don't want to be a part of that due to ill informed hysteria, why should you feel entitled to carry on withdrawing money from the communal pot?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *gNeMan over a year ago

Harrogate

Its either compulsory or not. Is it okay for a religious nutter to spread disease because his god said its okay?

I was thinking more along the lines of the ones who don't agree with medical intervention (can't remember what religion they are). "

They call themselves Christian scientists, oh the irony!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"If they were truly serious about immunisation, they would make it illegal to not submit to it.

I can't reconcile your support for benefits with your 'no nanny state'/don't rely on the state/ look after yourself mantra. You can't have it both ways.

Everybody in which industry? It's not being called a health and safety issue, it's being called a public health problem, because that's what it is.

Which industry? All the ones I have ever worked in. Paper, brewing and chemical manufacturing.

It is a H&S issue. Public HEALTH"

Public HEALTH is an entirely different thing from H&S. At least in the industry I work in. Which actually does have something to do with people's lives so seems more relevant. It is only fuck all to do with the state if it doesn't impact on other people. While it does, the state has a role. If it didn't, we'd still be dying of fucking smallpox.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ythenshawefredMan over a year ago

stockport

There has been a significant rise in preventable illness in AUS in recent years which obviously increases strain on the healthcare system and I can understand why they have come up with this policy I just think it is being implemented the wrong way, much like many policies governments adopt good in theory poorly applied

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"If they were truly serious about immunisation, they would make it illegal to not submit to it.

I can't reconcile your support for benefits with your 'no nanny state'/don't rely on the state/ look after yourself mantra. You can't have it both ways.

Everybody in which industry? It's not being called a health and safety issue, it's being called a public health problem, because that's what it is.

Which industry? All the ones I have ever worked in. Paper, brewing and chemical manufacturing.

It is a H&S issue. Public HEALTH

In this respect H&D and public health are the same thing. They are being used as a scapegoat to pass something without question "for our own good". As I have said, if they ate truly serious, it shouldn't be giving people a choice ( benefits or non-vaccination). It should be vaccination or criminal charges. But it isn't, which just tells us what a load if crap they're talking. They haven't got the strength in their convictions to take wealthy people to court over this issue, but they will happily take money from poor people who stand up for themselves. If its such an issue, why us it only just being looked at now? We are not in the throes of a pandemic? We are short if money though.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"If they were truly serious about immunisation, they would make it illegal to not submit to it.

Oh yes it is definitely killing two birds with one stone from the perspective of the government. However it is still leaving people with a choice.

Because you payed in???

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

22 years ago my normal healthy son was given his mmr jab. Within months he had regressed and totally withdrew. He was eventually diagnosed as autistic. I blame myself every day that something I agreed to caused him to be this way. I know it's never be proven but I would never have another child of mine vaccinated against this.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *gNeMan over a year ago

Harrogate

H&S is short hand for the 'Health and safety at work act' in any industry i have ever come across. Nothing to do with public health..

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *tarbeckCouple over a year ago

york

"22 years ago my normal healthy son was given his mmr jab. Within months he had regressed and totally withdrew. He was eventually diagnosed as autistic. I blame myself every day that something I agreed to caused him to be this way. I know it's never be proven but I would never have another child of mine vaccinated against this. "
the same thing happened to my friends son , much love to you both x

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"If they were truly serious about immunisation, they would make it illegal to not submit to it.

I can't reconcile your support for benefits with your 'no nanny state'/don't rely on the state/ look after yourself mantra. You can't have it both ways.

Everybody in which industry? It's not being called a health and safety issue, it's being called a public health problem, because that's what it is.

Which industry? All the ones I have ever worked in. Paper, brewing and chemical manufacturing.

It is a H&S issue. Public HEALTH

They're not the same thing, but I'll leave that aside.

It's coming up now because the incidences of diseases like measles which had been practically eradicated have come back up to the point where it's a serious public health concern. Should it wait until we ARE in the throes of a pandemic?

I actually don't believe the benefit system should be used as a mechanism for this, but I don't see a conspiracy in everything.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"There has been a significant rise in preventable illness in AUS in recent years which obviously increases strain on the healthcare system and I can understand why they have come up with this policy I just think it is being implemented the wrong way, much like many policies governments adopt good in theory poorly applied "

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *gNeMan over a year ago

Harrogate

Don't blame yourself, there have been dozens of studies proving there is no link at all.

You may as well blame broccoli for cancer, and then beat yourself up for the rest of your life for giving an elderly relative a Sunday dinner.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

H&S is short hand for the 'Health and safety at work act' in any industry i have ever come across. Nothing to do with public health.."

I didn't day they were the same thing. I said they were both being used as the reasons to get things passed easily and without question. If you can't see the similarity in public health and H&S then thats hardly my fault. They are both there to protect the publics health!!! As such when someone wants something doing for the health of the public, then any questions about the motives of that something gets frowned on.

The same applies to H&S issues at work. If you can justify however loosely a purchase etc on the grounds of H&S then it usually gets passed. Nobody wants to he the one who was seen to want a H&S issue questioned or blocked.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Don't blame yourself, there have been dozens of studies proving there is no link at all.

You may as well blame broccoli for cancer, and then beat yourself up for the rest of your life for giving an elderly relative a Sunday dinner.

That's sprouts. Actually!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"and what about my son who is allergic to eggs which a lot off the jabs are incubated in , should i have had him done ?"

Certain exemptions on medical grounds are already covered in the aussie scenario.

Why folk baulk at idea of protecting their own and in turn other children amaze me as one poster pointed out some illnesses are becoming more common again because of folk choosing not to let kids have the vaccinations its a warning that no society should ignore and some parents need to think of others along with their own family.

