Why stop at vaccine mandates?

[xyzzy]

Oppressive government hand-washing requirements should be a matter of choice!

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/02/gop-senator-let-restaurants-opt-out-of-handwashing-after-toilet-to-reduce-regulatory-burden/#.VND8E4O_8pg.facebook

[The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior]

On Tuesday, February 3, 2015 at 12:09:47 PM UTC-6, xyzzy wrote:
> Oppressive government hand-washing requirements should be a matter of choice!
>
> http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/02/gop-senator-let-restaurants-opt-out-of-handwashing-after-toilet-to-reduce-regulatory-burden/#.VND8E4O_8pg.facebook

heh

Actually, there is a big time red tribe/blue tribe component to this measles thing - starting to hear a LOT of chatter about "social responsibility" and forcing people to have the vaccines and the like - which ought to give the "right" hives Conversely, you see many SJW progressive types being the ones who aren't vaccinating their kids.

[Con Reeder, unhyphenated American]

On 2015-02-03, xyzzy <xyzzy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Oppressive government hand-washing requirements should be a matter of choice!
>
> http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/02/gop-senator-let-restaurants-opt-out-of-handwashing-after-toilet-to-reduce-regulatory-burden/#.VND8E4O_8pg.facebook

Of course he was only using it as an illustration of a philosophy.
They are allowed to opt out *only* if they post that. The idea being
that enforcement would be done by the market refusing to patronize
their store.

--
There's nothing sweeter than life nor more precious than time.
-- Barney

[xyzzy]

The SJW problem will fix itself with peer pressure... when they see that anti-vaxing is primarily a wingnut thing and the justification for requiring it is social responsibility, they'll get in line for their kids' shots.

Now we just have to figure out the right peer pressure angle to get wingnuts to vaccinate their kids. Maybe play up the SJW opposition to it?

[xyzzy]

On Tuesday, February 3, 2015 at 1:25:25 PM UTC-5, Con Reeder, unhyphenated American wrote:
> On 2015-02-03, xyzzy <xyzzy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Oppressive government hand-washing requirements should be a matter of choice!
> >
> > http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/02/gop-senator-let-restaurants-opt-out-of-handwashing-after-toilet-to-reduce-regulatory-burden/#.VND8E4O_8pg.facebook
>
> Of course he was only using it as an illustration of a philosophy.
> They are allowed to opt out *only* if they post that. The idea being
> that enforcement would be done by the market refusing to patronize
> their store.

Until every restaurant in town decides to do it, so there is no consumer choice and therefore no market incentive to do the right thing.

see: mandatory arbitration requirements on financial products, ATM fees, phone and ISP junk fees, etc etc etc.

[The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior]

On Tuesday, February 3, 2015 at 12:26:32 PM UTC-6, xyzzy wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 3, 2015 at 1:19:05 PM UTC-5, The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 3, 2015 at 12:09:47 PM UTC-6, xyzzy wrote:
> > > Oppressive government hand-washing requirements should be a matter of choice!
> > >
> > > http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/02/gop-senator-let-restaurants-opt-out-of-handwashing-after-toilet-to-reduce-regulatory-burden/#.VND8E4O_8pg.facebook
> >
> > heh
> >
> > Actually, there is a big time red tribe/blue tribe component to this measles thing - starting to hear a LOT of chatter about "social responsibility" and forcing people to have the vaccines and the like - which ought to give the "right" hives Conversely, you see many SJW progressive types being the ones who aren't vaccinating their kids.
>
> The SJW problem will fix itself with peer pressure... when they see that anti-vaxing is primarily a wingnut thing and the justification for requiring it is social responsibility, they'll get in line for their kids' shots.

It seems to be getting worse tho for the SJWs....that's where the problems are arising

> Now we just have to figure out the right peer pressure angle to get wingnuts to vaccinate their kids. Maybe play up the SJW opposition to it?

Usually works - mention how muslims and SJWs love measles and hate their kids

[Wolfie]

"Con Reeder, unhyphenated American" wrote

> Of course he was only using it as an illustration of a philosophy.

Yeah.

> They are allowed to opt out *only* if they post that. The idea being
> that enforcement would be done by the market refusing to patronize
> their store.

Bzzzzt. Typical short-term thinking. You need someone
to enforce the sign/warning being posted. Only when
that new regulation is enforced do you get market pressure.
And if they don't opt out, they still need to meet the current
regulation, so you didn't really save anything.

