Is excluding the non vaccinated from school really working?

southernbubby

Fri, May 17 2019, 12:59 pm

amother [ Lawngreen ] wrote:

Because they weren't excluded from society if they were healthy. Circular reasoning. The main reason people exposed their kids is so that they could go back to school or to camp.

Which is why I started the thread.
ETA: I wonder if there were previous movements that threatened public health. We see by the crowd size at the Atrium, that more is involved besides personal choice or logistics.
From the tone that I detect in your post, children were exposed to measles out of both desperation and defiance, as if to say that if pushed, we will spread measles but at least our children will be able to go to school.

southernbubby

Fri, May 17 2019, 1:35 pm

amother [ Mauve ] wrote:

Getting measles does not equal spreading measles. It's actually an advantage, because you know you were exposed and then likely know when you are contagious.

Can people fully control the spread though? You hope that it doesn't spread outside the family, which is why people quarantine, but does that really work in apartment buildings?

Sebastian

Fri, May 17 2019, 2:15 pm

If the outbreak continues it will. It s a more drastic step the city or county prefers not to take.

To those who say banning from school doesn't work, lkwd did it and stood up to the anti vaxers. Their outbreak is basically over

When measles hit Detroit everyone got revaccinated and the outbreak is over.

Only the idiots in BP willy and monsey fought the health dept at every step of the way and the outbreak is still going strong.

amother

Lawngreen

Fri, May 17 2019, 2:40 pm

southernbubby wrote:

From the people I know it was out of desperation. Their kids were home from school. Even once a school reached 95% and the kids went back, camps threatened to not accept. DOH accepts immunizations or titers. For these people, immunizations is NOT an option thus leaving the only other viable option: to obtain titers.

Unfortunately obtaining titers involves getting sick, but that's a minor side point. They'll look at all the claimed benefits of being sick (lifelong immunity, protection from certain cancers, etc.) as a justification to themselves for why they are exposing their children intentionally, but these aren't the reasons.

The reason was because "We need to do something. We can't go on like this with our kids being excluded from all over." Had their kids not been excluded, they wouldn't intentionally expose them. Possisbly (or if you want to say probably) their kids might have gotten sick regardless. And obviously they don't have a problem with it. But there's a difference between not preventing sickness (via vaccination) versus actively seeking it. And for that you can thank the DOH.

yksraya

Fri, May 17 2019, 2:56 pm

amother [ Mauve ] wrote:

Getting measles does not equal spreading measles. It's actually an advantage, because you know you were exposed and then likely know when you are contagious.

If you purposely expose kids to get the measles:
1. You bestow sickness and suffering on your own child. Let alone a disease that can have very severe effects and can even be fatal.
2. You cause the illness to spread. Even if said child will be quarantined, it still spread to your own child and maybe it can spread to your other kids who are not kept in a different house than said child. It can spread to you and your dh and to anyone that rings your bell. And to anyone that is at the dr's office or ER if you end up taking the child there. And to neighbors if you live in a building. Etc etc etc.

youngishbear

Fri, May 17 2019, 3:01 pm

amother [ Lawngreen ] wrote:

yksraya

Fri, May 17 2019, 3:04 pm

Sebastian wrote:

I agree with this. Here the schools work along with the doh and they either make sure the infected kids stay home, or that all non vaxed kids stay home.(depending on the school) it's not cleared completely yet by us, as it started here only recently (when non vaxed kids caught it on purim from cousins etc). But so far bh it hasn't spread that badly here. Mostly some non vaxed families where effected.

They are actually very on top of immunization records here. And while they do have anti vaxers here due to exemption forms, it's bh not that many.

One of the schools here, big mainstream one has 500 nursery student. 26 girls are non vaxed. They where send home till they either vaccinate or till the epidemic is over or what.

I heard one mother keeps sending her kid anyway, and the school takes her home by taxi every single day. The mother won't budge. But the school sends her back home day after day.

yksraya

Fri, May 17 2019, 3:11 pm

amother [ Lawngreen ] wrote:

In which case you do:
1. Give the MMR.
2. If medically exempt (by dr's order) you keep that child safely home away from exposure just like the immunocompromised kids have to do.

This is all for your childs safety so that your child doesn't get sick. As well as to prevent it to spread further.

So you say you will expose the child so that the titers show immunity so that you don't have to keep the kid home. In which case it's about you and not about the child. You don't want kids home. You want to have your free mornings.

amother

Violet

Fri, May 17 2019, 3:22 pm

yksraya wrote:

So you say you will expose the child so that the titers show immunity so that you don't have to keep the kid home. In which case it's about you and not about the child. You don't want kids home. You want to have your free mornings.

