Tricking School into Accepting Unvaxxed Kids

amother

Forestgreen

Wed, Sep 07 2016, 3:59 pm

amother wrote:

The issue is not, how risky is the behavior. The issue is whether that risk could have been avoided.

Driving is pretty much universally accepted in the US as a necessary part of regular life, so that would be a poor comparison.

A better example might be, parents who refuse to strap their very young children into the car; their three-year-olds are standing up while on the highway.

And I think that in a case like that, yes, you will find similar reactions.

You're saying you aren't concerned much about the actual risk. It bothers you that someone who doesn't vaccinate isn't following the majority. If it's risky, but universally accepted, it's ok.

amother

Ruby

Wed, Sep 07 2016, 6:08 pm

amother wrote:

This entire 21 pages has veered OFF TOPIC. It is a simple question of LYING AND TRICKING SCHOOLS that this is a RELIGIOUS ISSUE when it is a lifestyle or option that parents choose.
Is it ethical to LIE (which is against the torah) and write clearly that the reason you choose not to vaccinate IS BECAUSE IT SAYS SO IN TORAH.????

THAT IS THE SIMPLE QUESTION.... I DON'T CARE WHAT YOU CHOOSE TO DO WITH YOUR CHILD....just like it is not my business if you feed her organic chicken or eggs...or kosher or non-kosher food.

This is what is bothering so many of us!!!!! Please answer directly to the question!!!

It's a complex topic. The discussion evolved.

But to respond to your point, the legal definition of a religious belief is not the same thing as IT SAYS SO IN THE TORAH. By claiming a religious exemption, she is not claiming that it says in the Torah no vaccines.

If one believes that vaccines are dangerous, and IT SAYS IN THE TORAH TO GUARD YOUR HEALTH, then it is religiously consistent to refuse vaccines on that basis. Whether vaccines are or aren't really dangerous is a different matter altogether. You said to stick to the question. As an analogy, many right wing schools require their parent body to sign a statement saying that they don't have internet at home. They don't argue that it says in the Torah no internet but that in their view the internet is not consistent with Torah values such as wasting time, seeing improper images and lusting after their eyes. But no one actually claims that you can't have internet BECAUSE IT SAYS NO INTERNET IN THE TORAH. How about covering knees, elbows and collarbone? It doesn't say that in the Torah. Do you do that for religious reasons or is that a lifestyle choice? Some things are spelled out in the Torah. Others are general values that we apply to things that come up in our day to day lives that are not spelled out in the Torah. You may disagree that knees, elbows and collarbones need to be covered but you would agree that those who do are being consistent with their religious principles and not simply making a lifestyle choice even though their religious principles differ from yours.

If the school is legally allowed to refuse admission to an unvaxed student and that is their policy and their policy is known then they are perfectly within their rights to expel the student at whatever point they find out that he is not vaxed and that's on the parent. If the school is not legally allowed to refuse admission to an unvaxed student but the parent knows that if the school knows in advance they will LIE and FABRICATE some other reason not to accept her child, then the school is unethical and the mother needs to do what she needs to do which wasn't lying but not volunteering information that hadn't even been asked for. How often do you volunteer information that's not asked for? I don't know what the law is in her area. Either way if it is so important to the school they should specifically ask for vaccine information before accepting a child.

I have to tell you, while we're on the subject of integrity in the name of the Torah, that I hardly think your righteous indignation has anything to do with Torah and your concern for its honor. You are motivated by your personal beliefs, what you call a lifestyle choice that parents choose and you are using whatever arguments you find handy. You and the mother you're so angry at have a lot in common.

My kids are vaxed so I obviously don't agree with the raving conspiracy theorist anti vaxers but I don't agree with most of the militant anti-anti-vaxers' arguments either.

amother

Forestgreen

Wed, Sep 07 2016, 6:16 pm

amother wrote:

That was discussed.
Start from the beginning and read carefully Wink

amother

Ruby

Wed, Sep 07 2016, 7:18 pm

amother wrote:

With vaccines, there is objective data indicating scientifically the degree of risk. Herd immunity only works when a critical percentage of the population is immunized.