Yes no vaccination is 100 percent safe because there have been reactions for some children and as bad as that must be its a very very tiny amount compared to the amount vaccinated.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *tarbeckCouple over a year ago

york

"and what about my son who is allergic to eggs which a lot off the jabs are incubated in , should i have had him done ?

Certain exemptions on medical grounds are already covered in the aussie scenario.

Yes no vaccination is 100 percent safe because there have been reactions for some children and as bad as that must be its a very very tiny amount compared to the amount vaccinated."
and was it right for a teacher at my sons school tell other mothers that he hadnt had them

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"If they were truly serious about immunisation, they would make it illegal to not submit to it.

I can't reconcile your support for benefits with your 'no nanny state'/don't rely on the state/ look after yourself mantra. You can't have it both ways.

Everybody in which industry? It's not being called a health and safety issue, it's being called a public health problem, because that's what it is.

Which industry? All the ones I have ever worked in. Paper, brewing and chemical manufacturing.

It is a H&S issue. Public HEALTH

They're not the same thing, but I'll leave that aside.

I actually don't believe the benefit system should be used as a mechanism for this, but I don't see a conspiracy in everything. "

You honestly can't see how a government that is looking to slash its benefits bill wouldn't use this issue for its own ends? Really?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ere-for-my-convenienceWoman over a year ago

Tenbury Wells

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

H&S is short hand for the 'Health and safety at work act' in any industry i have ever come across. Nothing to do with public health..

That's more of an issue with the places you've worked then rather than the actual H&S legislation. And the instances you're referring to aren't about the government using 'H&S' as an excuse to impose anything, they're about people applying it improperly and blaming it on the legislation.

I'm ok with health and safety legislation existing and having fewer people dying in workplace accidents for example. I'm also ok with public health campaigns meaning that fewer people die from breast cancer because they can have mammograms.bWho do you think works for the government? It's not some shadowy army of spies out to get you; sometimes, just sometimes, the intervention of the state actually is for people's own benefit.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"If they were truly serious about immunisation, they would make it illegal to not submit to it.

I can't reconcile your support for benefits with your 'no nanny state'/don't rely on the state/ look after yourself mantra. You can't have it both ways.

Everybody in which industry? It's not being called a health and safety issue, it's being called a public health problem, because that's what it is.

Which industry? All the ones I have ever worked in. Paper, brewing and chemical manufacturing.

It is a H&S issue. Public HEALTH

They're not the same thing, but I'll leave that aside.

I actually don't believe the benefit system should be used as a mechanism for this, but I don't see a conspiracy in everything.

You honestly can't see how a government that is looking to slash its benefits bill wouldn't use this issue for its own ends? Really?

I don't dispute the government is looking to slash its benefits bill. In this case, the reduction would be an absolute drop in the ocean compared to the scale of the reduction they're looking for, so no I don't believe that's the primary motivation. The desired outcome would be that everyone did have their children vaccinated, and then there would be no savings on the benefits budgets at all.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"and what about my son who is allergic to eggs which a lot off the jabs are incubated in , should i have had him done ?

Certain exemptions on medical grounds are already covered in the aussie scenario.

Yes no vaccination is 100 percent safe because there have been reactions for some children and as bad as that must be its a very very tiny amount compared to the amount vaccinated. and was it right for a teacher at my sons school tell other mothers that he hadnt had them "

If child was not vaccinated because of medical reasons and that others were either vaccinated or in peocess of think8ng about it then yes every person has duty of care to everyone including this teacher obviously you know more of background but if it meant even one more child getting vaccinated then whilst may have upset you then its worth it surely.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *tarbeckCouple over a year ago

york

"and what about my son who is allergic to eggs which a lot off the jabs are incubated in , should i have had him done ?

Certain exemptions on medical grounds are already covered in the aussie scenario.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"If they were truly serious about immunisation, they would make it illegal to not submit to it.

I can't reconcile your support for benefits with your 'no nanny state'/don't rely on the state/ look after yourself mantra. You can't have it both ways.

Everybody in which industry? It's not being called a health and safety issue, it's being called a public health problem, because that's what it is.

Which industry? All the ones I have ever worked in. Paper, brewing and chemical manufacturing.

It is a H&S issue. Public HEALTH

They're not the same thing, but I'll leave that aside.

I actually don't believe the benefit system should be used as a mechanism for this, but I don't see a conspiracy in everything.

You honestly can't see how a government that is looking to slash its benefits bill wouldn't use this issue for its own ends? Really?

It isn't a drop in the ocean. Its a bigger chunk than the DWP stopping peoples JSA, and that's encouraged by this government. If lpublic health was the primary motivation then it shouldn't be aimed at just the poor.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"If they were truly serious about immunisation, they would make it illegal to not submit to it.

I can't reconcile your support for benefits with your 'no nanny state'/don't rely on the state/ look after yourself mantra. You can't have it both ways.

Everybody in which industry? It's not being called a health and safety issue, it's being called a public health problem, because that's what it is.

Which industry? All the ones I have ever worked in. Paper, brewing and chemical manufacturing.

It is a H&S issue. Public HEALTH

They're not the same thing, but I'll leave that aside.

I actually don't believe the benefit system should be used as a mechanism for this, but I don't see a conspiracy in everything.

You honestly can't see how a government that is looking to slash its benefits bill wouldn't use this issue for its own ends? Really?

What are you basing your calculation on?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

H&S is short hand for the 'Health and safety at work act' in any industry i have ever come across. Nothing to do with public health..

I'm not arguing with H&S culture. But I am aware of how it gets used for other reasons.

Sometimes, things are not for our benefit either.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"If they were truly serious about immunisation, they would make it illegal to not submit to it.

I can't reconcile your support for benefits with your 'no nanny state'/don't rely on the state/ look after yourself mantra. You can't have it both ways.

Everybody in which industry? It's not being called a health and safety issue, it's being called a public health problem, because that's what it is.

