Vaccine mandates

Vaccine Mandates Coming for K-12 Students

San Diego becomes latest school district to require teen jabs. But is it good policy?


The San Diego Unified School District Tuesday night voted unanimously to require students age 16 and over to be fully vaccinated by December 20 or be exiled into remote learning.

The country's 21st largest school district thus joins #2 Los Angeles (whose guidelines cover everyone 12 and up), and smaller Culver City, California (also 12+), as the earliest adopters of what will likely be an increasing—and increasingly controversial—trend of mandating injections into the arms of comparatively low-risk minors.

"Tonight we're making a statement that we believe in the science, we believe in the process and that we are serious about this, that we want to protect children," School Board Vice President Sharon Whitehurst-Payne said at the meeting.

Whitehurst-Payne's interpretation of the science is not universal. Dr. Vinay Prasad, of UC San Francisco's Epidemiology & Biostatistics department, noted in a U.S. News & World Report column Tuesday that different countries have come to different conclusions about the safety of giving kids two doses rather than one, and that potential side effects of myocarditis (heart inflammation) are real, if rare.

"Taking kids who decline vaccination and preventing them from getting an in-person education is a draconian penalty," Prasad wrote. "Prolonged school closures have massive negative effects on children, robbing them of education, the last tattered rung left in the ladder of American opportunity….[T]he reality is they are overstepping the certainty of the science, and they are taking out our collective rage and frustration—that this pandemic has not yet ended—on children. It is a shameful policy, and I condemn it."

K-12 student vax mandates are almost certain to jump beyond the borders of California. Education Secretary Miguel Cardona last Thursday said that he "wholeheartedly" supports them. New York Governor Kathy Hochul has said repeatedly this month that she's keeping a student-mandate open as an "option."

According to an article this week in Pew Trusts, "Officials in counties and cities in California, Maryland, New York and Virginia as well as the District of Columbia are mandating vaccinations—with a few exceptions for weekly testing—for student-athletes. Hawaii has a statewide vaccine requirement for public school student-athletes." But also: "At least 12 states ban schools from requiring vaccines for students."

As has been the case with COVID-related policies on masking, school reopening, business closures, and vaccine passports, a chief determinant on whether a given polity mandates or bans K-12 vaccines is not the comparative impact of the coronavirus, but rather which of the two major political parties constituents favor. That means the higher your vaccination rates are for minors, the more likely you are to pass a student vax mandate.

The United States' one-shot vaccination rate for 12- to 17-year-olds is currently around 57 percent. California is at 68 percent, New York at 66 percent…and then there are the states that have banned student mandates: Florida (55 percent), Utah (55), Arizona (53), Arkansas (47), Oklahoma (44), Montana (42), Tennessee (37), and Alabama (36). Assuming for the sake of argument that vaccine mandates are an unalloyed good, the states that need them most will almost certainly get them least.

But the argument over mandates is anything but settled. COVID-19, even since the triumph of the delta variant and the advent of vaccination, has remained overwhelmingly an older-person disease: Just 478 people under the age of 18 have died of it through Sept. 29, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). That's less than the 643 minors that the CDC estimates died during the 2017-18 winter flu season. Rare is the state that mandates flu shots; though in fairness, their effectiveness rate lags far behind those of the three COVID-19 vaccines approved in the U.S.

The second main reason to favor the physical removal of unvaccinated students is to keep kids from spreading the virus to teachers and staff. But school employees have had priority access to vaccines for more than half a year by now. Given the microscopic infection results revealed by school testing—0.27 percent among the unvaccinated in New York City, around 0.6 percent in Los Angeles—it's reasonable to continue concluding that school buildings are among the safest places for humans to gather in groups.

Like all vaccine mandates, K-12 student requirements will surely drive up vaccination rates, and thus hasten the virus's transition from pandemic to endemic status. But by how much, and at what cost?

Kids who are sent back home for yet another year marred by remote learning will experience tangible and measurable harm, including the possibility of being more, not less, exposed to COVID-19. Their parents' work productivity, comparatively, will suffer.

Speaking as a parent of a fully vaccinated 13-year-old in public school, I do not fear her unvaxxed classmates (if she has any), and I'd rather any such students be regularly tested than be sent packing. But as usual, my educational preferences will be drowned out by the people I choose to live among.

A "science" whose policy extrapolations depend on political slant will continue to lose public respect. Advocates who don't acknowledge and grapple with real-world tradeoffs will almost certainly introduce major error. Vaccines are a marvel of modern medicine, and the best ticket out of the wretched last 19 months of our lives. But that doesn't mean it's wise for the government to force this particular one on teenagers.

Related Reason reading, from 2014: "Should Vaccines Be Mandatory?: A libertarian debate on immunization and government."

NEXT: Georgia Tax Crimes Unit Illegally Spent Asset Forfeiture Funds on Trinkets and Swag

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. "preferences will be drowned out by the people I choose to live among"

    Yes that happens among a herd of sheep. So don't be a sheep.

    1. These are 2 pay checks $78367 and $87367. that i received in last 2 months.Kty I am very happy that i can make thousands in my part time and now i am enjoying my life. Everybody can do this and earn lots of dollars from home in very short time period. Just visit this website now.

      Open this web…… Visit Here

      1. Seriously I don’t know why more people haven’t tried this, I work two shifts, 2 hours in the day and 2 in the evening…FGR And i get surly a check of $12600 what’s awesome is I m working from home so I get more time with my kids.

        Try it, you won’t regret it!...READ MORE

        1. Seriously I don’t know why more people haven’t tried this, I work two shifts, 2 hours in the day and 2 in the evening…FMNT And i get surly a check of $12600 what’s awesome is I m working from home so I get more time with my kids.

          Try it, you won’t regret it........VISIT HERE

    2. These are 2 pay checks $78367 and $87367. that i received in last 2 months. I am very happy that i can make thousands in my part time and now i am enjoying my life. Everybody can do this and earn lots of dollars from home in very short time period.CTf Your Success is one step away Click Below Webpage…..

      Just visit this website now............ VISIT HERE

      1. Sarah getting Paid up to $18953 in the week, working on-line at home. I’m full time Student. I shocghked when my sister’s told me about her check that was $97k. It’s very easy to do.QEd everybody will get this job. Go to home media tab for additional details……

        So I started………

  2. They missed the point where they have already decided to require it for 5 and older as soon it is approved.

    1. These are 2 pay checks $78367 and $87367. that i received in last 2 months. ASq I am very happy that i can make thousands in my part time and now i am enjoying my life. Everybody can do this and earn lots of dollars from home in very short time period. Just visit this website now.

      Open this web…… Visit Here

      1. Seriously paycheck of $19632 and all i was doing is to copy and paste work online. this home work makes me able to generate more cash daily easily. simple to do work and reguaelar income from this are just superb. Here what i am doing.

        Try now………………

  3. A little jab will do ya.

    1. Something I always tell the ladies.

      1. I made over $700 per day using my mobile in part time. I recently got my 5th paycheck of $19632 and all i was doing is to copy and paste work online. this home work makes me able to generate more cash daily easily.HBg simple to do work and regular income from this are just superb. Here what i am doing.

        Try now.................. VISIT HERE

    2. Also, will Madonna be giving free blowjobs with proof of vaccination?

    3. “Just the tip”.

  4. Tonight we're making a statement that we believe in the science...


    1. Science of the lambs.

      1. +1

    2. Do not question the answer.

      /"The Science"

    3. "Tonight we're making a statement that we believe in the science, we believe in the process and that we are serious about this, that we want to protect children," School Board Vice President Sharon Whitehurst-Payne said at the meeting.

      When social signaling turns into injecting children with experimental therapies they don’t need, and that haven’t been vetted for their long term effects on growing bodies.

      I’d be livid if I had school age kiddos in these districts.

      1. Just wanted to point out that these are the same assholes that wanted everyone’s kids on Ritalin twenty years ago.

        1. And here they are giving ebonics a go a decade before that.

          At their 1997 meeting, the Linguistic Society of America [LSA] approved a resolution describing Ebonics as “systematic and rule-governed like all natural speech varieties,” saying that the Oakland School Board’s action was “linguistically and pedagogically sound.”

          "A natural language variant is systematic and rule-governed like all natural languages." Science!

          1. They should take another crack at that. They will probably get away with it this time. And anyone who is against that is racist.

      2. They’ve made it a religion with their hopes and beliefs. Do you believe the vax is true? Testify to its truthfulness.

  5. It's not like kids are required to be vaccinated for anything else, like diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, measles, mumps, rubella, polio and chickenpox. Not like I had to be vaccinated for meningitis to enroll in college courses. This is a totally new form of tyranny that has never happened before. Ever. Unprecedented. And it's all Democrats.

