NJ requires flu shots for preschoolers (socialized medicine - no shot - no preschool)

San Luis Obispo ^ | 12/14/07 | LINDA A. JOHNSON

[Libloather]

NJ requires flu shots for preschoolers
By LINDA A. JOHNSON
Associated Press Writer

TRENTON, N.J. --New Jersey on Friday became the first state to require flu shots for preschoolers, saying their developing immune systems and likelihood of spreading germs make them as vulnerable to complications as the elderly.

State Health Commissioner Dr. Fred M. Jacobs approved the requirement and three other vaccines for school children starting Sept. 1, 2008, over the objections of some parent groups.

The new requirements "will have a direct impact on reducing illnesses, hospitalizations and deaths in one of New Jersey's most vulnerable populations - our children," Jacobs said in a statement.

A health advisory board Monday backed the new requirements on a 5-2 vote with one abstention after parents said they worried about the safety of giving young children dozens of vaccine doses. Some also say they don't want government making their medical decisions.

Starting in September, all children attending preschool or licensed day care centers will have to get an annual flu shot, Jacobs said. That makes New Jersey the first state to require flu shots for preschoolers or older students, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics.

New Jersey also will require preschoolers to get a pneumococcal vaccine and sixth-graders to get vaccines against meningitis, which New Jersey already requires for college dormitory residents, and a booster shot against whooping cough, which in recent years has seen a resurgence blamed on waning potency of shots given to infants and preschoolers.

The four additional vaccines are recommended by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the American Academy of Pediatrics and other medical groups.

Some parents support proposed legislation that would give families a right to skip required immunizations by lodging a "philosophical objection," as some other states allow. The bill has been sitting in a committee without action for several years.

New Jersey does grant an automatic exemption on religious grounds and allows exemptions for medical reasons.

The new vaccines will be available for free for low-income families, and private insurers generally will cover the cost.

---

NJ health department site: http://www.state.nj.us/health

New Jersey Alliance for Informed Choice in Vaccination: http://www.NJAICV.org

[metmom]

Speaking of liberals.... it would be amusing if it weren't so sad that liberals that liberals do the very thing they condemn in others.

However, we live in a republic not the “world of metmom.”

Nor is this the *world of Sudetenland*.

Why is it that you so strongly object to my *imposing* my world view on others when you don't have any issues imposing another world view on me. I'm told to take it or shut up and that's OK? Just because YOU agree with it?

What I'm supporting is not taking away anyone's freedom. I feel the shots should be voluntary, not mandatory. The choice is the persons.

I'm not supporting inflicting my will on others whether they like it or not, as the state is doing in requiring the shots. That's taking away my freedom and the *it's for the common good* is not enough justification to trash the Constitution.

As I said before, I read 1984 and Brave New World and don't want to live them.

[metmom]

Depending on the way the data were analyzed, the vaccine protected zero to 14 percent of participants in the study, said a scientist briefed on the study who would not allow his name to be used.

That just makes me want to rush out and get it. /s

And we should willingly line up like sheep because the almighty state says so?

I wonder who's paying them off this time.

[Current Occupant]

Got to say I agree with you, polio is a disease you don’t get over, it’s crippling. If one gets the flu you usually get over it with no lasting effects.

The Gov’t has no business telling people they are required to have their children injected with something.

No thanks NJ, you got this one wrong.

[socialismisinsidious]

She may be saying that but the CDC is recommending it for girls age 11-12 and a direct quote from their own flier: “Doctors may give it to girls as young as 9 years.” They also say that it can be a “catch-up” vaccine for girls 13-26. It is a 3 dose vaccine (initial, 2 months, 6 months). The rational is give it to them young before their first sexual experience so there is no chance of them already having one of the 4 HPV strains that it protects against (there are over 100 strains).

[I got the rope]

Does anyone know how many deaths have happened this year because of this vaccine. Last I heard was seven.

[I got the rope]

"I wonder who's paying them off this time."

Hmmmm...I wonder.

[Sudetenland]

That was not your claim. I specifically addressed you absolutely incorrect statement:

"Flu shots are not "vaccinations". They are unnecessary, and carry many times more health risk than any vaccination."