Which industry? All the ones I have ever worked in. Paper, brewing and chemical manufacturing.

It is a H&S issue. Public HEALTH

They're not the same thing, but I'll leave that aside.

I actually don't believe the benefit system should be used as a mechanism for this, but I don't see a conspiracy in everything.

You honestly can't see how a government that is looking to slash its benefits bill wouldn't use this issue for its own ends? Really?

What are you basing your calculation on? "

What are you basing yours on?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

For the record, I believe people should be immunised. What I cannot agree with is withholding benefits of those that don't do it. Doing that does not make something compulsory. It just targets the poor. The issue of immunisation has always appeared to me, to be more about the middle classes. As such a proper way to go about this would be to educate people about the real dangers of not being immunised and the incredibly small risk of having the immunisation.

You don't let yourself die from appendicitis because of the small risk of having it whipped out on the operating table do you?

That would be far more effective and have a greater uptake than trying to coerce people financially.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *gNeMan over a year ago

Harrogate

Because you payed in???"

Your juxtaposing two ideologies though, that of socialism, and that of individualism. That is why what you are saying sounds slightly confusing.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *gNeMan over a year ago

Harrogate

"For the record, I believe people should be immunised. What I cannot agree with is withholding benefits of those that don't do it. Doing that does not make something compulsory. It just targets the poor. The issue of immunisation has always appeared to me, to be more about the middle classes. As such a proper way to go about this would be to educate people about the real dangers of not being immunised and the incredibly small risk of having the immunisation.

You don't let yourself die from appendicitis because of the small risk of having it whipped out on the operating table do you?

That would be far more effective and have a greater uptake than trying to coerce people financially."

You mentioned criminalisation earlier did you not? Surely fines would also be financial coercion? People would be complaining of stealth taxes then as well..

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"If they were truly serious about immunisation, they would make it illegal to not submit to it.

I can't reconcile your support for benefits with your 'no nanny state'/don't rely on the state/ look after yourself mantra. You can't have it both ways.

Everybody in which industry? It's not being called a health and safety issue, it's being called a public health problem, because that's what it is.

Which industry? All the ones I have ever worked in. Paper, brewing and chemical manufacturing.

It is a H&S issue. Public HEALTH

They're not the same thing, but I'll leave that aside.

I actually don't believe the benefit system should be used as a mechanism for this, but I don't see a conspiracy in everything.

You honestly can't see how a government that is looking to slash its benefits bill wouldn't use this issue for its own ends? Really?

What are you basing your calculation on?

What are you basing yours on?"

The number of people with who feel so strongly about not immunising their children that they would be prepared to lose all of their benefits as a result, multiplied by the value of those benefits. I can't believe that would be a large number of people, ergo it's a small amount.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Because you payed in???

Your juxtaposing two ideologies though, that of socialism, and that of individualism. That is why what you are saying sounds slightly confusing. "

Socialism is NOT communism. Socialism is not authoritarian.

Socialism is not totalitarian.

No juxtaposition. We have a welfare state we pay into via tax and NI.

That doesn't give the state the right yo inject us againstbour will. It gives us the right to request the injection and not be charged for it!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

You don't let yourself die from appendicitis because of the small risk of having it whipped out on the operating table do you?

That would be far more effective and have a greater uptake than trying to coerce people financially."

For the record, I also agree on this but that's not what you've been expressing so far on this thread.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Everyone keeps saying that parents should have the choice but at the end of the day it is the child that will suffer for their beliefs or someone else's child.

As we've seen recently diseases that had been controlled surged again because people were preventing their children from receiving their vaccinations.

Even if the counter arguments are right, surely anything is better than a dead child.

If you expect benefits off the state then you should be prepare to give something back to society and preventing disease is definitely something that everyone should contribute to.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Because you payed in???

Your juxtaposing two ideologies though, that of socialism, and that of individualism. That is why what you are saying sounds slightly confusing.

Socialism is NOT communism. Socialism is not authoritarian.

Socialism is not totalitarian.

No juxtaposition. We have a welfare state we pay into via tax and NI.

That doesn't give the state the right yo inject us againstbour will. It gives us the right to request the injection and not be charged for it!

You can have as many rights as you like, as long as your rights don't put me or anyone else at risk.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

You don't let yourself die from appendicitis because of the small risk of having it whipped out on the operating table do you?

That would be far more effective and have a greater uptake than trying to coerce people financially.

You mentioned criminalisation earlier did you not? Surely fines would also be financial coercion? People would be complaining of stealth taxes then as well.. "

But it would be fairer and hit everyone, no matter what their financial status. Bigger fines for richer people. I didn't say I wanted criminalisation. But if you want total immunisation without exception, that's the only way you could do it.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

You don't let yourself die from appendicitis because of the small risk of having it whipped out on the operating table do you?

That would be far more effective and have a greater uptake than trying to coerce people financially.

For the record, I also agree on this but that's not what you've been expressing so far on this thread. "

No, because the issue has been about benefit withdrawal. That's fundamentally wrong.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Everyone keeps saying that parents should have the choice but at the end of the day it is the child that will suffer for their beliefs or someone else's child.

As we've seen recently diseases that had been controlled surged again because people were preventing their children from receiving their vaccinations.

Even if the counter arguments are right, surely anything is better than a dead child.

If you expect benefits off the state then you should be prepare to give something back to society and preventing disease is definitely something that everyone should contribute to."

But if you have vaccinated your kids then isn't it up to the parents of the other child to worry about their own? Will the state step in to force blood transfusions on the children of Jehovah's witnesses?

You can't look at these issues in isolation, you have to step back and see where these decisions end up taking us

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *tarbeckCouple over a year ago

york

We have never been on benifit ,do you not think if it was safe for our son to have them we would have , thats ment as know disrespect for anybody that is

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *gNeMan over a year ago

Harrogate

Because you payed in???

