California vaccine bill SB 277 signed into law

aerok

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Oct 29, 2011
1,488
135
Finaly it's about time.

SACRAMENTO -- Ending months of speculation on whether he would endorse the incendiary legislation, Gov. Jerry Brown this morning signed into law Senate Bill 277, which requires almost all California schoolchildren to be fully vaccinated in order to attend public or private school, regardless of their parents' personal or religious beliefs.
http://www.contracostatimes.com/breaking-news/ci_28407109/gov-jerry-brown-signs-californias-new-vaccine-bill?source=rs
 

zin

macrumors 6502
May 5, 2010
488
6,439
United Kingdom
There should be a federal law.

I'm almost certain interstate commerce is materially affected by preventable disease.
 

bradl

macrumors 601
Jun 16, 2008
4,006
11,823
The only concern I have with the law is that it also prevents you from not just forgoing any vaccinations, but delaying the number of vaccines you'd like your child to have.

For example, at a given age, the pediatrician is supposed to give your child X number of vaccines, all at once. For my daughter's last checkup, they were the Hepatitis A, Pertussus, Tetanus, and one other vaccine, all at once. They were going to do this, without knowing how each one would interact with the other, or if one would have a side effect that could play wonky with another vaccine. That's a reason why some parents decide not to forgo the vaccines, but delay having them given to their child all at one time.

SB277 prevents that, and that's a concern.

BL.
 

td1439

macrumors 6502
Sep 29, 2012
337
115
Boston-ish
They were going to do this, without knowing how each one would interact with the other, or if one would have a side effect that could play wonky with another vaccine.
Wait, did they tell you that they didn't know this? I'd be surprised and upset if a doctor decided to give multiple...anything - vaccines, drugs, what have you - without being aware of how they would interact. If that's the case and there's now no legal way to ask a doctor to look into this interaction and possibly do the vaccines in stages, then I agree, that's a problem, and I'm in agreement with this law otherwise.
 

FrankieTDouglas

macrumors 65816
Mar 10, 2005
1,489
1,957
Oh what an interesting position...

...as someone who supports public education, believes in vaccinations, and wants to eventually have universal healthcare, it's a bit troubling to see laws being created to govern how someone chooses to manage their health in order to use public (and private) education. This is the slippery slope.
 

sodapop1

Suspended
Sep 7, 2014
187
1,282
Oh what an interesting position...

...as someone who supports public education, believes in vaccinations, and wants to eventually have universal healthcare, it's a bit troubling to see laws being created to govern how someone chooses to manage their health in order to use public (and private) education. This is the slippery slope.
Nonsense, if you want to drive a car legally on a public road you must first obtain a license in the interest of public safety. The same logic should apply to attending a public school. In the interest of public safety, every child should be required to be vaccinated. As for private schools, the vaccination policy should be determined by the school.
 
  • Like
Reactions: unlinked

Renzatic

Suspended
Oh what an interesting position...

...as someone who supports public education, believes in vaccinations, and wants to eventually have universal healthcare, it's a bit troubling to see laws being created to govern how someone chooses to manage their health in order to use public (and private) education. This is the slippery slope.
It's a slippery slope in both directions, and doesn't have a nice, tidy answer no matter which way you slide. By allowing some people to do as they please, it can directly puts others in danger from something that would otherwise be a nonissue if it were enforced.

So which right overrides which? The right to choose what goes into our bodies, or the right to not be forced to risk catching a preventable disease simply because someone else had that choice?
 

bradl

macrumors 601
Jun 16, 2008
4,006
11,823
Wait, did they tell you that they didn't know this? I'd be surprised and upset if a doctor decided to give multiple...anything - vaccines, drugs, what have you - without being aware of how they would interact. If that's the case and there's now no legal way to ask a doctor to look into this interaction and possibly do the vaccines in stages, then I agree, that's a problem, and I'm in agreement with this law otherwise.
You can always ask the doctor; that isn't the problem. But think about this, and without the 'shame on them for not thinking about it/well they should have had the vaccines done' argument.

Regardless of if they are good for your body or not, would you, at the same time, take/smoke/inject crack cocaine, meth, opiates, LSD, alcohol, and prescription drugs (such as Ambien)? Would one do that with or without knowing the effects of such drugs? Without knowing how one drug would effect the other?

I ask that because that would be the equivalent of taking all of the different vaccines an nonvaccinated child would need to get caught up, without having any respite from the first set of vaccines to take effect in their body. That's a hell of a lot to have their immune system take on.

Like I said in the other thread, I can see the reasoning and justifications behind both arguments, but if the child can't even take them in stages, that is a problem that need to be addressed.

BL.
 
