Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Routine vaccinations drop among U.S. kindergartners for the third year in a row

statnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 234 posts

Re: Routine vaccinations drop among U.S. kindergartners for the third year in a row

#221

Post by 0dayz »

fdschoeneman wrote: post #141
watwut wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it is fault of those who push against vaccines super hard for political reasons. It is absurd to blame anyone else at the point where we are. There are groups who are intentionally trying to convince people to not vaccinate. When people listen to them, it is theor fault.

There are some crazy anti vaxxers who are responsible for some of this, but those people were doing their crazy before the pandemic. While they may account for some of this vaccination rate reduction, it's unlikely to account for all of it. Governments worldwide, Joe Biden, his administration, Fauci in particular and the CDC, and all the vaccine makers lied. Some of the lies were big and some were small but so many o…

Lots of accusations with no proof... Why make such a long winded post empty of proof!

Re: Routine vaccinations drop among U.S. kindergartners for the third year in a row

#222

Post by [deleted] »

0dayz wrote: post #221
fdschoeneman wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are some crazy anti vaxxers who are responsible for some of this, but those people were doing their crazy before the pandemic. While they may account for some of this vaccination rate reduction, it's unlikely to account for all of it. Governments worldwide, Joe Biden, his administration, Fauci in particular and the CDC, and all the vaccine makers lied. Some of the lies were big and some were small but so many o…

Lots of accusations with no proof... Why make such a long winded post empty of proof!

[deleted]

Re: Routine vaccinations drop among U.S. kindergartners for the third year in a row

#223

Post by fidgewidge »

rscho wrote: post #207
fidgewidge wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"It's been known for decades, and knowing that is part of my job" Mmm yeah not surprised, was already thinking your posts sounded just like the sort of things public health people say. But that didn't answer the question. How do you know? "Most public health interventions do not make money [ - ] so COVID can't be generalized to other interventions at all" That's a non-sequitur. Nobody mentioned money or corporations…

Well, you already reached your own conclusions, but you see the reason why I focused on corporations is a) Pfizer making money is an extremely common critic regarding the COVID situation, at least around here, and b) the objection you were formulating was up to now unclear to me, so I unconsciously focused on the most common one. I never thought you were making a purely political statement, because in my mind, this p…

I live in Europe and don't come from America, so don't kid yourself that this is some alien way of thinking. Europe is full of people with the exact same views. The destruction of trust is global.

I notice you never answered how you know the 60% figure is accurate, given others haven't been.

"I don't think the academic/medical arm of public health has a political agenda."

You're surrounded by it so you can't see it, but to the rest of us it's obvious and extreme. In the UK one prominent epidemiologist turned out to be dating someone in Extinction Rebellion and another is a member of the Communist Party. Both were advising the government, nobody within public health thought there was anything strange about that, let alone a problem. The WHO blindly trusted everything from China, and when the BLM protests/riots happened where was the uproar from public health? Nowhere - lockdowns had been essential but suddenly protests mattered more, unless you were protesting against public health policies in which case, those protests were somehow still too dangerous to allow.

Public health is nothing but politics and ideology. We all got taught that in the harshest way possible.

"got backlash about everything they guessed wrong"

They got backlash for lying, like having no clue what they were doing yet claiming their understanding was perfect and their predictions were guaranteed to happen, even that millions would die if their instructions weren't followed exactly. If they had admitted up front they didn't know how to predict epidemics and then shut up, they'd face far less hostility today. If they'd done these things in the private sector they'd be in prison. Just look at Elizabeth Holmes to see.

Re: Routine vaccinations drop among U.S. kindergartners for the third year in a row

#224

Post by notahacker »

xdennis wrote: post #211
notahacker wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's make the exceptionally charitable assumption that you are asking this question in good faith... Nobody that listened to public health experts ever "hated" masks. But initially, they didn't rush out to buy masks because the advice was to prioritise isolating the infected, social distancing for everyone else and clean hands to avoid [overestimated risk of] contact transmission, and not to rely on masks to protect…

You're re-writing history. The existence of airborne diseases has been known for hundreds of years, and masks have been used for more than a hundred. In Asia they were using masks from the start, just like they did with the original SARS. But with this second SARS doctors/WHO were saying that surgical masks had no effect and that Asians don't know what they're doing. Then, masks not only had no effect, they were bad…

I love the irony of being lectured about "rewriting history" from someone arguing that the WHO adopted the position that "Asians don't know what they're doing" and "masks not only had no effect, they were bad for you"...

Re: Routine vaccinations drop among U.S. kindergartners for the third year in a row

#225

Post by Nextgrid »

SangareEel wrote: post #168
Nextgrid wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A vaccine we know doesn't prevent infection, transmission, sickness or death. The data doesn't support this. Of course you could say that the data has been tampered with, but so could be whatever data you use to "know" that the vaccine doesn't work. The vaccine could work better for sure (and maybe future ones will), but beggars can't be choosers and even if it was only 10% effective it would be better than nothing…

[flagged]

I’m not convinced because my point still stands - a vaccine sounds like the worst possible way to achieve ethnic cleansing, especially considering the same vaccine is distributed to everyone regardless of race. Why not put the poison in the water supply, or food, cigarettes or alcohol supply chains which nobody thinks twice about consuming?