Current regulation: food prep requires employees to
wash hands after using restroom. Implementation: sign
in employee bathrooms (standard size listed) and inclusion
in training materials, with periodic reminders during
employee meetings.

New regulation: Opt-in to existing regulation. Otherwise,
sign saying you've opted out (standard size, location
requirements (has to be in main ordering/serving areas,
probably on menus and drive-thru ordering boards as well,
included in advertisements for delivery or curb-side pickup),
multi-lingual requirements (employees can be assumed to
speak English but customers can't), etc.)

Congratulations: you've gotten rid of one burdensome
regulation. But you haven't. You still have it (because the
employer can opt-in) AND you've added another regulation
probably 100 times longer. And, of course, now you need
more government employees to enforce the new one as
well as the old one.

[Con Reeder, unhyphenated American]

On 2015-02-03, xyzzy <xyzzy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 3, 2015 at 1:25:25 PM UTC-5, Con Reeder, unhyphenated American wrote:
>> On 2015-02-03, xyzzy <xyzzy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Oppressive government hand-washing requirements should be a matter of choice!
>> >
>> > http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/02/gop-senator-let-restaurants-opt-out-of-handwashing-after-toilet-to-reduce-regulatory-burden/#.VND8E4O_8pg.facebook
>>
>> Of course he was only using it as an illustration of a philosophy.
>> They are allowed to opt out *only* if they post that. The idea being
>> that enforcement would be done by the market refusing to patronize
>> their store.
>
> Until every restaurant in town decides to do it, so there is no
> consumer choice and therefore no market incentive to do the
> right thing.

Not likely. Someone would make the effort to win the business.

> see: mandatory arbitration requirements on financial products, ATM
> fees, phone and ISP junk fees, etc etc etc.

All heavily-regulated markets.

--
People who want to share their religious views with you
almost never want you to share yours with them. -- Dave Barry

[Con Reeder, unhyphenated American]

On 2015-02-03, xyzzy <xyzzy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 3, 2015 at 1:19:05 PM UTC-5, The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior wrote:
>> On Tuesday, February 3, 2015 at 12:09:47 PM UTC-6, xyzzy wrote:
>> > Oppressive government hand-washing requirements should be a matter of choice!
>> >
>> > http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/02/gop-senator-let-restaurants-opt-out-of-handwashing-after-toilet-to-reduce-regulatory-burden/#.VND8E4O_8pg.facebook
>>
>> heh
>>
>> Actually, there is a big time red tribe/blue tribe component to this measles thing - starting to hear a LOT of chatter about "social responsibility" and forcing people to have the vaccines and the like - which ought to give the "right" hives Conversely, you see many SJW progressive types being the ones who aren't vaccinating their kids.
>
> The SJW problem will fix itself with peer pressure... when they see
> that anti-vaxing is primarily a wingnut thing

But it isn't. It's a more a moonbat thing. 5 out of 6 of the biggest
anti-vaccine states are solid blue, and population wise it isn't even
close -- 75% of the population of states with vaccination rates below
96% is in blue states.

> and the justification for requiring it is social responsibility,
> they'll get in line for their kids' shots.

Hasn't helped so far. They listen to idiots like Hillary Clinton,
Barack Obama, RFK Jr, Bill Maher, and Jenny McCarthy who buy into
autism scares.

> Now we just have to figure out the right peer pressure angle to
> get wingnuts to vaccinate their kids. Maybe play up the SJW
> opposition to it?

I think that all institutions (schools) should be allowed to
reject patrons (students) that aren't vaccinated, objection
certificate or not. Certain medical excuses excepted until the
vaccination rate falls below 95%, then no more.

[JGibson]

On Tuesday, February 3, 2015 at 3:19:58 PM UTC-5, Con Reeder, unhyphenated American wrote:
>
> I think that all institutions (schools) should be allowed to
> reject patrons (students) that aren't vaccinated, objection
> certificate or not. Certain medical excuses excepted until the
> vaccination rate falls below 95%, then no more.

Wait, do I actually agree with Con on something?

[michael anderson]

I become very uneasy/leery about something when it's supporters call it a 'social responsbility' or use such similar language.

I have mixed feelings about making vaccines mandatory.....in general I think the bar for *forcing* parents to do something to their kids is very high, and I'm not sure that is met with vaccines. That doesn't make me 'anti-vaccine' or that doesn't mean I think vaccines cause all sorts of terrible diseases......

[Con Reeder, unhyphenated American]

I can't help it if you are becoming libertarian.