Your juxtaposing two ideologies though, that of socialism, and that of individualism. That is why what you are saying sounds slightly confusing.

Socialism is NOT communism. Socialism is not authoritarian.

Socialism is not totalitarian.

No juxtaposition. We have a welfare state we pay into via tax and NI.

That doesn't give the state the right yo inject us againstbour will. It gives us the right to request the injection and not be charged for it!

So socialism when it suits? Be a burden, but do nothing to help?

By very definition people claiming state benefits are making minor contributions to tax/NI, if at all. If you believe in social cohesion, then there is no room for selfish individualism..

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Because you payed in???

Your juxtaposing two ideologies though, that of socialism, and that of individualism. That is why what you are saying sounds slightly confusing.

Socialism is NOT communism. Socialism is not authoritarian.

Socialism is not totalitarian.

No juxtaposition. We have a welfare state we pay into via tax and NI.

That doesn't give the state the right yo inject us againstbour will. It gives us the right to request the injection and not be charged for it!

So socialism when it suits? Be a burden, but do nothing to help?

By very definition people claiming state benefits are making minor contributions to tax/NI, if at all. If you believe in social cohesion, then there is no room for selfish individualism.. "

Then if you think there is no room for individualism in socialism. You don't mean socialism. That's COMMUNISM!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *gNeMan over a year ago

Harrogate

Because you payed in???

Your juxtaposing two ideologies though, that of socialism, and that of individualism. That is why what you are saying sounds slightly confusing.

Socialism is NOT communism. Socialism is not authoritarian.

Socialism is not totalitarian.

No juxtaposition. We have a welfare state we pay into via tax and NI.

That doesn't give the state the right yo inject us againstbour will. It gives us the right to request the injection and not be charged for it!

So socialism when it suits? Be a burden, but do nothing to help?

By very definition people claiming state benefits are making minor contributions to tax/NI, if at all. If you believe in social cohesion, then there is no room for selfish individualism..

Then if you think there is no room for individualism in socialism. You don't mean socialism. That's COMMUNISM!"

I said SELFISH individualism, and no it's not..

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Everyone keeps saying that parents should have the choice but at the end of the day it is the child that will suffer for their beliefs or someone else's child.

As we've seen recently diseases that had been controlled surged again because people were preventing their children from receiving their vaccinations.

Even if the counter arguments are right, surely anything is better than a dead child.

If you expect benefits off the state then you should be prepare to give something back to society and preventing disease is definitely something that everyone should contribute to.

You can't look at these issues in isolation, you have to step back and see where these decisions end up taking us "

I believe that a child can be made a ward of the court and that the parents can be forced to allow the child access to medical treatment, at least in the UK. However this is about Australia so a lot of the arguments on both sides of the debate may not be valid there.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Because you payed in???

Your juxtaposing two ideologies though, that of socialism, and that of individualism. That is why what you are saying sounds slightly confusing.

Socialism is NOT communism. Socialism is not authoritarian.

Socialism is not totalitarian.

No juxtaposition. We have a welfare state we pay into via tax and NI.

That doesn't give the state the right yo inject us againstbour will. It gives us the right to request the injection and not be charged for it!

So socialism when it suits? Be a burden, but do nothing to help?

By very definition people claiming state benefits are making minor contributions to tax/NI, if at all. If you believe in social cohesion, then there is no room for selfish individualism.. "

Socialism when it suits? Hmmmm. Do you mean paying tax and NI, to ensure we have an NHS, Military, Libraries, Benefits system etc? Yes. Being forced to have injections against your will? No.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

What's going on in here then...

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Because you payed in???

Your juxtaposing two ideologies though, that of socialism, and that of individualism. That is why what you are saying sounds slightly confusing.

Socialism is NOT communism. Socialism is not authoritarian.

Socialism is not totalitarian.

No juxtaposition. We have a welfare state we pay into via tax and NI.

That doesn't give the state the right yo inject us againstbour will. It gives us the right to request the injection and not be charged for it!

So socialism when it suits? Be a burden, but do nothing to help?

By very definition people claiming state benefits are making minor contributions to tax/NI, if at all. If you believe in social cohesion, then there is no room for selfish individualism..

Socialism when it suits? Hmmmm. Do you mean paying tax and NI, to ensure we have an NHS, Military, Libraries, Benefits system etc? Yes. Being forced to have injections against your will? No."

Nobody is being forced and it's not to make you receive vaccinations, you can get as sick and disease ridden as you want, it's so that children and others are protected.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *gNeMan over a year ago

Harrogate

Socialism when it suits? Hmmmm. Do you mean paying tax and NI, to ensure we have an NHS, Military, Libraries, Benefits system etc? Yes. Being forced to have injections against your will? No."

I was never talking about political socialism, I was talking about the ideology.

You are choosing to ignore the key points of debate, so we shall have to agree to disagree.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Because you payed in???

Your juxtaposing two ideologies though, that of socialism, and that of individualism. That is why what you are saying sounds slightly confusing.

Socialism is NOT communism. Socialism is not authoritarian.

Socialism is not totalitarian.

No juxtaposition. We have a welfare state we pay into via tax and NI.

That doesn't give the state the right yo inject us againstbour will. It gives us the right to request the injection and not be charged for it!

So socialism when it suits? Be a burden, but do nothing to help?

By very definition people claiming state benefits are making minor contributions to tax/NI, if at all. If you believe in social cohesion, then there is no room for selfish individualism..

Socialism when it suits? Hmmmm. Do you mean paying tax and NI, to ensure we have an NHS, Military, Libraries, Benefits system etc? Yes. Being forced to have injections against your will? No.