Re: Routine vaccinations drop among U.S. kindergartners for the third year in a row

#226

Post by croon »

generalizations wrote: post #200
knaik94 wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suggest you look into laws surrounding medical neglect of children. The first part of my comment was general, and is specifically describing this very type of parent, but not taken to an extreme. As far as my state laws go "A parent who denies their child vital and necessary medical treatment faces the following consequences: • Loss of custody. The child is taken to state custody for protection if the parent is fou…

I'm familiar with those laws. The problem is that those laws can be invoked in ways that harm the child, just as easily as they can be invoked to prevent harm. You both are focusing on situations where the parent is abusive. I'm looking at situations where the parents are genuinely caring for the child, and the state invokes those laws to the detriment of the child . I mean, it's too bad that the Ninth Circuit had to…

As an observer reading this exchange, this is my take:

> You both are focusing on situations where the parent is abusive. I'm looking at situations where the parents are genuinely caring for the child

A(n ignorant) parent can absolutely genuinely care for the child, and yet abuse them with medical neglect if they've been brainwashed into thinking that (some) medical care is bad, even when it's not. That's what is being discussed here.

> As I pointed out earlier - what happens when the parent is well-educated, and knows better than to allow some treatment for the child, but the state decides otherwise and forces something that harms the child? This is the risk which we run when we allow the state to have final say.

I think the bigger question is which risk is larger, that the parent is right or a state employing experts. I'm sure both risks exist, I'm not sure both are even remotely as likely and thus as dangerous. [0]

[0] https://www.forbes.com/sites/carlieporterfield/2022/12/26/oh...

Re: Routine vaccinations drop among U.S. kindergartners for the third year in a row

#227

Post by notahacker »

Izkata wrote: post #219
notahacker wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's make the exceptionally charitable assumption that you are asking this question in good faith... Nobody that listened to public health experts ever "hated" masks. But initially, they didn't rush out to buy masks because the advice was to prioritise isolating the infected, social distancing for everyone else and clean hands to avoid [overestimated risk of] contact transmission, and not to rely on masks to protect…

> The recommendation changed (pretty quickly, based on stronger evidence of aerosol transmission and This is not only backwards, it is hilariously so: Aerosol transmission was only partially accepted a year or more after the mask push. People still resist it even now. The whole reason masks were supposed to work was the assumption that it was entirely droplet transmission. The people who believed it was aerosol sprea…

Funny that, because I can find references to likely aerosol transmission and the assumption that cloth masks would reduce aerosol transmission to a small degree in the early 2020 minutes of the body that later recommended mask mandates (on the basis reducing stuff to a small degree is important when reducing pandemic spread...) in my country

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...

Not all aerosol particles are the same size, and particles don't have to be smaller than holes they pass through for a grid of fibre to obstruct a significant proportion of them. The change in guidance wasn't a conclusion masks were a panacea, they were a reflection that even a small degree of protection was better than no protection in a situation where existing measures weren't slowing its spread fast enough.

The people who were against masking on principle by and large didn't care what degree it reduced it by, because they just didn't want to be told to wear masks.

Re: Routine vaccinations drop among U.S. kindergartners for the third year in a row

#228

Post by ominous »

eesmith wrote: post #215
ominous wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you agree with every single traffic light in every single circunstance (place, and your timing)? Moreover, do you agree with every future traffic light that will ever be placed?

My disagreements with a traffic light placement so far have not been based on a don't-tread-on-me sense of The Man treading on my free will. For example, I strongly prefer a modern roundabout for many of the places where the US uses a stop sign or traffic light. But my argument is made on increased safety and improved traffic flow. I once accidentally ran a red light because I got confused about which traffic light w…

> So while I'm certain that someone, somewhere ran a red light because of moral outrage over repressive government, that's not main reason people run a red light.

So you agree coercion causes pushback. A bit tricky to get that out of you. Thank you for the exchange.

Re: Routine vaccinations drop among U.S. kindergartners for the third year in a row

#229

Post by eesmith »

ominous wrote: post #228
eesmith wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My disagreements with a traffic light placement so far have not been based on a don't-tread-on-me sense of The Man treading on my free will. For example, I strongly prefer a modern roundabout for many of the places where the US uses a stop sign or traffic light. But my argument is made on increased safety and improved traffic flow. I once accidentally ran a red light because I got confused about which traffic light w…

> So while I'm certain that someone, somewhere ran a red light because of moral outrage over repressive government, that's not main reason people run a red light. So you agree coercion causes pushback. A bit tricky to get that out of you. Thank you for the exchange.

Like I said, your point is "so high-level and abstract as to be useless."

I expect far more people have run a red light because they were texting than as pushback against coercion.

It appears far more kids have failed to receive their MMR shots due to pandemic-related interruptions in children’s medical visits than parental pushback against coercion.

Re: Routine vaccinations drop among U.S. kindergartners for the third year in a row

#230

Post by ominous »

eesmith wrote: post #229
ominous wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So while I'm certain that someone, somewhere ran a red light because of moral outrage over repressive government, that's not main reason people run a red light. So you agree coercion causes pushback. A bit tricky to get that out of you. Thank you for the exchange.

Like I said, your point is "so high-level and abstract as to be useless." I expect far more people have run a red light because they were texting than as pushback against coercion. It appears far more kids have failed to receive their MMR shots due to pandemic-related interruptions in children’s medical visits than parental pushback against coercion.

> Like I said, your point is "so high-level and abstract as to be useless."

It is not useless. It tells you coercion, if applied to fix these other reasons, could be counterproductive.

Post reply on HN