For example, that measles outbreak at Disneyland last year.

There is a small percentage of people who can still contract a disease even if they are immunized, IF a specific percentage of the general population is NOT immunized.

That's how the measles outbreak spread, and even people who HAD been immunized became at risk.

So yes, if a majority of people don't vaccinate, it puts at risk some of the minority who do.

Of course, we don't know beforehand which children who have been vaccinated may nevertheless still be susceptible to the disease if they are exposed to it. So parents' concern here is understandable.

And this doesn't even address the other issue--kids who are immuno-compromised and can't be vaccinated, and will be the most hurt by the disease. (Again, if a specific percentage of the population is vaccinated, those kids will be protected too)

But maybe amethyst amother can explain it better.

Yes and people significantly overestimate that risk. They think they are outraged because the risk is high but as the study shows they actually think the risk is higher than it is because they are outraged.

In any case, you keep changing your mind about why you think people react the way they do. Its the risk. No, it's not the risk, it's that the risk is avoidable. No taking avoidable risks with my own children is ok but it's not ok for someone else to take avoidable risks with my children. Your explanations are all over the place, a sure sign of an irrational argument. I don't mean to say that you are irrational but that your explanations, exactly as the study concludes, are based on emotion, not reason. People are entitled to their feelings, I guess, but the emotional element needs to be acknowledged. Why? Because laws and the penal code should be based on fact not emotion.

Edited to reflect that this is not your personal opinion but your explanation of others' reactions.

amother

Magenta

Wed, Sep 07 2016, 7:39 pm

amother wrote:

You've just proved the conclusion of the study. You admit that you're not outraged about the actual level of objective risk. You take actions every day that pose greater objective risks to your children than do parents choosing not to vaccinate their children. Yet you have decided that their risk-taking is not justifiable and yours is. And on this basis some people call for imprisonment and loss of custody. Stop and think about that for a minute.

First, I’m not sure if you meant “the general you” in your post, but your use of “you” felt directed at me, which would be strange, since I have given absolutely no indication at all as to my personal behavior or emotions here, and I certainly did not express “outrage”.

My post upthread was responding to amother who asked why parents are angry, when they don’t even have immuno-compromised kids.

The answer is because, if vaccination rates are below a certain threshhold, then even healthy, vaccinated children can still contract the disease.

The parents are angry about the risk to their *own* kids, posed by non-vaccinating parents—risk that is objectively quantifiable, unnecessary, and avoidable. It seems to me that these are the situations that will elicit anger.

I'll say it again, I am not identifying WITH these outraged parents, just offering an explanation.

amother

Magenta

Wed, Sep 07 2016, 7:49 pm

amother wrote:

Yes and you are significantly overestimating that risk. You think you are outraged because the risk is high but as the study shows you actually think the risk is higher than it is because you are outraged.

In any case, you keep changing your mind. Its the risk. No, it's not the risk, it's that the risk is avoidable. Your arguments are all over the place, a sure sign of irrationality.

I'll say it again. *I* am not outraged.

It seems to me that parents get angry when they see other parents engaging in behavior that is more risky than an alternative behavior (ex. not buckling in kids in the car), unnecessary and avoidable.

You're free to disagree.

You're not free to name call.

Maybe

Wed, Sep 07 2016, 9:29 pm

amother wrote:

Don't lie, fight for your right to be accepted, without the voodoo

marina

Thu, Sep 08 2016, 12:37 am

amother wrote:

Can a private school decide they want to mandate the flu shot even though it's not mandated by the state? Where does the law state that a private school can't bar students for not having the flu shot? That's basically what you're asking.
Private schools have to follow government policies.