Nobody is being forced and it's not to make you receive vaccinations, you can get as sick and disease ridden as you want, it's so that children and others are protected."

If your poor, and dependant on benefits, then the state says you either get your kids immunised or we take your benefits away, how is that not being forced?

Read ALL the posts.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

If they are going to remove benefits, is it not only fair that they should also take less tax and NI from the said claimant?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Who knows in 15 years it might be a vaccination that turns you sterile at 30

Potential to be a slippery slope to something more sinistet and worrying.

Mine has all her jabs btw.

You'd be pretty hard pressed to make a vaccine do that.

That would be some miracle of bioengineering

Though not the same as a vaccine the drug thalidomide was supposed to be safe (according to scientists) to be used to alleviate morning sickness drug in pregnancy.

History shows us the consequences.

Why should we blindly accept that vaccines or drugs are safe to be taken?

People have the right to control what they put in their bodies

Thalidomide was pretty much the first time optical isomerism having an effect on the drugs action was observed hence why it was such a surprise.

The correct isomer of thalidomide is perfectly safe and effective and still available today.

Just very few people will accept it because they assume the problem is still there.

Such an issue can't really happen with a vaccine.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Socialism is not authoritarian.

By its very nature socialism is authoritarian, the more you take from people the more "force" is needed to back it up.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"and what about my son who is allergic to eggs which a lot off the jabs are incubated in , should i have had him done ?

Certain exemptions on medical grounds are already covered in the aussie scenario.

Yes no vaccination is 100 percent safe because there have been reactions for some children and as bad as that must be its a very very tiny amount compared to the amount vaccinated.

and was it right for a teacher at my sons school tell other mothers that he hadnt had them "

I don't think they had the right to tell anyone. That information is personal only to the people who need to see it and know about it, such as yourself and medical staff.

Did they tell them so that other kids would get immunised so your son was protected or some other reason, coz i could kind of understand them telling if it was for your sons welfare, but even then i'm nsure they'd have to ask someones permission or even better they could have kept him anonymous.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Who knows in 15 years it might be a vaccination that turns you sterile at 30

Potential to be a slippery slope to something more sinistet and worrying.

Mine has all her jabs btw.

You'd be pretty hard pressed to make a vaccine do that.

That would be some miracle of bioengineering

Though not the same as a vaccine the drug thalidomide was supposed to be safe (according to scientists) to be used to alleviate morning sickness drug in pregnancy.

History shows us the consequences.

Why should we blindly accept that vaccines or drugs are safe to be taken?

People have the right to control what they put in their bodies

Thalidomide was pretty much the first time optical isomerism having an effect on the drugs action was observed hence why it was such a surprise.

The correct isomer of thalidomide is perfectly safe and effective and still available today.

Just very few people will accept it because they assume the problem is still there.

Such an issue can't really happen with a vaccine. "

Which is why education is the key. Not coercion.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Everyone keeps saying that parents should have the choice but at the end of the day it is the child that will suffer for their beliefs or someone else's child.

As we've seen recently diseases that had been controlled surged again because people were preventing their children from receiving their vaccinations.

Even if the counter arguments are right, surely anything is better than a dead child.

If you expect benefits off the state then you should be prepare to give something back to society and preventing disease is definitely something that everyone should contribute to.

You can't look at these issues in isolation, you have to step back and see where these decisions end up taking us "

That's a meaningless comparison because a Jehovah's Witness refusing a blood transfusion for their child has NO impact on anyone apart from them and their child. The entire point of this whole discussion is that herd immunity only works when there's a certain level of immunisation, so there can always be a small number of exceptions for really specific issues like immunosuppressed children, but not to cover anyone and everyone who doesn't want to for spurious reasons.

It's precisely because of the impact on the wider population that this is an issue. If it wasn't, it wouldn't be, because it would be people's own stupid fault.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Socialism is not authoritarian.

By its very nature socialism is authoritarian, the more you take from people the more "force" is needed to back it up.

True. every time the tories get voted in, since i've been alive, look at all the riots when they steal from the poor and low paid.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"If they are going to remove benefits, is it not only fair that they should also take less tax and NI from the said claimant?"

No. That's like saying I receive no benefits therefore I should pay less tax and NI.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Who knows in 15 years it might be a vaccination that turns you sterile at 30

Potential to be a slippery slope to something more sinistet and worrying.

Mine has all her jabs btw.

You'd be pretty hard pressed to make a vaccine do that.

That would be some miracle of bioengineering

Though not the same as a vaccine the drug thalidomide was supposed to be safe (according to scientists) to be used to alleviate morning sickness drug in pregnancy.

History shows us the consequences.

Why should we blindly accept that vaccines or drugs are safe to be taken?

People have the right to control what they put in their bodies

Thalidomide was pretty much the first time optical isomerism having an effect on the drugs action was observed hence why it was such a surprise.

The correct isomer of thalidomide is perfectly safe and effective and still available today.

Just very few people will accept it because they assume the problem is still there.

Such an issue can't really happen with a vaccine.

Which is why education is the key. Not coercion."

This is a section of society that typical had high levels of difficulty achieving an adult literacy rate yet you expect to teach them how to read and understand biomedical research papers?

you have a much more effective strategy if you targeted the news papers and tv news stations over their running of scaremongering and wildly miss leading stories as this is where people get their information they make their judgements from.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Socialism is not authoritarian.

By its very nature socialism is authoritarian, the more you take from people the more "force" is needed to back it up.

True. every time the tories get voted in, since i've been alive, look at all the riots when they steal from the poor and low paid."

Their raising of the tax free allowance helped me and most of my manual labour based friends quite a lot these last few years.

Interestingly most of the lads from the factory and locally are all now better off under the current coalition.

As skilled labour we tend to get fucked by all sides, not rich enough for the tories not unemployed and poor enough for labour.