--
Bad times have a scientific value. These are occasions a good learner
would not miss. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson

[Con Reeder, unhyphenated American]

What I have strong feelings about is making institutions accept
patronage from unvaccinated people. Choice is great, but not as
a one-way street.

--
There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale
returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.
-- Mark Twain

[The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior]

On Tuesday, February 3, 2015 at 3:31:55 PM UTC-6, Con Reeder, unhyphenated American wrote:
> On 2015-02-03, michael anderson <miande...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I become very uneasy/leery about something when it's supporters call it a 'social responsbility' or use such similar language.
> >
> > I have mixed feelings about making vaccines mandatory.....in general I
> > think the bar for *forcing* parents to do something to their kids is
> > very high, and I'm not sure that is met with vaccines. That doesn't
> > make me 'anti-vaccine' or that doesn't mean I think vaccines cause all
> > sorts of terrible diseases......
>
> What I have strong feelings about is making institutions accept
> patronage from unvaccinated people. Choice is great, but not as
> a one-way street.
>

vaccinist who vaccine shames!

[Con Reeder, unhyphenated American]

And unashamedly shames at that!

--
I used to think the whole world stank. Then I found out I had poop
on my mustache. -- Anonymous

[RoddyMcCorley]

On 2/3/2015 1:09 PM, xyzzy wrote:
> Oppressive government hand-washing requirements should be a matter of choice!
>
> http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/02/gop-senator-let-restaurants-opt-out-of-handwashing-after-toilet-to-reduce-regulatory-burden/#.VND8E4O_8pg.facebook
>

XY: On second thought, we won't be able to come for dinner this week.
--
False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the soul
with evil.

Pennsylvania - Tá sé difriúil anseo.

[michael anderson]

But when the institution uses the power of the fed and state govts to confiscate funds at gunpoint, my argument would be that they shouldn't have so much choice on who gets to use their institutions,

I think anytime you are talking about public schools, libraries, etc...it is important to remember that those are institutions that use the power of the state to function by having money confiscated at gunpoint...that's a useless thing to remember when it comes to all public institutions.

[Con Reeder, unhyphenated American]

On 2015-02-04, michael anderson <miande...@gmail.com> wrote:
> But when the institution uses the power of the fed and state govts to
> confiscate funds at gunpoint, my argument would be that they shouldn't
> have so much choice on who gets to use their institutions,

You don't get a choice to expose someone else to very high risk simply by
paying your taxes, and that is what you are advocating. There are limits
to everything.

> I think anytime you are talking about public schools, libraries,
> etc...it is important to remember that those are institutions that use
> the power of the state to function by having money confiscated at
> gunpoint...that's a useless thing to remember when it comes to all
> public institutions.

--
Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in
overalls and looks like work. -- Thomas Edison

[Michael Press]

In article <slrnmd407e.a...@kim.perusion.com>,

"Con Reeder, unhyphenated American" <cons...@duxmail.com> wrote:

> On 2015-02-04, michael anderson <miande...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > But when the institution uses the power of the fed and state govts to
> > confiscate funds at gunpoint, my argument would be that they shouldn't
> > have so much choice on who gets to use their institutions,
>
> You don't get a choice to expose someone else to very high risk simply by
> paying your taxes, and that is what you are advocating. There are limits
> to everything.

First prove "very high risk."

>
> > I think anytime you are talking about public schools, libraries,
> > etc...it is important to remember that those are institutions that use
> > the power of the state to function by having money confiscated at
> > gunpoint...that's a useless thing to remember when it comes to all
> > public institutions.

--

Michael Press

[Con Reeder, unhyphenated American]

My wife is great. She doesn't care where I go, just as long as I don't
have any fun. -- Lee Trevino

[Con Reeder, unhyphenated American]

On 2015-02-08, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:

> In article <slrnmd407e.a...@kim.perusion.com>,
> "Con Reeder, unhyphenated American" <cons...@duxmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2015-02-04, michael anderson <miande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > But when the institution uses the power of the fed and state govts to
>> > confiscate funds at gunpoint, my argument would be that they shouldn't
>> > have so much choice on who gets to use their institutions,
>>
>> You don't get a choice to expose someone else to very high risk simply by
>> paying your taxes, and that is what you are advocating. There are limits
>> to everything.
>
> First prove "very high risk."
>

Research vaccines and the concept of herd immunity. We are now seeing
the results of allowing herd immunity to lapse.

