06/16/08
Boulder liberals: Not just stupid about economics
I realize the topic of today's note is rather far from my usual fare, but the subject occurred to me because of the combination of it being Father's Day (as I'm writing, not as you're reading) and seeing an article in my wife's current issue of Parents Magazine.
Boulder County, where I live, has, I am told, the nation's highest percentage of college graduates (but not of people with graduate degrees). It also has Colorado's lowest rate of children who get all the recommended vaccinations and, according to my pediatrician although I haven't verified it, one of the lowest vaccination rates in the nation. Yes, you read that right: One of the most highly educated communities in the world is one of the most likely places to find a parent willing to risk his child's life.
This isn't a new problem. Atlantic Monthly had an article about 6 years ago discussing how about half of the kids in a local private school weren't fully immunized and showing the rather remarkable disregard in this rather insanely liberal community toward the danger posed by not protecting children.
This quote was a jaw-dropper:
To many in Boulder, endemic pertussis is no cause for alarm. Shining Mountain's director, Robert Schiappacasse, says that his daughter, who had been immunized, got whooping cough but suffered no lasting effects. He became a little concerned, he told me, when the baby of one of the school's secretaries "coughed himself into a hernia" after visiting the school during an outbreak. Still, "parents here," Schiappacasse said, apparently including himself in the category, "are more likely to be worried about fumes from a new carpet than they are about any infectious disease."
Boulderites are the types who believe anything Al Gore says and assume that anything which is produced by any business larger than a commune must be inherently evil. They believe every bit of junk science hysteria, in this case the totally unfounded claims that vaccinations cause autism. Earth to Boulder: They don't, and you're risking your kids' lives on your superstition. More importantly, you're risking my kids' lives because, as that last quote suggests, it is possible for even an immunized child to catch the particular disease.
Immunizations work best when you create "herd immunity", as discussed in the article linked above. When even a few members of the herd become susceptible to the disease, they put the whole herd at risk.
It's not just an old story. A NY Times article from March of this year discusses an outbreak of measles in San Diego caused by parents there using an "exemption" based on personal views rather than religion to avoid complying with state law regarding vaccination.
As a libertarian, I have very mixed feelings about this. People clearly have the right to harm themselves. The question of risking their children's lives is not nearly as easy a call, given that government has a higher level of responsibility to protect kids than adults, but even there I would probably defer to the parents if that were the end of the story. The problem is that it isn't the end of the story because their not vaccinating their children causes a true public health risk. Therefore, as much as it pains me to suggest regulation of almost any sort, I would support a law which doesn't require a parent to immunize but doesn't allow a non-immunized child into any school.
The attitude of Boulderites caused my pediatrician to ask very gingerly if we planned on vaccinating our children, to which I responded "Do I look like an idiot?". The anti-vaccination views are all the more infuriating because they are based on nothing. The "science" behind the connection between vaccinations and autism is even weaker...far weaker...than that behind global warming, and of course you all know that I believe "global warming" is a hoax.
Indeed, according to this excellent article in Parents, the study which caused much of the current idiocy had only 12 patients in it!
So, please pardon my digression from politics as I write on this Father's Day, but as a father of two young children, the idiocy of Boulder liberals is driving me crazy. It's one thing to risk our economy with their econo-moronic support of leftist politicians, but it's another thing to risk our kids' lives because of a superstition.
[For those of you who find this article because you're searching for information on vaccinations, this part of the Parents series on vaccines is quite good.]
16 comments
Leaving aside for the moment the question of parents having the right to refuse vaccination (being a bleeding heart liberal, I call this child neglect and it's illegal), keeping an unvaccinated kid out of school isn't enough. That kid is still going to be coughing in malls and parks and ski slopes and churches.
Now. "The question of risking their children's lives is not nearly as easy a call, given that government has a higher level of responsibility to protect kids than adults,..." Right. I couldn't have said it better. Let's extend that protection to food and medical care and heating oil, which some parents can't supply to their children.
The level of hunger in this country is minimal as is the level of people without health insurance despite the bogus statistics that the liberals throw at us all the time. Furthermore, lack of health insurance is NOT the same as lack of access to medical care. I should know, I was uninsured for years but still got treatment when I needed it.