The coalition though has generally done us all quite well though.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *tarbeckCouple over a year ago

york

my doctor told me all the information i needed , and advised againt it

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Socialism is not authoritarian.

By its very nature socialism is authoritarian, the more you take from people the more "force" is needed to back it up.

Socialism is looking after everyone in society. It has no requirement to force anyone to do anything, anymore than capitalism does.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *arry247Couple over a year ago

Wakefield

"tell other mothers that he hadnt had them

No it was a clear breach of the teachers duty and against the law.

The teacher should have been sacked for breaching the data protection act for revealing confidential information about your son.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *tarbeckCouple over a year ago

york

"tell other mothers that he hadnt had them

No it was a clear breach of the teachers duty and against the law.

The teacher should have been sacked for breaching the data protection act for revealing confidential information about your son."
thanks , thats what we thought x

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"If they are going to remove benefits, is it not only fair that they should also take less tax and NI from the said claimant?

No. That's like saying I receive no benefits therefore I should pay less tax and NI. "

It isn't. You have not been denied them because of a medical issue that has nothing to do with your need for state assistance. Look at NI as insurance, if you knew that the policy would never pay out, you wouldn't make your payments would you?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"Everyone keeps saying that parents should have the choice but at the end of the day it is the child that will suffer for their beliefs or someone else's child.

As we've seen recently diseases that had been controlled surged again because people were preventing their children from receiving their vaccinations.

Even if the counter arguments are right, surely anything is better than a dead child.

If you expect benefits off the state then you should be prepare to give something back to society and preventing disease is definitely something that everyone should contribute to."

I don't think, the majority of parents, who don't vaccinate their children, do it for selfish reasons. Much of the lack of, uptake - particularly MMR, is down to the belief - that it may be linked to Autism. So the parents - in their mind, are prepared to take the risk of their child contracting the disease over the risk of Autism. My children had the MMR - but I deliberated about it and found it a difficult decision to make!

My issue , with the Australian proposal, is that it is not fair to all. They do not appear to be forcing all Parents to vaccinate . They are forcing the hand of those on benefits by threatening to take the benefits away. I'm guessing , they are the Socio-economic group with the lowest uptake on vaccination . Education and easy access to having vaccinations would be a fairer process. Plus trying to understand their driver for not having vaccinations in the first place.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Everyone keeps saying that parents should have the choice but at the end of the day it is the child that will suffer for their beliefs or someone else's child.

As we've seen recently diseases that had been controlled surged again because people were preventing their children from receiving their vaccinations.

Even if the counter arguments are right, surely anything is better than a dead child.

If you expect benefits off the state then you should be prepare to give something back to society and preventing disease is definitely something that everyone should contribute to.

You can't look at these issues in isolation, you have to step back and see where these decisions end up taking us

It's precisely because of the impact on the wider population that this is an issue. If it wasn't, it wouldn't be, because it would be people's own stupid fault. "

I said take a wider view. This is where this sort of thing leads. You can't look at these things in isolation.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"If they are going to remove benefits, is it not only fair that they should also take less tax and NI from the said claimant?

No. That's like saying I receive no benefits therefore I should pay less tax and NI.

The 'policy' pays out because those people would still be entitled to healthcare, education, social care, local services, the police, the Fire service, street lights, national defence and all the other things that tax and NI fund. None of it is hypothecated, so you can't pick and choose what you do or don't contribute to based on what you're going to receive.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Who knows in 15 years it might be a vaccination that turns you sterile at 30

Potential to be a slippery slope to something more sinistet and worrying.

Mine has all her jabs btw.

You'd be pretty hard pressed to make a vaccine do that.

That would be some miracle of bioengineering

Though not the same as a vaccine the drug thalidomide was supposed to be safe (according to scientists) to be used to alleviate morning sickness drug in pregnancy.

History shows us the consequences.

Why should we blindly accept that vaccines or drugs are safe to be taken?

People have the right to control what they put in their bodies

Thalidomide was pretty much the first time optical isomerism having an effect on the drugs action was observed hence why it was such a surprise.

The correct isomer of thalidomide is perfectly safe and effective and still available today.

Just very few people will accept it because they assume the problem is still there.

Such an issue can't really happen with a vaccine.

Which is why education is the key. Not coercion.

This is a section of society that typical had high levels of difficulty achieving an adult literacy rate yet you expect to teach them how to read and understand biomedical research papers?

Not strictly true. Many of the anti vacc brigade were middle class professional worriers.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"my doctor told me all the information i needed , and advised againt it "
You did what every parent would do , Why would anyone ignore the medical advice and put there own child in danger .

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Everyone keeps saying that parents should have the choice but at the end of the day it is the child that will suffer for their beliefs or someone else's child.

As we've seen recently diseases that had been controlled surged again because people were preventing their children from receiving their vaccinations.

Even if the counter arguments are right, surely anything is better than a dead child.

If you expect benefits off the state then you should be prepare to give something back to society and preventing disease is definitely something that everyone should contribute to.

You can't look at these issues in isolation, you have to step back and see where these decisions end up taking us

It's precisely because of the impact on the wider population that this is an issue. If it wasn't, it wouldn't be, because it would be people's own stupid fault.

I said take a wider view. This is where this sort of thing leads. You can't look at these things in isolation."

You said take a wider view. You also said "But if you have vaccinated your kids then isn't it up to the parents of the other child to worry about their own?" and that people shouldn't rely on the nanny state but should look after themselves, and that there was no role for the state in influencing people's lives. None of those statements suggest a "wider" view.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"my doctor told me all the information i needed , and advised againt it You did what every parent would do , Why would anyone ignore the medical advice and put there own child in danger .

And that's the point. People should listen to medical advice

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"If they are going to remove benefits, is it not only fair that they should also take less tax and NI from the said claimant?

