Mandatory Pertussis Vaccine in California

This post was inspired by and mostly taken from a thread that was started from a friend's FB status.  She wanted to know how others felt about the mandatory pertussis booster requirement to be in California public schools.  I know I'm a hippie, but I've always made myself very clear on the topic of vaccines in this blog and in other venues.  Indeed, I feel the need to educate others by any means necessary to get the message across that vaccines are vitally important.

I've come to the conclusion that most people grossly misunderstand vaccines.  They either think that it's not necessary because the illnesses prevented "aren't that big of a deal" or they think that it isn't necessary to expose their children to "toxins" because enough other people vaccinate their kids.  How do I feel on the mandatory pertussis vaccine requirement in public schools?  Come on, can't you guess?

I am strongly libertarian.  That is, I strongly believe in individual rights and would prefer to live with very little interference or so-called assistance from the government.  Certainly much less interference/assistance than is currently experienced in modern US society.

I chafe under many government-mandated requirements.  It seems that a day doesn't go by that I'm shaking my tiny fist of impotent rage at some dumb requirement that the government has determined is necessary.  Seatbelts, carseats, and helmets are but three examples of requirements that I think are ridiculous.  Understand that I'm not saying that I wouldn't use them if it weren't the law (actually, I wouldn't put a helmet on my son when he's on a bicycle if I had a choice), but I am irritated that the govt says you HAVE to use these safeguards. 

I'm further irritated when the government has safeguards in place to protect the individual, but not society at large.  Choosing not to vaccinate has far worse implications and can injure far more than just the one refusing the vaccine whereas choosing not to use a seatbelt (in the event of an accident) only can injure the one refusing to use it.  Yet, somehow, the government is more concerned about the health of the individual versus the health of society.  Does that make sense?

I think this analogy illustrates my thoughts on vaccines in general:  You certainly have the right to swing your fist to and fro.  However, your right to swing your fist ends at my face.  You have the right to willfully choose to do things that could be damaging to yourself or your children.  However, your right to do those things (or, more accurately, refuse those things), ends when it can be damaging to me or my children.  And, make no mistake, refusing vaccinations has the potential to impact more than just those who refuse.

Of course, it is only my opinion that vaccines should be mandatory for even enrolling in school.  We all know what they say about opinions, right?  An uninformed opinion is like a sapling, it bends in whichever direction the strongest wind is blowing, so I am going to offer up the actual reasons why I have an opinion that so wildly is at odds with my personal political philosophy.

* * *

Let's look briefly at how vaccines work.  First, it's important to realize and accept that there is no vaccine that has 100% efficacy rates.  That means that even one who has received all of their shots still has a chance (slim, but it's there) of getting the illness they were vaccinated against. Generally speaking, it's a much milder case, but the risk is still there.

Also, it's important to realize that vaccines work on the premise of herd immunity.  If everyone were vaccinated against an illness, it would cease to exist.  Think I'm just making that up?  The very last known case of smallpox was in 1977.  How did smallpox get wiped off the face of the Earth?  Through a massive world-wide vaccination campaign.  Smallpox was only eradicated by 100% herd immunity! 

The flip side to the awesomeness that is herd immunity is that once we get a certain percentage of people not vaccinated, watch out!

On vaccines in general, I kinda think they have worked altogether too well. No one remembers a time when people (often children) where stricken, disfigured, crippled, or killed from what are now pretty much entirely preventable diseases. Or a time when most families had at least one child who was injured or died from an illness that we have the ability to prevent today!

Even illnesses that aren't generally thought to be a big deal can absolutely be a big deal.  Take chicken pox.  I know someone who won't vax their child against chicken pox because "it's no big deal." I guess she's never known anyone who was left with a scarred up face from it or, worse, someone who has died from it/it's accompanying fever. On varicella (the virus that causes chicken pox), most people don't realize that you are NEVER totally free from the virus because it lives dormant in your nervous system. Ever heard of shingles? It's extremely painful and is what happens when varicella is somehow reactivated later in life. Naturally, my son received his varicella vaccination to spare him any suffering from an initial outbreak of chicken pox or the possibility of future pain from shingles in his later years.

The worst part of refusing vaccination is that herd immunity only works when the vast majority of the herd is vaccinated because it doesn't allow an illness to get a toehold in society.  And who is injured the most when the herd's immunity is diminished?  Who are the ones who suffer when a large enough percentage of people refuse vaccinations?  The most vulnerable members of society.  The sick, the old, and the very young; cancer patients, HIV/AIDS patients, those with any autoimmune diseases, grandparents (& some of our parents), newborns.  Remember that vaccines do not carry efficacy rates of 100% and these people are counting on the rest of us to get our vaccines!

* * *

I think the reason they are pushing pertussis in California right now is because of the amount of infants who were stricken and died last year. I remember reading that, although the number seemed small to me (of course, it wouldn't seem that way to me if it were my own infant who died), it was the highest number of whopping cough deaths in some number of years. If memory serves, they have to be at least two months old before even beginning their series on that one so they are completely vulnerable (less so if breastfeeding, but still vulnerable) until at least 2 months of age.  If you expect to be around any infants, do that child a favor and get your Pertussis booster to help protect the lil' one.

I'm guessing that the reason they are pushing it on school kids is because education is mandatory so there's less chance of falling through the cracks and avoiding it. But ideally we all would keep up on our vaccine boosters and we certainly should if we will be around any young infants.