    1. Seems like all those other vaccines you named weren't mandated less than a year after they were cooked up.

      1. Know when the first vaccine mandate came down school kids? 1850. That's right. They've been requiring vaccinations for school for 170+ years.

        1. That doesn't really speak to the point I made.

          1. What is your point? The FDA rushed this? They didn't test it enough? What is enough? What is the magical amount of time for testing? How many people should die while waiting for FDA approval? Like Merry said, you can't have it both ways.

            1. I've never asked for it to be both ways. I simply pointed out the difference that the vaccine mandates children are currently subjected to are for vaccines that had some long-term effect research done before they were mandated. The FDA has zero understanding of the effect this vaccine will have on a developing body 5-10 years down the road. To require children, who are at virtually zero risk, to take it now is ridiculous (and children have zero responsibility to get vaccinated to protect adults).

              1. So how long?

                1. 5-10 years. Since children are in the extremely low risk group and are comparatively poor spreaders of COVID anyway, there is exactly zero reason for a vaccine mandate for them.

                  1. Did you pull that out of your ass? Are you an expert? Just curious.

                    Because I sure as fuck don't know the answer.

                    1. Which, the poor spreading or lower risk group? All available information indicates the latter, and there were multiple studies early on which tracked spread patterns and found little to no spread via children. There were later studies measuring viral load that idiots point to to try and say they are just as capable of spreading the disease, but not a single study showing children actually do so.

                    2. Alright. Not like it matters. We don't make any decisions.

                    3. Maybe use your God given brain and figure it out?

                    4. So youre dead set on being anti choice pro mandates based on not knowing what the fuck youre talking about?

                      Go fuck yourself you ignorant shit.

                    5. It seems like you do. You are fine with 6 months of study, and believe it should be mandated now.

                      I am curious if you believe that the exemptions and exceptions available for those other vaccines should be available for Covid, and if they should be administered the same way?

                      I run a school. And people who refuse those other vaccinations are permitted to attend. By state law.

                2. Can you fucking read his answer and comprehend it sarc? Which words were difficult?

              2. children have zero responsibility to get vaccinated to protect adults

                Children have zero responsibility. Or duty. By definition. Yes.

                That's why they have parents or guardians. And an argument could be made that they are responsible for keeping children from becoming little Typhoid Marys.

                1. There is no evidence children are Typhoid Marys at all. Indeed, they are significantly less likely to spread the disease than adults.

                  1. I was trying to make a broader point than just focusing on COVID.

                    1. On the broader point, childhood vaccinations are for what are commonly called childhood diseases; that's not covid. Those shots are also immunizations from those diseases, which is not true of this jab. The CDC changed how it defines "vaccine" as a result.

                      If someone is 80+, good health or not, that's one thing because the overwhelming bulk of those dying are at or beyond average life expectancy. Kids not so much.

                    2. I'm testing the principle that no vaccines should be mandatory with some what-ifs.

                    3. I don't see how what-ifs can be avoided. One size fits all really doesn't. I had those kiddie shots, too, probably fewer than 10 all told. Today, kids are taking close to four times that many. Is that good? And with covid, they are the least at-risk group going. This is the issue with safetyism and outsourcing all risk to an unaccountable third party.

                    4. I had those kiddie shots, too, probably fewer than 10 all told. Today, kids are taking close to four times that many. Is that good?

                      Would you rather people get sick? It's a miracle of science that we can protect ourselves from things that ravaged our species for hundreds of thousands of years! Vaccines are awesome!

                      The only thing that makes this one bad is politics. Which is stupid.

                    5. No you weren't you ignorant shit. You got caught again.

                    6. Sarc defends his behavior by pulling a jeff and claiming he is just asking questions.

                      He has gone full jeff.

                    7. And the invention of mRNA vaccines should be celebrated as a modern miracle.

                      Instead we now have the ridiculous talking point about their not really being vaccines: that can’t be an airplane — airplanes have two or more wings!

                    8. "I was trying to make a broader point than just focusing on COVID."

                      Given that the story was about kids being forced to take COVID vaccines, your comment was less relevant than usual.

                    9. LOL

                      Sarc accidentally commenting under his Mike Laursen sock.

                      What a pathetic goober.

                2. Also, Typhoid Mary was a continuous spreader and thus contagious 24/7. The idea that children should be treated that way when there is no evidence C19 TMs exist at all is ludicrous. Especially combined with the fact that the vaccines do little to stop the spread anyway.

                  1. It was a fucking metaphor. I wasn't being literal.

                    1. Full jeff behavior detected.

                  2. “Especially combined with the fact that the vaccines do little to stop the spread anyway.”

                    This is a distortion. The vaccines do not complete stop the spread =/= do little to stop the spread.

                    The vaccines do decrease the spread. Even if a vaccinated person does get infected, they are less sick and sick for a shorter time. That means less spread.

                    1. But 1 in 10,000 vaccinated people get sick. It's like totally ineffective.

                    2. You made a strawman of mikes lie. Wow.

                    3. It’s like people cannot greet good news with joy if acknowledging the good news might make them look like they are a member of the bad guys party.

                    4. Its like you fake libertarians never believed in liberty.

                    5. Some people can only engage in binary thinking. Either masks work 100% or they don't work at all. Either vaccines work 100% or they don't work at all. Lizard brain thinking.

                    6. So now jeff. Sarc. And chipper the marxist have all made the same stupid strawman argument.

                      Is that the best you 3 have to rationalize your move towards tyranny?

              3. What would be the hypothetical mechanism that would cause long-term side effects from mRNA vaccines, which are so fragile they must be kept at super cold temperatures just to last long enough to distribute them to people?

                1. It's new. It's New! It's NEW!! IT'S NEW!!!!!

                  1. IT’S NOVEL!!!

                    1. The virus is novel. The vaccine is UNTESTED AND NEW AAUUUGHHH!

                    2. It was developed under the Trump administration. That should have been the death knell.

                    3. Mike and sarc in the race to be the biggest believer in The Science. Lol.

                  2. "It’s new. It’s New! It’s NEW!! IT’S NEW!!!!!"

                    "sarcasmic September.29.2021 at 4:41 pm
                    I was trying to make a broader point than just focusing on COVID[...] I’m testing the principle that no vaccines should be mandatory with some what-ifs."

                    Man, Jesse was right about you Sarc. Here you are within 20 minutes contradicting yourself. Above when people point out that there is zero reason to vaccinate kids for COVID-19, you retreat to "I'm not talking about this vaccine necessarily just the general principle". But then you jump in with that disingenuous fuck, Mike, to sit and mock people who are skeptical of shooting experimental drugs into people with no risk.

                    This is really disappointing.

                2. The same mechanism that killed the animals in previous trials at higher doses since the vaccine is not a one-off. The boffins have little to no clue whether repeated dosages will have any cumulative effects long term. To force children then to take said vaccine continuously that has not gone through long term trials is the sort of gamble only a monster would take for a disease with a lower death rate in children than the flu.

                  1. I’ve provided two cites. Please provide a cite that animals died, of short or long term effects.

                    1. Wow, it's almost as if I was talking about previous mRNA trials in general and not the COVID vaccine in particular. The animal trials for the COVID vaccine were done with the dosages present in the human version of the vaccine. Significantly less than all the previous tests using the mRNA delivery mechanism which had much, much higher dosages. Thus, since boosters are now being pushed for every 6 months and long term testing on the mRNA vaccines has NOT been done, it is completely fucking idiotic to attempt to repeatedly dose children with something they don't need and which they show no significant harm to others for having.

                    2. That should read not having.

                    3. So please provide a cite to whatever previous mRNA vaccine trials you are referring to.

                      I’ve provided two cites that say the COVID vaccines did not kill any animals.

                    4. *sighs* Jesus fucking Christ you'd think you were incapable of using a search engine.


                      "Exactly one year ago, Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel talked up his company’s “unbelievable” future before a standing-room-only crowd at the annual J.P. Morgan Healthcare Conference here. He promised that Moderna’s treatment for a rare and debilitating disease known as Crigler-Najjar syndrome, developed alongside biotech giant Alexion Pharmaceuticals, would enter human trials in 2016.
                      But the Crigler-Najjar treatment has been indefinitely delayed, an Alexion spokeswoman told STAT. It never proved safe enough to test in humans, according to several former Moderna employees and collaborators who worked closely on the project. Unable to press forward with that technology, Moderna has had to focus instead on developing a handful of vaccines, turning to a less lucrative field that might not justify the company’s nearly $5 billion valuation.
                      But mRNA is a tricky technology. Several major pharmaceutical companies have tried and abandoned the idea, struggling to get mRNA into cells without triggering nasty side effects.
                      The indefinite delay on the Crigler-Najjar project signals persistent and troubling safety concerns for any mRNA treatment that needs to be delivered in multiple doses, covering almost everything that isn’t a vaccine, former employees and collaborators said."