Last edited:

jkcerda

macrumors 6502a
Jun 10, 2013
682
38,974
Criminal Mexi Midget
The only concern I have with the law is that it also prevents you from not just forgoing any vaccinations, but delaying the number of vaccines you'd like your child to have.

For example, at a given age, the pediatrician is supposed to give your child X number of vaccines, all at once. For my daughter's last checkup, they were the Hepatitis A, Pertussus, Tetanus, and one other vaccine, all at once. They were going to do this, without knowing how each one would interact with the other, or if one would have a side effect that could play wonky with another vaccine. That's a reason why some parents decide not to forgo the vaccines, but delay having them given to their child all at one time.

SB277 prevents that, and that's a concern.

BL.
completely agree, law needs to change to allow this.
 

jkcerda

macrumors 6502a
Jun 10, 2013
682
38,974
Criminal Mexi Midget
It's a slippery slope in both directions, and doesn't have a nice, tidy answer no matter which way you slide. By allowing some people to do as they please, it can directly puts others in danger from something that would otherwise be a nonissue if it were enforced.

So which right overrides which? The right to choose what goes into our bodies, or the right to not be forced to risk catching a preventable disease simply because someone else had that choice?
if YOU are vaccinated how are you still at risk?
 

impulse462

macrumors 68000
Jun 3, 2009
1,697
2,203
It's a slippery slope in both directions, and doesn't have a nice, tidy answer no matter which way you slide. By allowing some people to do as they please, it can directly puts others in danger from something that would otherwise be a nonissue if it were enforced.

So which right overrides which? The right to choose what goes into our bodies, or the right to not be forced to risk catching a preventable disease simply because someone else had that choice?
I don't think it's a slope. There aren't really 2 sides to this compared to something like government spying and personal freedoms.

Almost all vaccines provide protection without almost 0 downside. The ones who are medically compromised are already taken care of in this bill anyway.

Having a mom say "I saw the light leave my child's eyes" after a vaccination enabling other people to be exposed to disease is just ludicrous. I can't believe the New York Times actually agreed to use her quote in their story. And the people who say that "if you're vaccinated, it shouldn't matter if someone DOES have the disease because your kid is already vaccinated" are just as misinformed as ever. Viruses mutate all the time, hence flu season happens every year. Natural selection applies to microbes as well, and they will find a way around these vaccines if they are allowed to propagate in unvaccinated people. Complete eradication is a good thing.

Also, people can stick anything in their child's body. They just can't go to public schools however.
 

jkcerda

macrumors 6502a
Jun 10, 2013
682
38,974
Criminal Mexi Midget
I don't think it's a slope. There aren't really 2 sides to this compared to something like government spying and personal freedoms.

Almost all vaccines provide protection without almost 0 downside. The ones who are medically compromised are already taken care of in this bill anyway.

Having a mom say "I saw the light leave my child's eyes" after a vaccination enabling other people to be exposed to disease is just ludicrous. I can't believe the New York Times actually agreed to use her quote in their story. And the people who say that "if you're vaccinated, it shouldn't matter if someone DOES have the disease because your kid is already vaccinated" are just as misinformed as ever. Viruses mutate all the time, hence flu season happens every year. Natural selection applies to microbes as well, and they will find a way around these vaccines if they are allowed to propagate in unvaccinated people. Complete eradication is a good thing.

Also, people can stick anything in their child's body. They just can't go to public schools however.
HOW do you KNOW who is medically compromised unless they have an adverse reaction to the vaccine?
 

Renzatic

Suspended
if YOU are vaccinated how are you still at risk?
I had an allergic reaction to the Pertussis vaccination, and wasn't able to get the full rounds of it. I maybe be a greater risk than usual of getting the Whooping Cough.

And let me tell you, if I were to get it because of some dipwad anti-vaxxer refusing his shots for FREEDOM reasons, I'd be pretty tempted to hunt them down and beat them stupid 6 months later, when I recover.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jkcerda

bradl

macrumors 601
Jun 16, 2008
4,006
11,823
I had an allergic reaction to the Pertussis vaccination, and wasn't able to get the full rounds of it. I maybe be a greater risk than usual of getting the Whooping Cough.

And let me tell you, if I were to get it because of some dipwad anti-vaxxer refusing his shots for FREEDOM reasons, I'd be pretty tempted to hunt them down and beat them stupid 6 months later, when I recover.
Once again, in my opinion, the issue here isn't the US vs. THEM mentality; it is the lack of wiggle room for all of the vaccines to be administered. It's an all-at-once approach, with no time for a child's immune system to even handle what was just injected into a child's body.