No. That's like saying I receive no benefits therefore I should pay less tax and NI.

But the government can pick and choose what it sees fit to let you have, even though you played in the same as everyone else?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Everyone keeps saying that parents should have the choice but at the end of the day it is the child that will suffer for their beliefs or someone else's child.

As we've seen recently diseases that had been controlled surged again because people were preventing their children from receiving their vaccinations.

Even if the counter arguments are right, surely anything is better than a dead child.

If you expect benefits off the state then you should be prepare to give something back to society and preventing disease is definitely something that everyone should contribute to.

You can't look at these issues in isolation, you have to step back and see where these decisions end up taking us

It's precisely because of the impact on the wider population that this is an issue. If it wasn't, it wouldn't be, because it would be people's own stupid fault.

I said take a wider view. This is where this sort of thing leads. You can't look at these things in isolation.

I mean, step back, and see where this sort of thing takes us. Withholding benefits for no reason connected with why you get them is a slippery slope. They will be taking you off sickness benefit if you are receiving chemotherapy but are deemed fit for work next! Oh...they do that don't they?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Everyone keeps saying that parents should have the choice but at the end of the day it is the child that will suffer for their beliefs or someone else's child.

As we've seen recently diseases that had been controlled surged again because people were preventing their children from receiving their vaccinations.

Even if the counter arguments are right, surely anything is better than a dead child.

If you expect benefits off the state then you should be prepare to give something back to society and preventing disease is definitely something that everyone should contribute to.

You can't look at these issues in isolation, you have to step back and see where these decisions end up taking us

It's precisely because of the impact on the wider population that this is an issue. If it wasn't, it wouldn't be, because it would be people's own stupid fault.

I said take a wider view. This is where this sort of thing leads. You can't look at these things in isolation.

What's this sickness benefit?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Socialism is not authoritarian.

By its very nature socialism is authoritarian, the more you take from people the more "force" is needed to back it up.

True. every time the tories get voted in, since i've been alive, look at all the riots when they steal from the poor and low paid.

Their raising of the tax free allowance helped me and most of my manual labour based friends quite a lot these last few years.

Interestingly most of the lads from the factory and locally are all now better off under the current coalition.

As skilled labour we tend to get fucked by all sides, not rich enough for the tories not unemployed and poor enough for labour.

The coalition though has generally done us all quite well though."

They took from the poorest though and they got aggressive about it, so that backs up your socialism theory of taking by force. They did need a lot more police presence and were even talking of bringing water cannons and the army in, just because people were made poorer and dissatisfied by that and couldn't do anything about it either apart from protest, (which eventually turned into out of control riots because all the police were protecting parliament from protesters instead of being there for the public who pay for them via taxes).

When there's a limited amount of resources and someone obtains more then someone else has to get less, and yes it is often done by force. People don't want to give things up, they always want more, you're even saying you've done better now you have more, well almost everyone else feels the same way about that.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *gNeMan over a year ago

Harrogate

The current government is far from socialist though..

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"What's this sickness benefit?"

Sickness benefit is for people who are too sick to work. Your employer pays it but can (or could) claim 90% back from the government (as they could for maternity pay too), now it's less than 90% but i can't remember how much.

I think he means DLA and PIP, both of these payments are made to disabled people so that they can remain independent and not reliant on others, although you can also claim them if you need a help from a carer. Even if you are working you can claim these benefits tax free because they are to help with the extra expenses being disabled brings. You could claim them as soon as you became disabled, under the last tory government you had to be disabled for a year before being entitled to them. If you are over 65 you can't claim these benefits but there others you can claim to help with the extra expense of being disabled.

David Cameron claimed these benefits for his son, and he was entitled to. But yes a lot of people have lost these benefits despite needing them and being entitled to them. Unfortunately the people awarding these benefits to people are not qualified doctors or experts on anything medical, yet are allowed to make medical evaluations.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"The current government is far from socialist though.. "

Well yeah course they aren't Marxist socialism, they're socialism for the rich, else they wouldn't be selling everything we own, and neither would any true socialist government. They still believe in taking from others to benefit someone else, and trust me they wouldn't be giving you anything unless it benefitted them to do so.

In Marxist theory, the state is "the institution of organised violence which is used by the ruling class of a country to maintain the conditions of its rule. Thus, it is only in a society which is divided between hostile social classes that the state exists."[11] The state is thus seen as a mechanism that is dominated by the interests of the ruling class and utilized to subjugate other classes in order to protect and legitimize the existing economic system.

After a workers' revolution, the state would initially become the instrument of the working class. Conquest of the state apparatus by the working class must take place to establish a socialist system. As socialism is built, the role and scope of the state changes as class distinctions (based on ownership of the means of production) gradually deteriorate due to the concentration of means of production in state hands. From the point where all means of production become state property, the nature and primary function of the state would change from one of political rule (via coercion) over men by the creation and enforcement of laws into a scientific administration of things and a direction of processes of production; that is the state would become a coordinating economic entity rather than a mechanism of class or political control, and would no longer be a state in the Marxian sense.

Basically marxist theory might be the foundation of this topic?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *tarbeckCouple over a year ago

york

"What's this sickness benefit?

"
bloody hell really

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"What's this sickness benefit?

bloody hell really

Yes really. This is why i do not take politics seriously and point out all it's flaws when i see them.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Everyone keeps saying that parents should have the choice but at the end of the day it is the child that will suffer for their beliefs or someone else's child.

As we've seen recently diseases that had been controlled surged again because people were preventing their children from receiving their vaccinations.

Even if the counter arguments are right, surely anything is better than a dead child.

If you expect benefits off the state then you should be prepare to give something back to society and preventing disease is definitely something that everyone should contribute to.