                      That article was written in 2017, so unless you believe in fucking time travel the mRNA delivery mechanism has VERY troubling safety concerns with repeated doses.

                  2. thank you for your sanity. the ferrets died and those who use factcheck as a credible source have checked their credibility out long long ago...

                    I believe there are some studies, plural, on schools which were not closed, which have shown that schools are not responsible for spreading COVID any more than grocery stores- schools were reopened in the UK based on these studies. They should be findable by anyone who wanted to look at facts about children and contagion rather than just push an agenda of mandates, repeat a broken mainstream narrative, and remove others rights to bodily integrity. Children are not super spreaders, those who work in schools should also be free to choose, and to use our children and our elderly and our immunocompromised as guinea pigs in this trial and endless booster trials is inhumane and evil.

                3. Understand Mike's terrible reasoning here:

                  Really smart people have come up with a new way of treating a disease (that is zero risk to your child). Because you cannot think up a way this new treatment could harm your child (who is at zero risk from the disease), you should just shut up and take the new vaccine.

                  Mike is a full fledged Culture Warrior in thrall to the left. Do not engage him. He is not interested in the truth or understanding. His every move is to try and perpetuate the culture wars that divide the right and the left.

              4. Please describe a biochemical pathway by which this vaccine could possibly have an effect on a developing body 5-10 years down the road. I'll give you a hint: there isn't one. So unless you have discovered some new principle of metabolism or gene expression unknown to science, get the fuck outta here with that baseless concern trolling.

                1. The same biochemical pathway that killed the Crigler-Najjar syndrome trials. Since it's not a one and done jab but already being pushed as a biannual thing giving it to children before determining if there are any long term cumulative effects goes in the category of fucking stupid.

                2. Please describe the biochemical pathway by which COVID is a significant risk to healthy children. I'll give you a hint: there isn't one.

                  I am against mandating people get vaccines. I understand that in an emergency people can disagree. But if you ever called yourself a libertarian, then you should understand how evil it is to force the lowest risk populations to get vaccinated. These are KIDS for fucks sake.

                3. If you believe in the vaccine's effectiveness, I hope you would say that it would at least have the long term effect of causing the body to generate antibodies.

                4. People who have developed pericarditis and myocarditis at any age have a much greater risk of future heart disease and may die much sooner of heart disease than those who have not. That's a side effect well reported in VAERS and on the vaccine inserts for all 3 products used in the US. That's only one example. I am sure you could find others if you wanted to acknowledge that freedom of choice for experimental treatments with no knowledge of what the long term outcomes will be, for a disease that kills mainly those who are about to die anyway with over 2 comorbidities is 100% common sense and completely in line with libertarian thought. This is not the bubonic plague- it's slightly worse than the flu, check your numbers with primary source data from somewhere that didn't abandon the scientific process of filin death certificates correctly. With COVID is quite different than from COVID.

              5. Chicken pox vaccine was developed in 1995. States began making it mandatory as early as 2 years later most around 4-5 years later.

                So they didn’t know what the effects would be 5-10 years later.

                I am not a fan of mandates but I expect this to happen in some places.

                For adults it will be universal in health care at some point. There is no need for a mandate it is already happening. Same for some other jobs and industries.

                1. chicken pox vaccine was developed in the 70s and the one in use today was invented in '81, bruh.

            2. You can't have it both ways. But you can make it available to people who want it without pushing it on everyone whether they want it or not.

              1. Sure, but you cannot be a righteous totalitarian by letting people assess risk for themselves. It's amazing how many are on board with taking the same tack as some of history's worst people in singling out one group for disparate treatment.

            3. Lol. I love you went from pretending to care about individual rights to not giving a fuck about them.

            4. Actually you can have it both ways. Make it optional.

              Not that difficult if your reasonable and are willing to listen to another side of the argument

              1. Nice conflating the two pluralities of the word, “you”.

            5. "How many people should die while waiting for FDA approval?"

              Jesus Sarc, what happened to you?

              The people who are dying are the people who elect NOT to shoot themselves in the arms with chemicals. Just as the people who tend to die from drugs are the ones electing TO shoot themselves up with needles.

              So are you ready for another drug war, Sarc? How many people have to die of fenfen overdoses before you'll get on board with War On Drugs Two?

              Add to that the fact that ALL the vaccines you pointed to were unique in their ability to prevent a virus that kills kids. COVID does not kill kids in any numbers that would justify this infringement of liberty even IF you were some squish instead of a libertarian.

            6. The FDA didn’t approve any of the 3 vaccines being distributed. They are only available through Emergency Use Authorizations (EUAs), based in the bogus claims that there are no effective therapeutics available.

            7. Sarc has a good point. I still don’t want to vax my kids. It’s fucking pointless to. There’s no good reason to do it other than to perhaps unite the country under one mandate.

            8. What we wanted was the AVAILABILITY of a fast tracked vaccine as an OPTION. Your booze soaked leftist mind conflates that with MANDATES through GOVERNMENT ACTION.

              What would you do without us to straighten you out?

        2. For smallpox. This ain't smallpox. And smallpox vaccination campaigns were much more successful when they used persuasion rather than mandates. And smallpox vaccinations actually prevent infection and transmission. And even so it would be wrong to force it on people.
          And any parent can sign a form and have their kids exempt from all of those requirements for public schools.

          1. It wasn't forced. It was a condition of going to school. With regards to smallpox, polio and other killers, I really don't have a problem with that. But where's the line?

            1. I don't think you need one. If a disease is bad enough, people will be more readily convinced that it is in their interest. Any plan that requires absolutely everyone to fall in line and do as they are told is going to fail.

              1. I don’t think you need one. If a disease is bad enough, people will be more readily convinced that it is in their interest.

                The last year and a half has demonstrated that that is definitely not the case.

                1. Ya for old folks and fat fucks. The rest of us haven’t seen any significant deaths enough to do much more than wear a mask (well, a loose mask, covering the mouth).

                2. No you marxist shit, the last year shows those at risk should get a vaccine, namely those over 55.

                3. No, this just isn't bad enough. Most people can go about their lives vaccinated or not with little risk of death or long term illness. Yes, it is very bad for certain segments of the population. But those populations are generally already at elevated risk of dying from anything.
                  People were convinced with smallpox and polio. Because they are way more dangerous and scary. People for whom covid is a serious danger also seem to have been convinced.

            2. A condition of going to public school vs a condition of doing a thousand benign everyday things. Perhaps relative risk is a line. What works for a nursing home does not work for an elementary school. When a plan requires force for the sake of requiring force, it's not a very good plan. There is no public health benefit to be had here and quite a bit of potential for doing harm.

              1. Very true.

              2. Exactly this. The ONLY reason to vaccinate kids is as an act of "Public Health Theater". The risk that COVID poses to children is miniscule. The risk that they pose to vaccinated adults is even more miniscule.

                If you are insisting that young kids get vaccinated for a virus that represents ZERO risk to them, you are an evil totalitarian. The only possible reason to do this is to rub your political opponents' face in the fact that you control the schools. There is NO other reason. Science doesn't support it. A review of natural rights doesn't support it. Even historic precedent regarding previous vaccines doesn't support this.

                1. 'The only possible reason to do this is to rub your political opponents’ face in the fact that you control the schools...'

                  Absolutely true; and utterly despicable...

                  'Science doesn’t support it.'

                  absolutely true...

                  'A review of natural rights doesn’t support it'

                  Hmmm...nature provides every creature with air to breathe according to its structure, potable water to hydrate, and edible feed; after that, we're all essentially on our own.....exactly what 'rights' does nature afford us...?

            3. "It wasn’t forced. It was a condition of going to school"

              I feel like you are being deliberately obtuse here. Pretty much everywhere in the country, a parent can sign a waiver to not vaccinate their kids. And the places where these exemptions are not available are very very recent.

              1. I wish this were true here. California did away with their religious and philosophical exemption 10 years ago. Many people used this to vaccinate on an alternative schedule, it wasn't just for holdouts. Then two years ago they tightened up the medical exemption to conform with extremely narrow CDC guidelines- now the State is licensed to practice medicine, and any doctor who issues 5 or more exemptions a year will be investigated and is at risk of suspension of their license. Guess what, the same politicos who were in power then, who get $$$$ from big pharma, (bigger than big oil!!) are still in power now. Go figure.

      2. 2018: OMG! The FDA approves stuff too slowly! Government bad!