Look up the law in your state. That law applies to schools statewide.

http://schoolhealthservicesny......1.pdf

I don't know what you're saying, but private schools can bar almost whomever they want generally. They can bar all red-headed children. They can bar tall people. They don't have to follow many of the same rules that apply to public schools.

So, again, for the third time, please cite some law or regulation, preferably federal but I'll take a state one too, showing that private schools must allow unvaxxed children. Thanks.

Last edited by marina on Thu, Sep 08 2016, 12:45 am; edited 1 time in total

marina

Thu, Sep 08 2016, 12:41 am

amother wrote:

That question was posted earlier. What stops a religious school from say stating their religious beliefs include vaccination and therefore anyone who chooses to not vaccinate (for non medical exemption) isn't following their religion? And therefore isn't accepted? A Jewish school who takes government money must accept anyone including Christians. But ALL students can be forced to comply with the school code (which can include vaccinations or in the latter case, not promoting or publicly acting upon any other religion).

No, it doesn't. So many private schools take federal gov lunch money, for example. And if they take textbook funding or Title I money or technology equipment funding, they don't have to suddenly accept everyone.

Again, I'm asking for a citation to a federal or state law or regulation that requires private schools to accept unvaxxed children.

Last edited by marina on Thu, Sep 08 2016, 12:58 am; edited 1 time in total

amother

Ruby

Thu, Sep 08 2016, 4:43 am

amother wrote:

The parents are angry about the risk to their *own* kids, posed by non-vaccinating parents—risk that is objectively quantifiable, unnecessary, and avoidable.

And a risk that the data show is a lot smaller than those parents think. Their anger is out of proportion to the actual risk. They can have their anger but calling for drastic action against the objects of their ire on that basis is irrational and a democracy which is meant to preserve individual liberties should not work that way.

I know what you're going to say next: individual liberties are protected as long as they don't pose a danger to the common good. To which I would say that there has to be an objective risk threshold above which individual liberties are curtailed and below which they are granted, not on an emotive, arbitrary and fickle basis. As I've said before many common activities we accept as a normal part of life today would fall out higher on the objective risk threshold scale than non vaxed kids.

amother

Magenta

Thu, Sep 08 2016, 11:16 am

amother wrote:

Thanks for explaining yourself.

You are saying that people are angry, and therefore they think something is more risky than it actually is.

I offered an explanation as to WHY people are so angry to begin with--because they see the risk as (1) needless; (2) unnecessary, and (3) greater than the alternative (ie, comparing the risk of not vaxxing to the risk of vaxxing. Not, comparing the risk of not vaxxing to some other dangerous activity). I think any time we have these 3 factors, some people will react with anger.

So we've established that not vaxxing is, objectively speaking, more risky than vaxxing, but you've pointed out that some people's anger may be disproportionate to that degree of extra risk.

I don't disagree, but I'm not too concerned. Jailing people or taking away their kids for not vaxxing would be extremely unlikely.

And while I don't doubt that there are people who have made such statements (especially on the internets), it seems to me that the majority of parents who vaccinate are reasonable, logical, well informed and NOT overly emotional.

amother

Coffee

Thu, Sep 08 2016, 11:25 am

marina wrote:

In general, the law is that recipients of federal financial aid are subject to federal anti-discrimination laws, etc., but for private schools, funds that are given to benefit the students directly ( I.e. lunch, Title I) are not considered federal funds because they are not going to benefit the private school itself.

I didn't do much research because I'm just starting to send my first child to school but was scared I would have issues for not vaxxing. The paperwork clearly stated we need to send in vaccine records, medical exemption which must be updated yearly or religious exemption. This is a fully funded school so it may be different than those receiving partial aid but they told me they don't have a choice and have to accept it just like public schools (in NY).

I discussed the issue with the school nurse. She told me they only have a handful of religious exemptions and many medical exemptions. Yes, this is anecdotal and just one small school but they haven't been killing each other with all the vaccine preventable diseases they aren't vaccinated against and I'm not even a little bit worried they will get there. Bh it's not a fight I have to fight this year.