So if SB277 states that they can't be staged or done in stages, and the doctor states that you have to have these at given intervals or by a certain age or time, who overrides whom?

BL.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jkcerda

Renzatic

Suspended
So if SB277 states that they can't be staged or done in stages, and the doctor states that you have to have these at given intervals or by a certain age or time, who overrides whom?
Sorry, I didn't read your reply above until just now. I saw JK's reply, and went into my bristy anti-vax renouncer stance.

You're bringing up a good point, though. Not everyone responds to vaccinations in exactly the same way, and mixing and matching various drugs in one go just to have them dump pumped into our kids as soon as humanly possible isn't a good idea for a number of reasons.

Hopefully, the law isn't so hamfisted you can't bring up honest, logical exceptions to common sense things.
 

bradl

macrumors 601
Jun 16, 2008
4,006
11,823
Sorry, I didn't read your reply above until just now. I saw JK's reply, and went into my bristy anti-vax renouncer stance.

You're bringing up a good point, though. Not everyone responds to vaccinations in exactly the same way, and mixing and matching various drugs in one go just to have them dump pumped into our kids as soon as humanly possible isn't a good idea for a number of reasons.

Hopefully, the law isn't so hamfisted you can't bring up honest, logical exceptions to common sense things.
No problem. But the law appears that it is as tight as that.

The issue here is that this law goes into effect on 7/1/2016. And to make it worse, a child's well-being checkup is only done once per calendar year (pursuant to a person's health insurance), and that is when they administer the vaccines; hence why it is done also on an age basis. So even if a child were having the vaccines staged, and weren't scheduled to have their next appointment until after that date (for example, August), they would have to have their normally scheduled vaccines administered, plus all of the remaining vaccines administered prior to them starting school that year. Again, that's a lot to take, and I don't know if the legislature took any of that into account, nor listened to the arguments for that particular issue.

This could be a legitimate case to challenge the law in court to have it amended.

BL.
 

.Andy

macrumors 68030
Jul 18, 2004
2,946
583
The Mergui Archipelago
it is the lack of wiggle room for all of the vaccines to be administered. It's an all-at-once approach, with no time for a child's immune system to even handle what was just injected into a child's body.
The corollary is that a child is exposed to tens of thousand to hundreds of thousands of different antigens every day via a myriad of routes. Some pathogenic, some not. Their immune systems simultaneously handle them just fine with very rare exceptions which is usual clinically evident at very early ages.

In comparison the vaccination schedule is relatively benign and low on number of antigenic challenges. As well as known what it being administered and the side effects monitored across millions of kids in regards to safety. It's arguably many times more controlled than a child putting their hands in their mouth or grazing their knee.
 

thekev

macrumors 604
Aug 5, 2010
6,667
1,738
The only concern I have with the law is that it also prevents you from not just forgoing any vaccinations, but delaying the number of vaccines you'd like your child to have.

For example, at a given age, the pediatrician is supposed to give your child X number of vaccines, all at once. For my daughter's last checkup, they were the Hepatitis A, Pertussus, Tetanus, and one other vaccine, all at once. They were going to do this, without knowing how each one would interact with the other, or if one would have a side effect that could play wonky with another vaccine. That's a reason why some parents decide not to forgo the vaccines, but delay having them given to their child all at one time.

SB277 prevents that, and that's a concern.

BL.
There's the issue of very rare side effects but also the issue of unknowingly giving them to a child with a compromised immune system. They could be just coming down with something at the time. There's nothing wrong with spreading them out to mitigate the minor risk, just like there's nothing wrong with being cautious the first time you give a child some over the counter medicine (eg aspirin, tylenol, etc.). I wish they would do a better job of engineering vaccines that don't use heavy metals and things though.
 

0007776

Suspended
Jul 11, 2006
6,474
8,051
Somewhere
No problem. But the law appears that it is as tight as that.

The issue here is that this law goes into effect on 7/1/2016. And to make it worse, a child's well-being checkup is only done once per calendar year (pursuant to a person's health insurance), and that is when they administer the vaccines; hence why it is done also on an age basis. So even if a child were having the vaccines staged, and weren't scheduled to have their next appointment until after that date (for example, August), they would have to have their normally scheduled vaccines administered, plus all of the remaining vaccines administered prior to them starting school that year. Again, that's a lot to take, and I don't know if the legislature took any of that into account, nor listened to the arguments for that particular issue.

This could be a legitimate case to challenge the law in court to have it amended.

BL.
My understanding of the law is that it allows a medical waiver for people who have medical reasons for not getting vaccinated. I'm sure if you ask your doctor and there really is any sort of risk from having them all done at once they will be happy to give a waiver to only get some of them done and the rest caught up on a set schedule.