        2021: OMG! The FDA approves stuff to quickly! Government bad!

        I agree that government is bad. I agree that the FDA is bad. But you need to make up your mind if approvals happen too fast or too slow, because it can't be both. I think it would be cool if htere were a private organization testing these vaccines. But that's not the world we live in. In the meantime COVID-19 is a real thing and not an imagination. Waiting until we get the perfect public policy just isn't an option.

        1. But you need to make up your mind if approvals happen too fast or too slow, because it can’t be both.

          That's what I've been saying.

          1. You've both been pushing idiotic strawman arguments. We agree.

            1. It’s fucking pathetic.

        2. Yes it can be both. Precisely because 'government is bad' is far more significant a basis for the argument than any actual timeline.

          1. And yet if the government went too slowly on the COVID vaccines you would be perfectly happy. You're perfectly fine with government so long as it validates you.

            1. Merry, I believe you need to recalibrate your sarcometer. He was agreeing with you.

            2. I know I wouldn’t. The FDA took way too long to approve use for my age group, which left me at risk unnecessarily.

              1. Mike Laursen puts itself at risk by trying to impose its totalitarianism upon you.
                Mike Laursen deserves nothing but contempt, scorn, and elimination.

                1. Correct

              2. I work in medical, and I have never seen approvals for age groups (with the exception of children). It's like they make up the rules as they go.

        3. You really don’t get it, do you? Yes, it’s good that the vaccines were fast tracked. That said, they don’t have a long track record and are inherently riskier. This means that:

          1. It’s good that this is an available option for people.
          2. Not everyone will want it.
          3. Under no circumstances should any vaccine ever be forced on the public.

          If you want the vaccine, take it. If you don’t want, then don’t take it. Definitely don’t force it in anyone.

          Case closed.

          1. Is that an argument from principle, or an argument against this particular vaccine?

            What if it was some plague like what you see in the movies or on tv? And there was a vaccine. Like that Will Smith movie or something.

            Would you still in principle be against forcing people to take the vaccine as a condition of joining the larger group?

            1. What principle tells you that being forced to take a vaccine for something that is essentially zero risk to you is a valid concern of government? Thats what you're arguing for statist.

            2. Would most people just take it by choice if it was that bad? I think the human population makes those determinations pretty well by risk. I would say this one after two years on this planet is about right with adoption versus non.

            3. What if? Like “What if Captain America was never frozen in ice”? Those stories can be fun. And it has nothing to do with the current situation.

              As it stands, my statement is 100% correct.

        4. Well, I think it's really a problem with how the whole drug approval process works. As it is now, people expect that when the FDA gives the OK a drug will be both safe and effective. Having that standard does create the problem of things taking too long to get to market. So I, and probably most people here, would certainly approve of allowing people to try medications that are still being tested, perhaps once some basic safety data comes out to at least show that it's not going to kill or damage a lot of people. Getting drugs available for people willing or desperate to try them is a very good thing. But to try to push something on people that has not gone through the normally expected level of testing is very unethical. The problem is not at all that the vaccines were made available too quickly. That's a good thing. The problem is then insisting that we know for sure that they are perfectly safe and good and everyone has to take it now or be called a stupid idiot Trumper asshole and excluded from police society or fired.

          1. "the normally expected level of testing"

            It's gone well above the normal level of testing. It has gone through phase three trials.

            The only reason its faster is because development time and because the investment was guaranteed by the US government, so it was manufactured ahead of time.

            1. And the pharm companies ramped up manufacturing and distribution. It was a very impressive performance and still is.

              Also the FDA got right on it instead of their usual dickering around.

              I think people misunderstand that once you finish your phase 3 trials that is it. There is no more testing to be done. You can’t give it to anymore people. You just send in your homework and wait for an answer.

              They also don’t understand that things like EUA or limited approval for clinical trials, off label prescribing are not at all uncommon in practice.

              1. OK, you probably know more than I about this subject. So why does it normally take years to get something like this approved? Was there really no change in the rules to allow this?
                Isn't there some longer term testing required? I thought that had something to do with why it usually takes so long. Is it just the FDA dragging their feet then?
                I don't trust any of the traditional institutional sources of information anymore after the past year and a half. I don't like it, but they squandered all their credibility as far as I'm concerned. I have no confidence that negative outcomes associated with the vaccines are being appropriately reported and responded to. It may well all be on the up and up. But I don't trust the people telling me that it is at all anymore.

        5. Both statements have a common denominator. For people in high-risk groups, fast approval may well be a lifesaver. For those facing virtually no risk, it's a non-issue until they are forced to comply. Should we ignore the mountain of instances where shots ended badly on otherwise healthy people?

          It's not out of bounds to think the FDA can be both overly hasty and drag its feet, depending on what's at stake.

          1. This. But the statists don't give a shit. Believe in government. The mantra of sarc, brandy, jfree, etc.

            Fuck analyzing your own risk posture. That isn't a choice for individuals anymore. Of course the same assholes no doubt push allowing adults to access their own risk woth dangerous drugs. Hypocrites all.

        6. OMG He's going 20mph on the expressway, that's way too slow!

          OMG He's going 110mph on the expressway, that's way too fast!

          Make up your mind, right?

        7. Oversimplification of a complex subject. Yes the FDA can be too slow and too fast at the same time. FDA has prevented dying individuals from received likely beneficial treatment because they were years away from approving it, too slow to allow and yes you can allow without approving.
          FDA allowed the COVID jab before approval and that was good and right, to approve it without reservation , especially in children without long term study's is reckless and wrong. These aren't old fashioned vaccines they are never tried before gene therapies. To allow their use, absolutely, hell yes. To mandate is criminal.

        8. Sorry, it can be both. It can approve one vaccine too quickly and another too slowly. Of course, it can't approve the same vaccine both too slowly and too quickly. Something can't be two things at the same time. Plus, this premise is faulty. Who says it's all the same people who are claiming both?

      3. I bet you know just about as much about the covid19 vaccine as you do the other ones- ie. zilch.

        1. Yet still far more knowledgeable than you.

    2. So you support mandatory flu vaccinations? Gardasil? Shingles? Pneumovax?

      1. I'm saying it's not unusual or draconian. It's been going on for a very long time.

        1. Jeff walk back detected.

        2. "I’m saying it’s not unusual or draconian. It’s been going on for a very long time."

          So has the War on Drugs and Slavery. Since when has that mattered?

      2. Do I support mandatory COVID vaccinations? No. I'm just saying it's not a new thing.

          1. Aaaaaannnd in other news, Nardz is still retarded.

            1. Speaking of retards how many imaginary friends are shouting encouragement to your crazy ass today?

              1. Maybe he will again spend the weekend at his very real cool friend’s HALF million dollar lake house. Where he will regale us with his wit, while his ‘cool friends’ cheer him in.

        1. Full jeff walk back complete.

          He was just asking questions and attacking cons.

          1. It’s all about attacking conservatives and libertarians with him. As we are all ‘Trumpistas’. Doesn’t matter what it is. Biden could do a 180 tomorrow and ban King Flu vaccines and he would attack any contrarian position as ‘Trumpist’.

      3. Mandatory pregnancy vaccinations. Solves the abortion issue.

    3. Those are mostly childhood diseases.
      COVID-19 poses almost no risk to children of school age.
      The vaccines are fairly safe and reasonably effective, but the benefit-risk analysis is a lot different for people under 20 than it is for people over 50. Any long term (as yet unknown) risk from the vaccine is also a bigger concern the younger you are, obviously.

      1. One fun thing about being a parent is getting sick from your kids. I rarely got sick until I was a full time parent of a kid in school. Then I started catching colds regularly. While it's true that COVID isn't a threat to the health of most kids, what about when the kid brings it home to grandma who's got COPD? I'm not saying I support mandatory vaccinations. Seems I have to say that in every post lest I be accused of it. But I can see an argument for it.

        1. That isn’t an excuse to try and force this vaccine in children. Keep grandma away for the kids if the risk of infection is deemed unacceptable.

          1. So every nursing home should have a "NO CHILDREN ALLOWED" sign? That will go over well.

            1. Oh, is THAT where you draw the line? Nursing homes were locked down by management across the country last year for many months. A client of mine’s wife passed away in August 2020 in an Alzheimer’s facility, and he hadn’t been allowed to see her since February. So visiting restrictions in nursing homes are nothing new.

              But hey, far better to force an unneeded inoculation on small children, right?

        2. If you are worried about your grandma, get your kid vaccinated if you think that helps. Seems pretty straightforward. Let other people worry about their own grandmas.