You did not say they are:

"not even close to the same league of importance as vaccines such as diphtheria, polio, measles, tetanus, or pertussis."

As for the remainder of your assertions, one, there is no scientific evidence to support your claim of "many more times the risk" and two, there is a very compelling argument that it is in the public's interest to have flu shots, especially among the elderly, the very young, and those who have pulmonary diseases.

[Sudetenland]

I did not tell you to live in the "world of Sudetenland", I merely pointed out the facts as they exist. I expressed absolutely no opinion whatsoever. We live in the world according to the world. You are the one denying reality. I did not even state whether or not I supported the decision, I merely stated the facts as they exist. You may not like the options I gave you, but I did not make them up, they simply are.

I emphasized your freedom. You have the freedom to choose. The options may not be to your liking, but that is not my fault.

Grow up or become politically active and change the laws. Don't blame me for your circumstances, I did not put you where you are.

Freedom requires that you exercise your rights as a citizen. Freedom is not a gift from the government, it is a right that must be constantly fought for. I have already pointed the way...form a neighborhood group, attend civic group meetings, write your congressmen, write your governor...get active...don't blame me for stating the truth. Whining about 1984 and Brave New World will accomplish nothing.

Look, I know you feel frustrated over stuff like this, all of us do. That is why we come here to vent. I am not trying to be an a$$hole about this, I am merely saying that complaining alone accomplishes nothing. I sympathize with you and that you feel trapped by your circumstances, I apologize if I came off as dismissive. It's like Rush says, get up and do something if you don't like the way things are happening. I am certain that there are a lot of folks where you live who feel the same way. Gather together and apply some pressure. Don't just give up.

[traviskicks]

"New Jersey would become the first state to require annual flu shots for children attending licensed preschool or day care centers."



Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.

[montag813]

there is a very compelling argument that it is in the public's interest to have flu shots, especially among the elderly, the very young, and those who have pulmonary diseases.

I said no compelling interest for MANDATORY flu shots. That is what NJ is doing. You want to give your children a shot, go right ahead. But I choose not to do so, and there is no possibility for any rampant epidemic to occur as a result. Because of that fact, flu shots are totally distinct from critical vaccinations that carry such a risk when people fail to give them to children. You seem to stand alone in this thread in advocating the opposite. Good luck to you.

[gondramB]

>>I said no compelling interest for MANDATORY flu shots. That is what NJ is doing. You want to give your children a shot, go right ahead. But I choose not to do so, and there is no possibility for any rampant epidemic to occur as a result. Because of that fact, flu shots are totally distinct from critical vaccinations that carry such a risk when people fail to give them to children. You seem to stand alone in this thread in advocating the opposite. Good luck to you.<<

Well, each year an average of 36,000 people in the United States die from complications of the flu. The vaccine is estimated at between 70%-90% effective depending on the year.

If you wanted to spread the flu, taking a child from each family and bringing them together during the day and then returning them at night would be an excellent way.

If requiring vaccines in general is constitutional I don't see where this is different.

[Sudetenland]

What no clever comeback for my correction of your false statement? Oh well, you're excused for your gross mischaracterization of my statement.

As for the rest, every year in the United States-according to CDC figures-40,000 people die either directly from or from complications caused by the flu, 226,000 people are hospitalized for it. The vast majority of those deaths are the very young and the very old because both lack vigorous immune systems and the physical strength to deal with the rigors of flu.

At the height of the polio myelitis epidemic, 1952 and 1953 their were 58,000 and 35,000 cases of polio in the US. The effectiveness of current flu vaccines is somewhat debatable, but for the elderly, those who do not get the vaccination are 2 1/2-3 times as likely to contract flu. The Mayo Clinic puts the efficacy rate for the shot at 70-90%

A flu shot is between 70 percent and 90 percent effective in warding off illness, depending on the length and intensity of a given flu season and your overall health. In a few cases, people who get a flu shot may still get the flu, but they'll get a much less virulent form of the illness and, most important, they'll have a decreased risk of flu-related complications — especially pneumonia, heart attack, stroke and death — to which older adults are especially vulnerable.