And just make sure that a religious objection remains a viable option.
I don't condone it, but I can't see forcing Christian Scientists into vaccinating their children.
I don't think the debate on this topic is as cut-and-dried as you say it is - and it's not 'totally unfounded' as you claim. Why are so many more kids becoming autistic today than there used to be?
From the research I've done, there are a lot of questions about the scientific validity of the use of mercury and thimerosal in children's vaccines, and whether kids should be forced to get shots with these vaccines.
Contrary to popular belief, there are NO laws on the books that require parents to vaccinate their kids. Schools use scare tactics (and outright lie) about this so-called requirement.
Check out these links for more info:
http://www.infowars.net/articles/july2007/200707Mercury.htm
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/october2004/201004mercuryinchildhood.htm
Here's an excerpt from the first link:
Mercury expert Dr. Boyd Haley of the University of Kentucky has testified before Congress and the Pentagon as well as the FDA as one of the nation's leading experts on Thimerosal and mercury poisoning, revealing that his research leads him to believe that some children are genetically predisposed to storing mercury in their brains, leading to neurological disorders, including autism.
The combination of the Hepatitis B vaccine and the HiB vaccine more than doubled the amount of mercury in children in the 90s. "If you take a ten-pound baby in, and it gets four shots on that one day, which is a common practice - that's equivalent to giving a 100-pound person forty shots in one day," said Haley.
You give a little credit to the anti-vaccine side, but you almost sound like a shill for vaccine companies.
I believe the Thimerosal scare has been thoroughly disproven. Furthermore, even if you believed the claims, the idea that you'd risk not only your own child but dozens or hundreds of others on the much higher chance of getting a bad disease if not immunized than of having a problem from a vaccine is outrageous.
If I sound like a "shill for vaccine companies" it's because I think the "anti-vaccine" side is not only stupid, but highly dangerous. This is not something on which I think "reasonable people can disagree".
From whence comes this?
Children are not creatures of the state on loan to their parents conditional on their parents good behavior. Already vocal or large (hard to tell which) minorities believe some parent's religion and politics to be child abuse.
In Canada, which many Boulderals believe to be a paradise second only the EU, children have been taken from their parents because their parents were teaching wrong thought.
If a warning from the future isn't enough, note that Aboriginals in both Canada and Australia had their children taken from them to be educated away from their culture, an act for which both governments are forever apologizing.
If Boulder liberals are the modern Amish, let them and their children be in sickness and in health.
By the way, a very large percentage of the people living up in neighboring Gilpin county are on the LEAP program (Low income energy assistance program) which assists or fully pays energy bills.
Note that:
"Because neither vaccination nor infection confers long-term immunity, infection of adolescents and adults is also common[4] Most adults and adolescents who become infected with Bordetella pertussis have been vaccinated or infected years previously. When there is residual immunity from previous infection or immunization, symptoms may be milder, such as a prolonged cough without the other classic symptoms of pertussis. Nevertheless, infected adults and adolescents can transmit the bacteria to susceptible individuals."
What this means for unmedically trained republican bloggers... VACCINATION doesn't confer immunity... nor does getting pertussis. So an argument could be made NOT to get the vaccination.
Note also: The reason penicillin and other drugs are becoming LESS effective is because they're used way too much to treat minor stuff. So the same argument can be used in this case.
I'd real your blog on Oil economics... but I am sure without looking it would say drilling in ANWAR would solve all our problems right away.
But oh lookie... using less is solving our problem even quicker! What a concept! Don't drive a massive tank Hummer and take the bus and look what happens! OMG
Simply because one of the many diseases against which we can be vaccinated doesn't have permanent immunity due to the vaccine does not mean that we shouldn't get vaccinated in general.
What possible upside is there from not vaccinating?
Vaccination does indeed confer substantial immunity, even if not perfect. Your argument is like saying that soldiers shouldn't wear body armor because there's a chance the bullet will hit somewhere else. It's simply an illogical position to take.
No good argument can be made not to get the vaccination. Although I am not an MD, I have spoken to several about the issue and not one of them thinks there is any rational argument against vaccination.