          1. But what if you don't have a choice in who grandma is exposed to?

            1. How low is it reasonable to expect general risk to be for an elderly person? There are tons of things that could kill grandma. I think that to put so much worry into the fairly small chance that an asymptomatic child might infect grandma is absurd and pointless. Yeah, that could happen. You could also give grandma a regular cold and then she dies of pneumonia. A big part of what drives me so nuts about all of this is how ridiculously focused so many people are on this one risk to the exclusion of all others.

              1. Well said.

              2. 2019 death rate for those over 70 by the cdc was 10%. The 2020 rate was just above that. 7% over 70 die with covid.

                Let's just force everyone into bubbles to appease sarc.

              3. Grandma may have other thoughts about that.

                My elderly mom pretty much had to quarantine before the vaccine. Family events were cancelled. She couldn’t do her regular activities.
                This was when things were really bad.

                She is a smart and educated woman. A great grandmother actually many times over. She worked with my dad in his medical office as an assistant. She knows what a disease is and what a vaccine does. Heck she gave out hundreds of vaccine doses. I have on my shelf a medical dictionary from 1956 inscribed by the author thanking for her help and work on it.

                You talk about grandma like she is an idiot who doesn’t understand about risks and what is or is not preventable. How do you think she survived this long?

                1. Does Grandma know that the mRNA tech used to create the COVID vaccine killed animals in repeated doses in all previous uses prior to the development of the Covid vaccine?

        3. "While it’s true that COVID isn’t a threat to the health of most kids, what about when the kid brings it home to grandma who’s got COPD?"

          If GRANNY gets the vaccine, then it would be utterly irrelevant.

    4. I actually don't agree with the "there is a precedent" argument. There is legal precedent for a lot of bad shit the government does, but that does not make it right.

      To throw this discussion into a different area: does the government have a right to discriminate and restrict access to public property to only those that have done what they wanted? I tend to say no. Obviously private property is a different matter, but I do not believe these rights extend to the government.

      P.S. I am not saying you support the mandate just interested in asking a different question along the same lines. This discussion tends to get locked into a repetitive pattern.

      1. The first mandatory vaccinations were for smallpox in 1850.

        Like pollution and the environment, I start to lean Stossel in thinking there is a legitimate role for government. For diseases like smallpox, polio, and other killers, I really can't object to forcing kids to get poked before they hang around with a bunch of other kids. Especially as a parent.

        But there needs to be a line.

        1. It seems that work on the smallpox vaccine had started decades before vaccinations were mandatory. It's not like they developed the vaccine in 1850 and then mandated it.

          1. So you're fearful of new technology. Fine. I'm not. Agree to disagree.

            1. Only you are trying to force a belief system on others here.

              1. Price how he’s trying to make it sound like we’re unreasonable and don’t want the vaccine to be available. When all we want is to not have it not forced on anyone.

                He pulls this weasely shit a lot.

          2. Things are a bit more advanced now. Dr. Salk did not have anything remotely like the technology and knowledge we have now when he developed that vaccine.

        2. “I really can’t object to forcing kids to get poked”

          Phrasing! This is something I would expect Buttplug to say. As he REALLY loves kids.

        3. I really don't think that mandates for things like smallpox or polio vaccines were terribly necessary. Possibly even counterproductive. Even with mandates some will refuse. And with diseases that are really horrible like smallpox, you will convince people a lot more easily that it is in their interests.

          1. Making it a condition for government school ensures that the next generation is protected. Don't want you kid to be vaccinated? Find another school. Homeschool.

            1. Yeah, maybe this is another of those cases where government schools are the problem.
              But I'm still against it. TO do something as drastic as mandating injections for kids I think you at least need to have some very good evidence that the danger is real and significant and that the mitigation will be very effective. I don't think even that is at all clear with the currently available vaccines.

              1. I was testing the principle that no vaccines should be a mandatory condition for school. And I think that in some cases yes. But it has to be such a big deal that, as you say, most people would do it anyway. Which perhaps means no mandate is needed.

                1. Not only does the risk have to be a big enough deal, there needs to be some confidence that the proposed mitigation will be effective enough to justify the imposition. And even then I'm not convinced that a mandate is ever necessary or appropriate.

              2. "government schools are the problem".

                This is actually at the heart of my original question. I feel like topics that may not necessarily be difficult to assess become much more so once the government gets their tentacles into things. I have no issue with a private school requiring anything they want as a condition for attendance. The discussion becomes a lot more muddled once it becomes a government school. I don't see government entities having the same rights as private entities to deny access.

              3. Government schools usually are the problem.

        4. Less kids have died of covid than gun shots in the last year you ridiculous statist shit. When are you going to ban guns?

          1. Don’t give him ideas.

        5. What I find interesting is that I also lean toward Stossel and even Friedman when it comes to pollution. However, I see contagions as so different from pollution that they cannot be compared.

        6. I'm not trying to pick but just clarify that isn't that inoculation to be specific sarc? they exposed them to a less deadly strain from my understanding and the true vaccine didn't arrive on the scenes until 1796

          1. I guess my point with this clarification is why isn't natural immunity considered vaccinated?

            1. If you had some sort of documentation it should

              I saw a report from Israel that it is highly effective. Better than vaccine alone. They did note that one dose doubles that.

      2. “… does the government have a right to discriminate and restrict access to public property to only those that have done what they wanted?”

        That is so vague, it’s hard to theorize about.

    5. You have learned the talking points well, Padawan. Don’t forget “needle rape”.

    6. it's like apples to the produce section up in here

    7. At the time you got those vaccines, they were approvedb to be used on kids. I do believe that the San Diego mandate is too quick and anti-humanitarian (why are we demanding our teenagers get vaccinated before the rest of the world has a chance to vaccinate their seniors?) but, at least, tolerable. It is much harder to justify a mandate on 12-15 year olds, as LA has done. "The science" is not settled there. On an emergency basis, the relevant authorities have allowed people to obtain the vaccine, but the amount of information and study is limited such that Pfizer is not even allowed to market the vaccine to that age group. These school boards aren't "trusting the process", they are front running it, by turning an emergency allowance into a hard mandate. This is absurd, unjustifiable, and will make the authorities much less likely to issue such allowances in the future, as medical ethics calls for a different standard of proof between care that is allowed vs care that is mandated.

      Rushing things is particularly unjustified amongst school children, which "the science" says are very unlikely to have a bad outcome (RSV is putting far more kids into the hospital than COVID, but has a single school board anywhere even mentioned RSV?!) and if they happen to spread the infection, then "the science" says that those who have been vaccinated will be protected from severe illness. There is a big justice issue in forcing kids to take a vaccine that has not yet been studied for the requisite 6 months in their age group solely to try to protect adults who choose to go unvaccinated.

      1. The available vaccines have not yet been approved by the FDA. They are only available ( in quantity) under EUAs.

    8. How fucking dumb are you sarc? You can sign a form for schools declining those vaccines that actually sanitize and prevent infections. Covid vaccones do neither and the governments are making exemptions non existent.

      Youre such a fucking statist piece of shit now. All to own the cons.

      1. He hates Trump more than he values his freedom.

    9. Hey sarcasmic. Keep up the good fight. I went the thread and you did a good job of making your case. Vaccines were rarely questioned and then only to the crazy antivaxxer. I certainly hope people don't have to go back to kids in iron lungs and birth defects from German Measles before they realize why their parents and grandparents thought that vaccines were among the greatest things ever developed.

      1. Do any of you leftist idiots realize that advocating for near zero risk kids to get vaccinated to protect already vaccinated grandma is just saying vaccines don't sanitize and are a prophylactic. For the latter doctors generally only prescribe treatment for those at risk.

        Now you have biden saying the US needs 98% vaccination. Fauci saying full vaccination now includes booster shot, thousands of people being fired as a result, etc.

        Youre all authoritarian anti science morons.

        How long are you going to trade your freedom for the mere appearances of safety?

        If you're at risk, get a shot. That's the limit of the libertarian thought. All the rest of you are just giving government more power to do this forever. Go fuck yourselves.

        It was telling when sarcasmic said yesterday he didnt care about treatment of the unvaccinated until ovens were fired up. None of you give a shit about liberty.

      2. We are a far cry from the days when Dr. Salk was a hero.

        1. Dr Salk didn't advocate for people to be fired for not doing what the government demanded shit for brains.

        2. Dr. Salk didn't lie about the provenance of his work.

          Also you can stop pretending that the MRNA experiment is the same thing as traditional vaccines, anytime.

        3. Mike is a disengenuous shit, but it is worth pointing out:

          Dr Salk is a perfect example of why we should be totally skeptical of this vaccine. For the record, Salk's Polio Vaccine had a vulnerability in its manufacture process where actual Polio virus could be delivered to kids. This was discovered by NIH Scientists prior to the roll out of the vaccine, but Salk used his clout to overrule their objections.