It may be that we are incapable of eradicating diseases like this.
People may get selfish enough to stop immunizing once it seems like
they can get away witi it. Then we lose herd immunity, and the disease
returns.

Again, I don't think we have to mandate vaccines. But that should be
paired with allowing institutions to make rules barring unvaccinated
children.

[Wolfie]

"Con Reeder, unhyphenated American" wrote

> Again, I don't think we have to mandate vaccines.

Why not?

> But that should be paired with allowing institutions
> to make rules barring unvaccinated children.

That doesn't work. You can stop exposure at places
like schools where they have the infrastructure to
check papers. But you still have places where the
herd immunity needs to work and won't under a
voluntary plan - like essentially everywhere else.
Unless your plan has the Walmart greeter checking
papers and refusing entry to people who can't prove
they're up-to-date on shots, etc.

[Ken Olson]

"Wolfie" <bgbd...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:mb7vgo$2kt$1...@dont-email.me...

Bitches be crazy!

[Michael Press]

In article <slrnmdeltv.c...@kim.perusion.com>,

"Con Reeder, unhyphenated American" <cons...@duxmail.com> wrote:

> On 2015-02-08, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > In article <slrnmd407e.a...@kim.perusion.com>,
> > "Con Reeder, unhyphenated American" <cons...@duxmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2015-02-04, michael anderson <miande...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > But when the institution uses the power of the fed and state govts to
> >> > confiscate funds at gunpoint, my argument would be that they shouldn't
> >> > have so much choice on who gets to use their institutions,
> >>
> >> You don't get a choice to expose someone else to very high risk simply by
> >> paying your taxes, and that is what you are advocating. There are limits
> >> to everything.
> >
> > First prove "very high risk."
> >
>
> Research vaccines and the concept of herd immunity. We are now seeing
> the results of allowing herd immunity to lapse.
>
> It may be that we are incapable of eradicating diseases like this.
> People may get selfish enough to stop immunizing once it seems like
> they can get away witi it. Then we lose herd immunity, and the disease
> returns.
>
> Again, I don't think we have to mandate vaccines. But that should be
> paired with allowing institutions to make rules barring unvaccinated
> children.

Agree with most everything you say. When the institution is
publicly funded it is more complicated. Since the state has
arrogated unto itself the business of educating children,
then it must undertake the education of children barred from
its doors. Furthermore forced vaccinations inevitably leads
to forced administration of psychoactive drugs.

Here is how I would handle it. First publicize the notion
of herd immunity. Then ask for an immunization certificate.
Whether or not the certificate is tendered, admit the child
to school. The immunized children are not at risk.

--
Michael Press

[Wolfie]

"Michael Press" wrote

> Since the state has arrogated unto itself the
> business of educating children, then it must
> undertake the education of children barred from
> its doors.

Heh, no, that's NOT how it works. The parents
are responsible. They can either get the child
immunized and have them attend public school
or use another option (private school, home school,
etc.) That's the same way it works for kids the
school bars for discipline.

> Furthermore forced vaccinations inevitably leads
> to forced administration of psychoactive drugs.

Sure thing, dorkstar.

> The immunized children are not at risk.

Right. It's the kids who can't be immunized that
are at risk, i.e., those with auto-immune disorders,
etc. - if you're just talking about school. Elsewhere
it's all those too young to have their shots. But
what's a few dead kids compared to an individual's
freedom to be stupid, right?

[RoddyMcCorley]

On 2/8/2015 2:47 PM, Michael Press wrote:
> In article <slrnmdeltv.c...@kim.perusion.com>,
> "Con Reeder, unhyphenated American" <cons...@duxmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2015-02-08, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> First prove "very high risk."
>
>

> Agree with most everything you say. When the institution is
> publicly funded it is more complicated. Since the state has
> arrogated unto itself the business of educating children,
> then it must undertake the education of children barred from
> its doors. Furthermore forced vaccinations inevitably leads
> to forced administration of psychoactive drugs.
>
> Here is how I would handle it. First publicize the notion
> of herd immunity. Then ask for an immunization certificate.
> Whether or not the certificate is tendered, admit the child
> to school. The immunized children are not at risk.
>

How does that work if the child admitted is not vaccinated?

How'bout the old Chi Com way? "No tickie, no shirtie."

Arrogated unto itself the business of educating children? How so? Are
you telling us public education is a bad thing?

Your logic on "the education of children barred from its doors" is
flawed. If a school system sets standards, health-based or otherwise,
the students must follow them or be barred from attendance. That bar
does not obligate the school system to provide an alternative eduction.
Most systems would have to provide academic support for hoe schooling,
but that is about it.