Since 90% of the deaths due to flu occur in the elderly, the numbers are fairly convincing. ON the other hand, the chances of anyone dying from a flu vaccination are virtually nil unless you are allergic to eggs.

Then you assert the following:

there is no possibility for any rampant epidemic to occur as a result.

YOu have no proof of that statement, and at least in one year, 1918 your statement is provably false. In 1918 about a ahlf a million Americans died of the "Spanish influenza." World wide estimates run as high as 100 million people. While the liklihood of another such outbreak is small, it is still a very real possibility. No longer a rural population as a majority of American were in 1918, an outbreak of such magnitude or worse is a very real possibility. Population compression (crowded conditions) serve to amplify the hazards of rapid transmission, increasing the risks of such a wide-spread lethal outbreak, not lessening it.

Compelling mass inocculation is not an absurd suggestion given the risks. If a bad outbreak were to occur in the United States, it would be too late to do anything about it because it requires two weeks for innocculations to reach full effectiveness. What has kept us safe so far is that our flu season usually follows that of other parts of the world.

Is it perfect no. Is it effective, fairly well. Should it be mandatory, who knows. At what point does the good of the many out weigh the good of the few? At what point does your right to refuse become a direct threat to my right to avoid infection? At what point would those who refuse and suffer a catastrophic epidemic then turn to the same government they castigated for demanding vaccinations and expect them to provide financial and medical care for them? History says the probablility of the last is very high....bail me out because I'm stupid has become the watch word of our populous. From living in a below sea-level bowl during a hurricane, to living in an area in which earthquakes occur with dazzling regularity, to failing to prepare for your financial future, Americans virtually always look to the Government to bail them out for their foolish choices.

[montag813]

Should it be mandatory, who knows. At what point does the good of the many out weigh the good of the few? At what point does your right to refuse become a direct threat to my right to avoid infection?

The thread is about mandatory flu shots. Do you support them or not?

[CSM]

You might find this article interesting: http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2007&month=11

And some interesting passages:

“Secretary Spellings recently gave an interesting interview to Human Events reporter Terence Jeffrey. She was candid and intelligent in the interview, for one thing disarmingly ready to admit the failures of her policies so far, even while defending them and predicting their long-term success. She favors school choice and works to get it implemented, if so far without much success. She has tough words for the education union that is such a dreaded political obstacle to reform. But toward the end of the interview she was asked a pair of questions that she found difficult.

Mr. Jeffrey asked her if she could “point to language in the Constitution that authorized the federal government to have a Department of Education.” Her reply shows that she knew the bearing of the inquiry: “I think we had come to an understanding, at least, of the reality of Washington and the flat world, if you will, that the Department of Education was not going to be abolished, and we were going to invest in our nation’s neediest students.”

Mr. Jeffrey persisted: “It is one thing to say that the political reality is we are not going to abolish the federal Department of Education, but can you seriously point to where the Framers actually intended the Constitution to authorize a Department of Education?”

The Secretary replied: “I can’t point to it one way or the other. I’m not a constitutional scholar, but I’ll look into it for you, Terry.” Mr. Jeffrey reports that he did not get his answer.

This is Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings, sworn to uphold the Constitution in the exercise of her office.”
******************snip***********************
“The Department of Education grows now at a rate much faster than the Department of Defense, even in time of war. It grows much faster than the domestic economy, even now when the economy grows rapidly. It grows faster than the population it serves, even when that population is growing. The pace of its growth will quicken with the recent passage of the Higher Education Access Act of 2007, which reduces the size of student loan subsidies, but redeploys that money into outright grants, loan forgiveness, and new programs. If the past is prologue, these new programs will grow as fast as the old ones have done.”

Taken from, “Imprimis” November 2007 edition

[Sudetenland]

Nice...and alarming. DOE (that’s education not energy...another one that needs eliminating) has a budgget of $50 Billion and employs 4000 people, none of whom teach our children. “Talk about waste and fraud.”

[CSM]

The most alarming thing to me was that the Union and DOE continues to expand, as our school age population declines. I guess they don’t believe in variable costs...

I agree, the DOE and the DOE need to be eliminated!