          The result was the Cutter Incident where thousands of kids were infected with Polio, some of whom would be paralyzed and some who will die.

          This was a terrible scandal of Big Government- from the fact that they started early experimentation on orphans to the fact that they actually hid the evidence of damage they were creating.

    10. Sarc, we have discussed this before. You have the right to refuse vaccination in 44 of the 50 states. And the states where you do not, it is actually a very RECENT thing.

      Anyways, you call yourself a libertarian, and your argument is "Hey it's been done forever, so meh?"

      What the hell, man?

      1. You have the right to refuse vaccination in 44 of the 50 states. And the states where you do not, it is actually a very RECENT thing.

        Even for medical professionals, the CDC only recommends you *should* get vaccinated and makes explicit allowances for religious exemptions and, more pointedly, those who've contracted the disease naturally. Multiple S. Americans I worked with weren't required to get Hepatitis vaccines because they got it as children. Multiple recitations of 'Everybody got it. Like measles or chickenpox.'

        To reiterate, if you got chickenpox, measles, hepatitis, etc. as a child the CDC acknowledges effective lifetime immunity.

        1. right now there are National Guard serving in my local hospital because the corporation running that hospital decided to deny religious exemptions submitted by staff, and would not allow for proof of natural immunity. These corporations are well aware of actual science and should be standing up to the State for their right to employ who they'd like and for their employees with natural immunity. Instead these dedicated nurses, respiratory therapists, EMTs and others are being forced out of their chosen professions. Way to go California.

    11. jeffsarc bends over and gets his hot beef injection.

    12. Shall we compare the risk of serious issues of those diseases amongst kids and COVID?

      Is a 99.99999999% survival rate REALLY demanding vaccines for them?

    13. Except that FDA still hasn't actually approved any of the covid vaccines that are available in the US (as all were only approved for emergency use).

      The Pfizer vaccine that was recently approved by the FDA still isn't available for Americans, but Joe Biden, other Democrats and their left wing media propagandists refuse to acknowledge that fact.

    14. It’s not like kids are required to be vaccinated for anything else, that, in children, amounts to a cold in 99.9999999% of cases.

      Thought you could use some help

    15. Those vaccines work quite well and actually destroy the virus and give immunity that destroys the virus and lasts. It is extremely rare to have a breakthrough infection that can be spread to other vaccinated kids.
      Just in a relatively small state, Massachusetts, they had 4,378 breakthrough infections last week which now total 36,723. They had 155 hospitalizations last week bringing the total to 1155 and they had 37 deaths bringing the total to 254. They are treating breakthrough infections with Regen-Cov which if given early prevents progress to hospitalization or death. Since vaccinated people can get infected as easy as unvaccinated and spread it equally it does not stop the virus. It does keep more people from having a more severe case unless you are elderly or vulnerable with underlying conditions. That is why they have authorized the booster. They could give Regen-Cov to unvaccinated people and have a good outcome also but as Biden said, "it may increase vaccine hesitancy if it was know Covid is treatable and can be cured."

  6. Sounds like Dr. Vinay Prasad is a #sciencedenier.

  7. In most states public school students are already required to get a gamut of vaccinations, with an out for religious exceptions. Hell, Texas requires vaccinations for HPV!

    So how is COVID-19 any different? Oh right, because a small contingent of nutters decided to make a political issue, and confused the public with fear, uncertainty and doubt. This isn't all right wing nutters. When it comes to anti-medicine/anti-genetics, right wing Bakersfield is not different from left wing Santa Cruz. Both cities think cell phone towers give them cancer, both cities think vaccines are the work of shadowy insiders with an agenda. So I'm not pointing fingers here, both sides have idiots hiding in their wings.

    Don't like the vaccine? Don't send your kid to public school, and find a private school that doesn't like vaxx either. Or just homeschool. I don't care. Just keep your kids away from mind.

    1. There is no justifiable medical need for school age children to be vaccinated. Are you a science denier?

      1. Yes. They are. Just like asymptomatic people has to wear masks. Just theater to suppress freedoms. They are lunatics.

    2. >>So how is COVID-19 any different?

      it doesn't require a vaccine for a significant portion of the population.

      1. My best friend's ten year old daughter caught it from him. So the idea that children can't catch COVID is bullshit. True, her symptoms were very mild, but catching it means she can spread it to grandma. Which is one reason we have vaccines, so stop the spread. Vaccine BOTH prevent/reduce the disease, and stop/slow the spread of the disease.

        1. Your friend's ten year old had a mild cold and Grandma's had her vaccine.

          Oh, that's right, WITH the vaccine you can still carry and even catch covid.


          1. To demonstrate the power of the state, what else.

        2. lol no dude. the vaccinated can still get it. your plan fails @step 1.

        3. Literally nobody has said they can’t catch it you lying sack of shit.

    3. Focus on the Family (, a conservative group, issued a position statement saying, “Focus on the Family supports widespread (universal) availability of HPV vaccines but opposes mandatory HPV vaccinations for entry to public school. The decision to vaccinate a minor against this or other sexually transmitted infections should remain with the child's parents or guardians.”

      And those same "nutters" seem to be consistent in their oppositon.

      1. Focus on the Family is not a the government. They can have any opinion they want. Just just don't get to set policy.

    4. Come on, man. It was the large contingent of government bureaucrats and politicians and their friends in the media that made this political. Everything about covid became political as soon as those assholes decided they get to decide how everyone lives their lives from now on. That's what made it political.

      1. ^

      2. And you know what? It's good that it's political in the US. Look at what's happening in Australia. Both of their major parties are fully onboard with the totalitarian shit and media is in full propaganda mode. It's a damn good thing that there is some appreciable political opposition, even if there are a lot of idiots with ridiculous ideas involved.

      3. You m ow, they couldn’t decide how we live if they weren’t alive.

    5. What makes the COVID vaccine different for kids 12-15 is that it isn't approved for that age group. Yes, they are allowed to get it, but Pfizer isn't even allowed to advertise that the vaccine is suitable for that group yet. If the FDA feels the need to suppress Pfizer's speech, I don't see where the school boards get off mandating it for that group.

      In addition, what was the time between vaccine approval and mandate for those vaccines? I'll bet they were all approved at least a year before getting mandated. Why not follow the same approach with the COVID vaccine? Let's revisit for the 22-23 school year when: we'll have over a year of post-marketing information, the phase 3 trial will read out its last data (at least for the adults), a viral vector vaccine will be available for that age along side the mRNA (at least for teenagers), low income countries will have had an opportunity to vaccinate their populations, and the current tense environment around COVID will likely have eased. What is the rush?!

      1. "What is the rush?!"

        Pushing 3/4 million Americans dead, ICUs full up, and still too many hosts for new variants.

        1. Icus are not full. Vaccinated spread the disease and you should learn about evolutionary pressure.

          Why do you idiots have to be told this in every thread?

          1. Why do you idiots have to be told this in every thread?

            Because they're idiots

            Joe doesn't know how many people die in an average day in the US--or how many die every year.

            He especially doesn't know how the mortality rate of so many other causes of death dipped amazingly low since covid started.

            He's an idiot.

        2. According to the CDC's own statistics, the risk of a child aged 5 to 17 dying from covid is 1 in 26,523. As of June 11, 2021, there were 132 cases of vaccine induced myocarditis in boys aged 12 to 17 after their second dose of vaccine, out of the 1,019,935 boys vaccinated. This equates to 1 case of vaccine induced myocarditis per 7,727 boys vaccinated. Myocarditis has a 50% 5-year mortality rate. So statistically a boy under 17 has a 1 in 26,523 chance of dying from covid, and a 1 in 15,454 chance of dying from covid-vaccine-induced myocarditis. I have two sons between the ages of 5 and 9. We have all had covid. Refusing this vaccine is a no-brainer.

          1. There is no point in a vaccine if you’ve already had it. Only a progtard would ever think otherwise.

    6. Texas does not require HPV vaccination.

      And note that texas has a conscientious objector exemption.

      HPV is actually a great example. Democrats TRIED to push through an HPV mandate. Why? Because it was a politicized vaccine that could further the culture wars.

      We need to resist these assholes' attempts to turn medical decisions into political topics. It forces everyone to do stupid, stupid bullshit.

      There is NO scientific reason to force kids to get the COVID shot. That is why, as the article says, countries around the world are choosing not to mandate vaccination for kids. The only reason to mandate it is as a way to fucking punish political enemies, and you know it. Don't be drawn into this political bullshit, Brandy.