I would require all public and private schools to maintain records of
inoculations and they would bar anyone not inoculated, with the only
exception being a demonstrated medical exception.

All day care providers would be subject to the same constraints.

Here is the list of routine inoculations the military performs on our
troops. I do not know if the DOD allows exceptions.

Diphtheria
Hepatitis A
Hepatitis B
Influenza
Measles
Meningococcal disease
Mumps
Pertussis, acellular
Poliovirus
Rubella
Tetanus
Varicella (chicken pox)
Yellow fever

[Michael Press]

In article <mb8gci$elh$1...@dont-email.me>,

RoddyMcCorley <Roddy.M...@verizon.net> wrote:

> On 2/8/2015 2:47 PM, Michael Press wrote:
> > In article <slrnmdeltv.c...@kim.perusion.com>,
> > "Con Reeder, unhyphenated American" <cons...@duxmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2015-02-08, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> First prove "very high risk."
> >
> >
> > Agree with most everything you say. When the institution is
> > publicly funded it is more complicated. Since the state has
> > arrogated unto itself the business of educating children,
> > then it must undertake the education of children barred from
> > its doors. Furthermore forced vaccinations inevitably leads
> > to forced administration of psychoactive drugs.
> >
> > Here is how I would handle it. First publicize the notion
> > of herd immunity. Then ask for an immunization certificate.
> > Whether or not the certificate is tendered, admit the child
> > to school. The immunized children are not at risk.
> >
> How does that work if the child admitted is not vaccinated?
>
> How'bout the old Chi Com way? "No tickie, no shirtie."
>
> Arrogated unto itself the business of educating children? How so? Are
> you telling us public education is a bad thing?

"Nothing is good or bad, but thinking makes it so."

>
> Your logic on "the education of children barred from its doors" is
> flawed. If a school system sets standards, health-based or otherwise,
> the students must follow them or be barred from attendance. That bar
> does not obligate the school system to provide an alternative eduction.
> Most systems would have to provide academic support for hoe schooling,
> but that is about it.

Yeah, or help subsidize tuition at a private school.

> I would require all public and private schools to maintain records of
> inoculations and they would bar anyone not inoculated, with the only
> exception being a demonstrated medical exception.

As I say, forced vaccination -> forced psychoactive drugs.

> All day care providers would be subject to the same constraints.

You really want to control people.

> Here is the list of routine inoculations the military performs on our
> troops. I do not know if the DOD allows exceptions.
>
> Diphtheria
> Hepatitis A
> Hepatitis B
> Influenza
> Measles
> Meningococcal disease
> Mumps
> Pertussis, acellular
> Poliovirus
> Rubella
> Tetanus
> Varicella (chicken pox)
> Yellow fever

Military service is voluntary (unless it is compulsory)

--
Michael Press

[Con Reeder, unhyphenated American]

But that is not true.

There are a certain percentage for whom vaccination is ineffective;
and a certain number who cannot be vaccinated safely. There are
also adults who become vulnerable.

Children are careless of personal hygiene and lack boundaries as
to things they will touch and actions they will take. They should
be immunized if at all possible.

As far as undertaking their education, that is the parents
responsibility and not the states. They must find the answer.
There are steps in law for parents who refuse to send their kids
to school, and that is where you go next.

--
The tenor's voice is spoilt by affectation,
And for the bass, the beast can only bellow;
In fact, he had no singing education,
An ignorant, noteless, timeless, tuneless fellow. -- Lord Byron

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Sun, 08 Feb 2015 11:47:35 -0800, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net>
wrote:

>Agree with most everything you say. When the institution is
>publicly funded it is more complicated. Since the state has
>arrogated unto itself the business of educating children,
>then it must undertake the education of children barred from
>its doors.

That does not follow. Queers marrying is a recent thing and is
"sodomy" even a word anymore? Government is apparently not even bound
by the Constitution any more.

>Here is how I would handle it. First publicize the notion
>of herd immunity. Then ask for an immunization certificate.
>Whether or not the certificate is tendered, admit the child
>to school. The immunized children are not at risk.

In that case why ask for an immunization cert?

I'm glad you are guaranteeing that no immunized child can contract the
disease. You must have a large Personal Liability Policy.