You can't look at these issues in isolation, you have to step back and see where these decisions end up taking us "

was up to me to have my daughter immunised, but as someone else hadnt bothered she caught Rubella 3 months before she was due to have her MMR jab. somebody else decided to risk it, and as a result my child was very ill.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Who knows in 15 years it might be a vaccination that turns you sterile at 30

Potential to be a slippery slope to something more sinistet and worrying.

Mine has all her jabs btw.

You'd be pretty hard pressed to make a vaccine do that.

That would be some miracle of bioengineering

Though not the same as a vaccine the drug thalidomide was supposed to be safe (according to scientists) to be used to alleviate morning sickness drug in pregnancy.

History shows us the consequences.

Why should we blindly accept that vaccines or drugs are safe to be taken?

People have the right to control what they put in their bodies

Thalidomide was pretty much the first time optical isomerism having an effect on the drugs action was observed hence why it was such a surprise.

The correct isomer of thalidomide is perfectly safe and effective and still available today.

Just very few people will accept it because they assume the problem is still there.

Such an issue can't really happen with a vaccine. "

Isn't 'fab' extraordinary - I was not expecting to see someone raise the topic of stereoisomerism!

Moose.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *gNeMan over a year ago

Harrogate

"The current government is far from socialist though..

Basically marxist theory might be the foundation of this topic?"

You've really confused me know haha. Socialism is about giving normal people access to the means of production and the creation of a operative economy. The current coalition is just a hamstrung conservative government, and basically believes in the polar opposite.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"You've really confused me know haha. Socialism is about giving normal people access to the means of production and the creation of a operative economy. The current coalition is just a hamstrung conservative government, and basically believes in the polar opposite. "

Yeah the tories are what you'd typically think as the opposite, i'm thinking labour are too seeing as they continued selling our services to profitting businesses as well. But, also note this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_socialism

The word socialism refers to a broad range of theoretical and historical socio-economic systems, and has also been used by many political movements throughout history to describe themselves and their goals, generating numerous types of socialism.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *gNeMan over a year ago

Harrogate

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_socialism

Yeah new labour aren't labour.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ot monkey71Couple over a year ago

middlesbrough

Big pharma will try and get there drugs in you anyway they can, that's how they make big money.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *gNeMan over a year ago

Harrogate

"Big pharma will try and get there drugs in you anyway they can, that's how they make big money. "

Drugs aren't vaccinations...

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *arry247Couple over a year ago

Wakefield

You cannot draw such a conclusion.

Your child might have just been unlucky.

There are medical reasons for refusing the MMR vaccination, it used to be possible to have each vaccine separately but that facility was withdrawn.

It could be argued that your child got ill because the separate vaccines had been withdrawn.

I notice no one in this thread has discussed possibly the biggest cause of reduction of herd immunity immigration.

Immigrants from countries with a low incidence of vaccination reduce the effectiveness of herd immunity.

Steps should be taken to change that before compulsory vaccination is even considered.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *gNeMan over a year ago

Harrogate

You cannot draw such a conclusion.

Your child might have just been unlucky.

There are medical reasons for refusing the MMR vaccination, it used to be possible to have each vaccine separately but that facility was withdrawn.

It could be argued that your child got ill because the separate vaccines had been withdrawn.

I notice no one in this thread has discussed possibly the biggest cause of reduction of herd immunity immigration.

Immigrants from countries with a low incidence of vaccination reduce the effectiveness of herd immunity.

Steps should be taken to change that before compulsory vaccination is even considered.

So rather than authoritarian policy on vaccination (something proven to benefit the health of us all) you want authoritarian policy on border control. Hmmm progresive

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

You cannot draw such a conclusion.

Your child might have just been unlucky.

There are medical reasons for refusing the MMR vaccination, it used to be possible to have each vaccine separately but that facility was withdrawn.

It could be argued that your child got ill because the separate vaccines had been withdrawn.

I notice no one in this thread has discussed possibly the biggest cause of reduction of herd immunity immigration.

Immigrants from countries with a low incidence of vaccination reduce the effectiveness of herd immunity.

Steps should be taken to change that before compulsory vaccination is even considered.

unlucky how? where would you suggest she got it from?

seperate or combined jabs, she was still too young for either. and seperate has not been withdrawn, as they then gave her them seperately.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

You cannot draw such a conclusion.

Your child might have just been unlucky.

There are medical reasons for refusing the MMR vaccination, it used to be possible to have each vaccine separately but that facility was withdrawn.

It could be argued that your child got ill because the separate vaccines had been withdrawn.

I notice no one in this thread has discussed possibly the biggest cause of reduction of herd immunity immigration.

Immigrants from countries with a low incidence of vaccination reduce the effectiveness of herd immunity.

Steps should be taken to change that before compulsory vaccination is even considered.

So rather than authoritarian policy on vaccination (something proven to benefit the health of us all) you want authoritarian policy on border control. Hmmm progresive"

Well you have immunisation when you go to Africa and Asia, so why not?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *erbyDalesCplCouple over a year ago

Derbyshire

"22 years ago my normal healthy son was given his mmr jab. Within months he had regressed and totally withdrew. He was eventually diagnosed as autistic. I blame myself every day that something I agreed to caused him to be this way. I know it's never be proven but I would nevoer have another child of mine vaccinated against this. "

Please do not waste another second of your life blaming yourself. Not only did you do nothing wrong, but that entire story has been proved to be completely false and fabricated. The research was wrong, has never been replicated, the person who carried it out struck off, the papers who reported it have apologised for printing it without questioning it, and finally it turned out, the whole thing was funded by lawyers out to make a profit from hyping up people's fears. Millions were raised, all of which went to solicitors, barristers and 'expert' witnesses. Very little to the families involved.

You have done nothing wrong and don't let anyone ever say any different to you.

Big hugs to you and your family.

Mr ddc

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)