    7. In most states public school students are already required to get a gamut of vaccinations, with an out for religious exceptions.

      Religious exemptions *and* prior/natural immunity.

      Just keep your kids away from mind.

      Give me my property taxes back and we'll call it a deal.

      1. I will gladly give your property taxes yet. I'm all for abolishing government schools AND slashing taxes AND slashing spending AND all the rest. I want a government so small it has to hold bake sales to fund statues of dead politicians.

  8. "Taking kids who decline vaccination and preventing them from getting an in-person education is a draconian penalty," Prasad wrote.

    And the San Diego Unified School District, hallowed be thy name, had the unclean cast into the void. And they saw that it was good.

  9. Down with Commie-Education!!!

  10. Kid's vaccines should only be mandatory for the commentariat here. Everyone else is competent enough to make their own decision.

    1. Jfree showing his totalitarian duchbaggery

    2. You would have been a loyal SS member.

    3. We know you’re incompetent. Don’t project that on the rest of us.

  11. As vaccines are reviewed for use for younger kids, mandates will make sense, as the risks are lower than those from catching it.

    1. Well, if Joe Friday says so, then that must be good enough.

      Let's see what the CDC says:

      0-4 - 0% death rate
      5-11 - 0%
      12-15 - 0%
      16-17 - 0%

      1. AP FACT CHECK:

        It's not 0% It's 0.0001%, anti-science Hitler!

        1. Who are you going to believe, the CDC, or a media outlet colluding with the CDC?

      2. Now do vaccine injury risk for that age group.

        Oh wait. The trial for the 5-11 year old kids only included around 1k participants. Designed to deliberately show no signal.

    2. >>reviewed for use for younger kids


      1. Buttplug says the same thing about his penis.

    3. Chance of being hospitalized for COVID, not dying but just merely being hospitalized: 1 - 5%.

      Even that is believed to be an overestimation, fyi, but is based on the best data we have.

      Percentage of Democrats believing that over 50% of covid cases result in hospitalization:


      Percentage of Democrats believing that 20-40% of covid cases result in hospitalization:


      People pushing the hardest for universal, mandatory vaccines:


      I wonder if there's a connection here.

      1. Those numbers are way wrong for kids. Nowhere near 1% of kids are getting hospitalized after they catch COVID. COVID f***ing hates old people which skews all the other numbers. COVID isn't even the most dangerous communicable disease right now for kids.

        1. That's "across" the population. Just like death rates. Death rates "across" the population without context of age or infirmity are 99% (or higher). For specific populations there's lower. If you're old, dying of cancer and have an advanced case of COPD, your odds aren't 99%.

          1. Right. I misinterpreted the point you were making.

      2. Hospitalized is also not always a great definition of what we think it means - coworker was considered hospitalized because they wanted to do chest scans then run some sort of nebulizer type treatment even though he was feeling ok and was ok a few days later. He didn't need any of it (not saying everyone) but was considered in that percentage..

        1. Absolutely. That's why I was careful to say the 1-5% was a 'high' estimate.

        2. Friends kid got checked in as they caught covid and had asthma. 24 hours for monitoring. Not one actual issue arose.

        3. Sometimes it is just an urgent care need on a weekend when you can't see the doctor you wouldn't normally and there is no good urgent care option where you live or that your insurance will cover. Less than 24 hours in the hospital is super common.

      3. Here are the actual hospitalization rates - visualized in a graph - by age, by sex, by comorbidity. It's a good visualization of data.

        1. Women NOT hardest hit? Sorry, that seems like bullshit.

          1. Well that was a fluke in the data. None of the women in that sample were named Karen so it's not really a random sample.

        2. Kidding right? Your linked graph is a model for May-December 2020 . And there are no real hospital numbers because all hospitals report anyone who test positive as a COVID patient no matter why they are actually there and the high number of asymptomatic people who test positive is the result of high false positives which the propagandist ignore.

        3. Holy shit! Did you even read your own graph? First, it's a model. You don't refute objective facts with a projection. Even then, the only rate of *hospitalization* that remotely reaches 10% in the entire 1-21 age group is the 'serious heart condition' cohort. The next highest cohort is 'chronic kidney disease'. Rate of death for everyone under *21* is effectively zero. Nothing you pointed to refutes and even reinforces the claims. If you're a 6 yr. old with serious heart condition or chronic kidney or liver disease, COVID has an <6-8% chance of putting you in the hospital? Sounds exceedingly safe.

          1. The next highest cohort is ‘chronic kidney disease’.

            My bad, the next highest cohort in the 1-21 age group is type-2 diabetics. If you were born with "adult-onset" diabetes, COVID has a <5% chance of killing you.

          2. First, it’s a model.

            Of course it's a model. That's the only way you are allowed to use massive anonymized secured databases like the covid-19 research database. Especially when the goal is to present their results as a linear interpolation that doesn't exist in a real world of discrete data points. Here's their methodology

            Nothing you pointed to refutes and even reinforces the claims.

            What this particular visualization shows is that '1-5%' (the number asserted above) is in fact ONLY reasonable for the under-20's. Which wasn't really that guy's assertion at all. Everything he was implying is that 1-5% is the 'everyone' rate since he immediately went into general political beliefs about hospitalization. The numbers for hospitalization go up quite fast after age-20. the number for deaths go up at later age (or did in 2020 because everyone was able to be treated in hospital).

            1. Just to give an example of older. From a quick glance it looks like there is roughly a 5% chance of hospitalization for a 40 year old male with no medical conditions. Same risk for a 50 year old female with no medical conditions. But of course - Americans have plenty of medical conditions. And for that 40 year old male, some of them can goose the risk of hospitalization to over 20%. And of course older gets higher. As does multiple conditions.

            2. The same models that predicted 2 million dead on the first year. Go fuck yourself chicken little. Models are simply programmed assumptions. Yet you chose that over 19 months of actual data. Justify your tyranny anyway you want, just admit what you're doing.

            3. That’s the only way you are allowed to use massive anonymized secured databases like the covid-19 research database.

              Jesus Christ! You just keep getting dumber. No, you can actually report factual data and direct statistics (not models) from anonymized data. Do you even know what the word 'anonymized' or 'model' means?

              What this particular visualization shows is that ‘1-5%’ (the number asserted above) is in fact ONLY reasonable for the under-20’s. Which wasn’t really that guy’s assertion at all.

              He was responding to a post about "younger kids", the rest of his post was about the belief about hospitalization rates, not the actual rates themselves.

              Your posts have done nothing but convince me not of your unwillingness to read, but your inability to interpret visual information. Goddamned retarded.

      4. They read too much fake news. I think we know where the real disinformation bubble is.

  12. As usual, no mention of people who have already been exposed to SARS-CoV-2 being exempt. Because apparently the existence of the human immune system is something that only far right istophobes believe in now, or something.

    1. Because none of it is about science, or community health, or individual health. It is 100% political and big pharma economics. Cooperate or they will make you pay.


    Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to my acupuncture appointment and then my homeopath.

    1. No healing crystals? You science-denying Trump voters disgust me.

    2. No, no, no. it's BELIEVE in the Science!

    3. Homeopath? You should try some essential oils.

    4. My chiropractor calls acupuncturists non-scientific quacks.....

  14. Vaxxing is the future. The unvaxxed need to just die already, ya know! Vaccines are super! Omg, the vaccine is making me say this!

    1. You'll make a good slave.

    2. Keep it in your pants, lard of shit.

    1. You convinced me.

  15. Yes, let's impose this on the least vulnerable to prevent the spread...oh wait, it doesn't do that either. Kids are statistically unaffected by Covid in terms of hospitalization rates. Still true.

    1. Nobody claims it prevent the spread completely. It does significantly decrease the spread.

      1. Israel proves that incorrect.

        Yes, serious cases have been reduced-- I won't dispute that. But Israel saw increasing spread with the highest vaccinated rate in the world and with 3 boosters. I suppose you could make a "but for" argument, but that just seems like aggressive goalpost moving.

        1. And you are cherry picking.

          1. He was cherry picking in your favor. The environment where the vaccine would be the most effective at the population level. But, OK:

            The US saw both its largest rate of spread and largest number of cases after vaccines were widely administered. The UK's case numbers for COVID June '21-Sep '21 exceed the cases June '20-Sep '20 by more than 3-fold. The EU's case numbers for COVID June '21-Sep '21 exceed June '20-Sep '20 by more than 3-fold. Daily *world* cases since Nov. '21 have been consistently double those prior to Nov. '21... how much data from how many diverse sources would you require to disprove cherry picking?

        2. Israel is on the downslope now.

          The 10% unvaccinated adults account for 60% of serious cases and over 80% of deaths.