I just want to highlight that, because that's a critical point these anti-vaxxers are trying to overlook.

They're blaming the DOH for having to expose their kids to the virus? The DOH didn't tell them to do that, they told them to keep their kids home until the outbreak is over.

But apparently, these anti-vaxx moms who are so obsessed with their kids health, are putting their comfort needs before their kids' health.

amother

Lawngreen

Fri, May 17 2019, 3:41 pm

yksraya wrote:

No, absolutely not. The kid wants to go to school, be part of the school play, go to camp like her friends.
(BTW, don't use the word you. I was not speaking of myself. I love how you assumed that.)

amother

Lawngreen

Fri, May 17 2019, 3:44 pm

amother [ Violet ] wrote:

I need to re-highlight my point: The kid wants to go to school, whether the preschool kid or the high school kid. They may enjoy being home a bit and spending time with Mommy, but eventually every kid wants to go back to routine, to do what their friends are doing. Same with camp, the kid wants to go.

The mother wants to help her child but giving the MMR is NOT an option. The only way out, as she sees it, is to expose her child.

(And again with the disclaimer before you go all out on me: I disagree with this train of thought. Doesn't mean I don't understand it.)

And yes, that's the unintended outcome of the DOH's exclusionary order. Like it or not.

yksraya

Fri, May 17 2019, 3:51 pm

[quote="amother [ Lawngreen ]"]No, absolutely not. The kid wants to go to school, be part of the school play, go to camp like her friends.
(BTW, don't use the word you. I was not speaking of myself. I love how you assumed that.)[/quote]

So she should get vaxed just like her friends did. It's as simple as that. And if it's a medical exemption. It's unfortunate that she suffers but it's for her own health.

And when I say you, it's for all of you who are willingly exposing kids to the measles. Not just you in general. I made no assumptions, I responded to "your" post. Don't "you" stand behind your own words?

amother

Violet

Fri, May 17 2019, 3:53 pm

amother [ Lawngreen ] wrote:

The child is not the one in charge here, mom is. And if something is detrimental to a child's health, the parents gotta do what they gotta do. If a child has to stay home for a few months to retain their health, then so be it. That's the parents job. So if the mother believes that the vaccines will harm her child, then she has to keep the child home until the danger has passed. Exposing the child to a dangerous disease to get around a quarantine, is putting the comforts of a child or parent before the issue of health. Nothing more, nothing less.

And nothing to do with DOH. It's just the refusal of the parents to live with the consequences of their own behavior.

yksraya

Fri, May 17 2019, 3:56 pm

amother [ Lawngreen ] wrote:

1. What do you mean by MMR is not an option? Is it a Medical exemption?

2. Not all anti vaxers purposely expose their kids to the measles so that they can go back to school. Some are just brainwashed to be anti vax, but they don't want to make their kids sick. They are just irresponsible and the kid can get sick if not kept home and away from exposure.

amother

Lawngreen

Fri, May 17 2019, 4:01 pm

yksraya wrote:

So she should get vaxed just like her friends did. It's as simple as that. And if it's a medical exemption. It's unfortunate that she suffers but it's for her own health.

And when I say you, it's for all of you who are willingly exposing kids to the measles. Not just you in general. I made no assumptions, I responded to "your" post. Don't "you" stand behind your own words?

Simple for you. But for the mother who is scared of the adverse reactions of the shot, it's not simple. In fact, it's not an option for her.

As for your second line, I'm honestly speechless at the lack of reading comprehension. I am explaining the thought process of people I know, whom I actually understand. However, I disagree with them. So tell me again, how is it appropriate for you to refer me or to my kids (using the word "you" and "your kids") when I am talking about OTHER people?

amother

Lawngreen

Fri, May 17 2019, 4:06 pm

amother [ Violet ] wrote:

But see, the mother doesn't see her child catching the disease as being a danger. That's how pro-vaxxers see it and immuno-compromised people see it. The mother merely sees it as inconvenient for her child to be a bit sick, but the long-term benefits for HER CHILD are worthwhile.

Of course it has to do with the DOH. Without the DOH's exclusionary order, the mothers of these children wouldn't have felt pushed to the wall to obtain immunity.

yksraya

Fri, May 17 2019, 4:08 pm

amother [ Lawngreen ] wrote:

Fine, you are talking about other people. But when I respond to your post, you are not the only one reading this thread. The ones it does apply to, will read it and will read it as I am speaking to them as a you. Now is that something you comprehend? Thank you!

yksraya

Fri, May 17 2019, 4:10 pm

amother [ Lawngreen ] wrote:

I used to be anti vax. I do understand the fear.