Hugh

[Eric Ramon]

On Sunday, February 8, 2015 at 12:18:50 PM UTC-8, Wolfie wrote:

> Heh, no, that's NOT how it works. The parents
> are responsible. They can either get the child
> immunized and have them attend public school
> or use another option (private school, home school,
> etc.) That's the same way it works for kids the
> school bars for discipline.
>

my concern is giving kids all these vaccinations in their first few weeks. It just doesn't feel like it's a smart thing to do. I know, scientists and doctors think it's great but I don't much trust them.

By cracky, in my day there was no problem with schools and vaccinations because we got the shots *in* school. Lined up, just like in the documentary "Crybaby". One day it was polio shots, the next year something else. I'm sure that's the experience of many of us here.

I've heard/read that doctors prefer to give these multi-vaccinations all at once at a very early age because they, the doctors, don't want screaming 6 year olds in their offices. I bet that's not completely fictional.

[Eric Ramon]

On Tuesday, February 3, 2015 at 10:26:32 AM UTC-8, xyzzy wrote:
>
> The SJW problem will fix itself with peer pressure... when they see that anti-vaxing is primarily a wingnut thing and the justification for requiring it is social responsibility, they'll get in line for their kids' shots.

>
> Now we just have to figure out the right peer pressure angle to get wingnuts to vaccinate their kids. Maybe play up the SJW opposition to it?

what's with all this talk about single Jewish women?

[RoddyMcCorley]

When I was young and single, I found them to be both
attractive,intelligent, and accommodating. I don't think you can blame them.

[Michael Press]

In article <0ceb10d2-5153-4784...@googlegroups.com>,

Eric Ramon <ramon...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sunday, February 8, 2015 at 12:18:50 PM UTC-8, Wolfie wrote:
>
> > Heh, no, that's NOT how it works. The parents
> > are responsible. They can either get the child
> > immunized and have them attend public school
> > or use another option (private school, home school,
> > etc.) That's the same way it works for kids the
> > school bars for discipline.
> >
>
> my concern is giving kids all these vaccinations in their first few weeks. It just doesn't feel like it's a smart thing to do. I know, scientists and doctors think it's great but I don't much trust them.

I do not see it either, nor does the CDC.
<http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/parents/downloads/parent-ver-sch-0-6yrs.pdf>

> By cracky, in my day there was no problem with schools and vaccinations

Yet, the program was dismantled.

> because we got the shots *in* school. Lined up, just like in the documentary "Crybaby". One day it was polio shots, the next year something else. I'm sure that's the experience of many of us here.
>
> I've heard/read that doctors prefer to give these multi-vaccinations all at once at a very early age because they, the doctors, don't want screaming 6 year olds in their offices. I bet that's not completely fictional.

I can see it, but am more inclined to blame the parents.

Here's how: "Son, this is going to be extremely painful.
A man's got to do what a man's got to do."

--
Michael Press

[Wolfie]

"Eric Ramon" wrote

> my concern is giving kids all these vaccinations
> in their first few weeks.

The faster they can get immunity the better. It
doesn't do much good to put it off only to have a
kid die from a preventable disease. Same reason
why, back in the day, mothers would organize
"mumps parties"...

[RoddyMcCorley]

On 2/3/2015 1:09 PM, xyzzy wrote:
> Oppressive government hand-washing requirements should be a matter of choice!
>
> http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/02/gop-senator-let-restaurants-opt-out-of-handwashing-after-toilet-to-reduce-regulatory-burden/#.VND8E4O_8pg.facebook
>

Why stop at vaccine mandates?

We should move ahead and chemically neuter all of the rightwingnuts. We
only have two more years for our Dear Leader to do it by executive order.

I ASK YOU: Should Michelle Backman, Sara Palin, and Rick Santorum be
allowed to breed???

But first we need to neuter the entire Kardashian Klan.

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Mon, 09 Feb 2015 00:06:56 -0500, RoddyMcCorley
<Roddy.M...@verizon.net> wrote:

>On 2/3/2015 1:09 PM, xyzzy wrote:
>> Oppressive government hand-washing requirements should be a matter of choice!
>>
>> http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/02/gop-senator-let-restaurants-opt-out-of-handwashing-after-toilet-to-reduce-regulatory-burden/#.VND8E4O_8pg.facebook
>>
>Why stop at vaccine mandates?
>
>We should move ahead and chemically neuter all of the rightwingnuts.

If you lost a quarter in the middle of the block you would look for it
at the corner where the light is better.

That's okay if you don't need the quarter, but Obie does to reduce his
deficit to + or - $17,999,999,999,999.75. Even a coral reef started
small.

Hugh