          In an article published in Nature the age differential of total cases showed that the largest group infected by far was age 10-19.

          What the Israelis learned was the vaccines were working about or slightly lower than expected in preventing infection and serious disease. This suggests a waning effect in the two dose regimen.

          As the below 19 group largely unvaccinated account for the largest number of infections then there is your reservoir.

          Additional research has shown a strong clinical benefit from the booster. They have given millions.

          Well once again here is your experiment. They are working on vaccinating everyone, I think age 12 up. They publish results so we will see.

          What happened is two things. Emergence of the delta variant and the strong but incomplete protection of the two dose vaccine.

          Oh and this was limited restrictions but no lockdown.

          1. I have seen different numbers but it looks like general protection with vaccine may have been as low as 30% which jumped back to 95% after booster.

            Some nice graphs here showing the difference between vaccinated and unvaccinated in serious cases.


        3. So you are correct but so far it looks like a two dose regimen will not be enough. It remains to be seen how long the third dose booster will last.

          1. BTW the spread happened before the booster. They just recently rolled that out.

            Another fun fact. They have something most here would hate. A Green Pass for vaccinated. They change restrictions based on the situation but things like concerts, restaurants and other public gatherings can be restricted if you don’t have one.

            1. So, despite vaccines, lockdowns, and passports COVID persists...

          2. Did the Chinese engineer this thing to keep mutating? I’m not saying they did, but I wouldn’t tout it as them.

            1. ‘Put it past them’

      2. Two weeks to slow the spread!

        1. Right. Quote something that was said back before we had vaccines.

          1. Keep moving the goal posts to justify government tyranny Mikey

          2. Just pointing out that the medical experts have said a lot of things during this (don't wear a mask, asymptomatic spread doesn't drive pandemics, sanitize every surface, you must maintain six feet of distance, etc.) and they've contradicted a lot of it later.

            #thescience seems to evolve in all aspects... except this one. *This time* they know with absolute certainty that the vaccine is perfect. Like the doctor (obviously an uneducated quack) said in the article, "[T]he reality is they are overstepping the certainty of the science..."

      3. "It does significantly decrease the spread" No that has proved to be NOT TRUE!

          1. You were given a half dozen examples above dummy.

      4. Evidence is stronger that natural immunity from infection is better than that provided by the Jab. For those who are not at risk of dying from or being hospitalized by COVID it is very reasonable to skip the risk of the Jab and for those previously infected they are many times better off to avoid the risk of the jab.

        1. What risk of the jab is this? Millions of people have received the vaccines, and there have been almost no serious side effects.

            1. Sure

              Myocarditis is a potential side effect from the mRNA vaccines. It is almost always self limited. The incidence is 12.5 per 1 million doses.

        2. "Abstract
          Not all persons recovering from severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection develop SARS-CoV-2–specific antibodies. ....
          Recent studies revealed that seropositive persons have a heightened antibody response after the first, but not the second, dose of an mRNA vaccine, suggesting that a single dose is sufficient (11–13; Samanovic et al., unpub. data, Link). ...
          Finally, RT-PCR positive persons who experienced COVID-19 symptoms might be less inclined to seek vaccination, believing they are protected, but our results caution against this assumption."

          The Israeli study - based on a review of records, not controlled experimentation - also found that those unvaccinated who had developed Covid benefitted from getting a vaccine afterwards.

          Conclusion? Get your shot!

      5. There is plenty of supporting evidence that the vaccine increases the spread.

        1. And some suggested evidence it increases the variants.

            1. You were given cites above dummy.

        2. There is zero evidence outside of videos made by internet influencers with a degree in music theory.

        3. Plenty. Can I see it?

          Don’t give me a news article.

      6. It does not. What a liar.

  16. Anniversaries are the perfect time to remember why we are there. Remember why we keep trying, why we care so much and why we want to keep doing it. It's finding your reflection in the eyes of the person you love and realizing the smile in your face.
    It is a moment to look back on time and see the road traveled with all the willingness to keep walking that same stretch, to keep walking by their side.

  17. mandates for EUA drugs are illegal but who cares about that shit.

    1. Pfizer has received full approval. It is not operating under an EUA.

  18. The vaccine requires everyone to stop covid.

  19. Everywhere I've lived has required a series of vaccinations for public school. This vaccine isn't any different.

    1. Every word you just uttered is incorrect, and I don't even know where you have lived. There are numerous exceptions for childhood vaccines and this one is dramatically different, starting with how insignificant the disease is to children, how rapidly the vaccine was developed, how little it had been tested on children and the technology behind the vaccine.

  20. Vaccines should NEVER be mandatory. Although there have been vaccine mandates by government schools, there is often a simple option of getting an exemption. With the current pervasive authoritarian fervor, I doubt that there will be easy to get an exemption.

    There are a lot of unknowns with Covid-19 and the various vaccines. The "Experts" often contradict themselves and in my opinion for political reasons rather than strictly science.

    I'm assuming that Covid-19 does not have a guidance system it uses to target only the middle and lower classes of citizens. If we look at the rich and powerful there are two sets of rules or rather one set of rules that only middle and lower classes have to follow and the rich and powerful get a pass.

    The decision of what substances and put into your body is a personal decision.

    If the CDC, NIH, FDS and the other alphabet agencies want citizens to get the vaccine, then they need to make the case. Not by suppressing the discussion which will only indicate that there must be something that the alphabet agencies are hiding.

    Leading by example, so instead of congress exempting themselves and staff as they typically do. Make the same laws apply to themselves. Quit carving out special rights and padding your own pockets.

    When there are possible treatment options, don't discount them out of hand, but instead do actual science and study the possible treatment option without a preconceived bias.

    We are seeing the creation of a new theology that is anti-science, while claiming to follow the science. That is anti-freedom, claiming that freedom is overrated and being protected and swaddled by government is more preferable. That allows dissenting opinions as long as the opinions fall into line with the current narrative.

    Vaccines should NEVER be mandatory. The decision to take a vaccine should and ALWAYS should be a personal decision that an individual makes for themselves.

    1. Uomo, you are not in danger of being hogtied and shot up with vaccines, so cut the drama. However, if you don't go get your shot, the rest of society is under no obligation to allow you full access to activities where you can easily spread your cooties.

      Get the shot. There is no rational basis for not doing so.

      1. Define - "the rest of society".. "the rest of society" has ZERO business inside my home, in my shop or any property I own.

        1. TJJ, I don't think anyone wants inside your house if you haven't committed any crimes.

          1. ... And yet; "the rest of society" just keeps showing up.. By their own will taking the 'risk'. Vaccinating isn't the responsibility of everyone else.

            As someone else stated perfectly... It isn't everyone else's job to protect you from nature.. That is your job. You can be as obsessive compulsive as YOU want or as careless as YOU want; and the YOU will be completely responsible for those choices. NOT someone else.

      2. Society has no right to exclude me from any of these activities.

        1. Michael, actually the SC decided 1905 that you can be excluded from activities for not getting a vaccine.

          1. And in 1857 the SC decided that black people could never be citizens of the US. They get shit wrong sometimes.

  21. No, it is not good policy. Next question.

  22. Take your freedom, shove it up your ass, and go live in the woods then.

    The rest of us in society long ago decided that vaccine mandates were fine for school. sarcasmic basically nailed it, yet again.

    1. ^When the Nazi's start to claim the USA as theirs.

    2. Take your "safety", shove it up your ass, and go live under your bed then.

    3. By the way, are you sarc? Because he didn't nail anything. He pointed out that we have vaccine mandates for vaccines that have long track records of success, not vaccines that are less than a year old.

      1. Ajsloss, the SC ruling made no such stipulation and the fact is that with hundreds of millions of doses given out the vaccines are proven both safe and effective. That's just the simple facts.

  23. I believe the specific problem this article complains about is not a problem of vaccine mandates: it's a problem of "public schools".

    I believe those who pretend to be acting out of concern for the well being of others, are often liars: their primary concern is getting and keeping power over other humans. And that includes power over what other people's children are taught - which, I believe, is the main reason those others love public education.

    I believe the best way to address the "public school vaccine" problem is to address the "public school" problem. Vaccine mandates are but one small part of the "public school" problem. I do not believe we should turn our children over to "government indoctrination".

    My conceptual approach would be to seek a result controlled by the same logic as the "freedom of religion" concept: basically, get the government - at every level - out of education.

    I do not believe that the government can get away with mandating that non-public schools "force" their students to be vaccinated (nor do I believe that the government can prevent non-public schools from mandating vaccination).

  24. She has been over weight but last month she started to take these t new supplements and she has lost 40 pounds so far.

    Take a look at the site here……….

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.