I completely agree that antibiotics are overused, especially when people get colds and other viruses which don't respond to antibiotics...and which therefore simply lead to increasing resistance among bacteria. But that has NOTHING to do with vaccinations. The arguments are not the same and not relevant. I am not aware of vaccinations causing resistant strains, but even if it were to happen occasionally the risk/reward calculation still falls clearly to the side of getting vaccinated as the best choice.
Bottom line, your arguments about vaccination are all either wrong, irrelevant, or illogical. But thanks for playing.
As for oil, I don't think that drilling in ANWR will solve all our problems, but I do think any and all new oil exploration will be helpful and will lower oil prices far in advance of the arrival of any new oil. Anybody who trades or invests knows that to be true (all else being equal, of course.)
And finally, regarding conservation, I'm all for it. But I don't want to be forced by government to have to drive a lawnmower with doors if I'm willing to pay the cost of driving a Hummer. In any case, I'm glad that you admit that it's fundamentals primarily behind the cost of fuel rather than speculators or evil energy companies. Most liberals don't admit that.
Of course this is completely incorrect... and you completely glossed over the fact that bacterial strains become immune due to our overuse of medications to treat minor ailments (known medical fact).
Now combining your comments on oil "But I don't want to be forced by government to have to drive a lawnmower with doors if I'm willing to pay the cost of driving a Hummer." The same holds true for vaccinations.... I don't want to government to tell me whether I should or shouldn't have a vaccination if I believe there is a risk to my child or myself, however small with an affiction that is lifelong.
Of course I know Michael Savage says it's all just fakers and that the kids should have the snot beat out of em'...
I'll repeat it for you: "I completely agree that antibiotics are overused, especially when people get colds and other viruses which don't respond to antibiotics...and which therefore simply lead to increasing resistance among bacteria. But that has NOTHING to do with vaccinations. The arguments are not the same and not relevant. I am not aware of vaccinations causing resistant strains, but even if it were to happen occasionally the risk/reward calculation still falls clearly to the side of getting vaccinated as the best choice."
What I said was that it's irrelevant to the discussion of vaccinations.
As I said, your comment was irrelevant to the issue at hand.
I didn't say the government should force you to get your kid vaccinated. I simply suggest that if you choose not to get your kid vaccinated, then your child should not be allowed to attend a school.
I have no idea what Michael Savage (whom I don't like) has to do with any of this.
You write like a college student...are you?
Michael Savage "On his nationally syndicated radio show, Michael Savage claimed that autism is "[a] fraud, a racket. ... I'll tell you what autism is. In 99 percent of the cases, it's a brat who hasn't been told to cut the act out. That's what autism is."
The OMG and writing like a college student is purely for effect but I love being insulted as it means I got the point across.
I have heard about Savage and autism. While I think autism and other less severe problems like ADD and ADHD are wildly over-diagnosed and are probably just kids being kids or the results of bad parenting with some substantial frequency, real autism is a real problem for the whole family.
You really didn't get your point across because everything you said about vaccinations was wrong, and I agreed with you on your statement about antibiotics and resistance, but it was irrelevant to the topic.
And it was more of an observation than an insult...most of us were college students at some point.
Of course I can go down that road. Do you think liberals like paying taxes? Perhaps you listen to too much propaganda. I certainly don't like paying taxes... while tax breaks are given to oil companies making record profits. I don't like paying for bogus military programs like the Zumwalt DDG-1000 destroyer (estimated cost $ 5 billion per copy, used to be only aircraft carriers cost that much)... I don't like paying ridiculous bills for a war that didn't need to happen (Iraq) when Afghanistan is where the Taliban and Osama are. I don't like paying taxes for my congress critters having health care (you'd think the republicans would turn it down as socialist but you never hear that do you?) while I don't.
Frankly though... if you look at the national debt increase since Bush took office maybe you'd realize at some point/somehow the bill will come due. How else is it going to be paid for except taxes?
In response to vaccinations... well I don't think I am wrong and I think it's completely relevant but your entitled to your opinion.
As for not paying for something you don't use... well I would support that if you'd support the same thing for police, fire, national defense and our system of government. See there... we solved all the problems of the world we just eliminated the entire concept the country was founded on. "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
"
Comment feed for this postLeave a comment