* * *

I've read that I'm excessively verbose on this topic.  I guess it's because I read and hear so much faulty information that I think most people don't understand any of this.  I'm not trying to impose my will on anyone, but I'm trying to explain the "why" in a way that makes sense to those who don't want to do the research for themselves. 

And, yes, it should just be your choice. Unfortunately, parental choices as it relates to vaccines can threaten the general public.  Parental freedom is infringed upon all the time and this is one of the rare cases where I believe that the government needs to make a mandate.  Frankly, I wish they'd made the vaccines mandatory years ago so it would simply be second nature now, just like wearing seatbelts, because not vaccinating threatens a helluva lot more people than just yourself and you're the only one who suffers if you get in an accident while not wearing a seatbelt.

If a parent doesn't care that their own child might suffer due to a preventable illness because "it's no big deal" or they believe in a fraudulent study and discredited researcher linking vaccines to autism, that's their business.  But it is absolutely my business if my child may suffer due to your choices.  Remember the swinging fist analogy?  Choosing not to vaccinate your child can end with my child getting hit in the face by your decision and that is why I am so passionate on this topic.

Feel free to comment and debate on this, but do back it up with facts and not simply opinion or fears.  I do have strong opinions on the topic, but I'm not unreasonable and am willing to change my views in light of new facts.  But do note that anecdotes, while usually profoundly sad, are not facts.  And play nice with each other. . .none of us intentionally wants to harm their children so personal attacks aren't necessary or welcomed.

Shall We Spark a Doob on November 2?

What has me all up in arms over politics right now?  Well, besides the racist attack Loretta Sanchez made against Van Tran and the other Vietnamese immigrants who reside in her district?  Prop 19, of course.

Proposition 19, for my non-Californian friends, is going to legalize marijuana in this state.  Yeah, I've only voted Republican since I was 18-years old. . .save once when I could not bring myself to vote for either candidate.  Yeah, I more closely align myself with conservative versus liberal values.  Yeah, I'm middle-aged, middle-class, and a mother.  I'm married to Captain freaking America and I'm Ms. Law & freaking Order.  How do you assume I feel about Prop 19?

I probably don't feel the way you think I do.

I'll get to that in a moment, but I will assume that we all can agree that prohibitions do not work with much success.  That is, they do not stop the populace from wanting the prohibited product.  Indeed, prohibitions often simply serve to criminalize large swaths of the population.

Based on the numerous lame Propositions that Californians have approved, the voters of this state seem like they aren't worthy of the right to vote.  However, that's merely my opinion. . .apparently this broke-ass state really does require light rail from LA to San Francisco.  It's not like you can fly, take Amtrak, or (worst case scenario) drive their own vehicle, right?  And let's not even start with the gay marriage stuff.

Back to the topic at hand, I say legalize it.  I say legalize all so-called "drugs."  I say let the populace be adults and decide what substances they want to use recreationally.  But I also say to tax and restrict it's use and sell, much like alcohol and tobacco are taxed and restricted.  That means restrict where it can be used, who it can be sold to, and who can sell it.

For the record, I don't have any problem with consenting adults choosing to use alcohol or cigarettes either.  But I do support restrictions of use based on age.  I would also support such a restriction on weed or any other controlled substance.  I realize that age restrictions do not stop all usage by minors, but I do think usage is somewhat limited by such restrictions.  I'm not going to be all sanctimonious here, I had a lot of "fun" with recreational drugs at one time, but developing bodies probably should not be abused by mind-altering substances.

What does legalization do?  Legalization removes much of the black market and crime associated with prohibition.  As a bonus, it would also free up "valuable" space in our incarceration facilities.  Legalization stimulates the economy.  Legalization increases tax revenue.

Keeping it illegal would do what exactly?  I'm waiting for a valid answer. . .

I don't smoke pot.  I don't snort coke.  I sure as heck don't shoot heroin.  But I don't really give a rip if some other adult wants to.  I do what I want to do with my body and you can do what you want to do with yours.

I know, I know, the GOP will revoke my voter registration. . .actually, I'm guessing that they'll take a vote wherever they think they can get it these days!!  So what do you think?  Am I right on or totally off-base?  What are your opinions on this issue?

Feelin' the Plastic Love

You know, that title actually sounds like I'll be extolling the virtues of a good vibrator or dildo.  Sadly, it really isn't a sexy post at all.



First we were told that the paper shopping bags were killing the planet.  Of course, this was back when global cooling was the great fear distracting sweeping throughout humanity, so there you go.  As a result of the environmental fear-mongering, we switched to plastic shopping bags.  Now we are being told that plastic shopping bags are killing the planet.  So we are not-so-subtly being directed to purchase reusable fabric shopping bags.  How about that!

When will we be told that reusable fabric shopping bags are killing the planet (or being manufactured by exploited third-world labor or some such evil) and we need to use something else?  What will we use to carry our groceries when that day comes?  Will our own hands and arms still be okay?  Should we hire professional grocery-carriers?  Perhaps we'll just have to walk home with our shopping cart, unload, and return the shopping cart back to the store?  I wrote the last line in jest, but it might actually be closer to the future.  After all, driving is evil and we should be walking/taking public transport/biking/blah, blah, blah.  Amidoingthisright?

I freaking hate those reusable shopping bags for a few reasons and I prefer to use plastic shopping bags when I do my marketing.  When presented with a choice, I very rarely choose paper over plastic.  I wouldn't go so far as to say that I love plastic bags, but I use them for so many different things that it's hard not to love them.

I'm fairly certain that my stance on this issue will seem surprising to some readers of this blog, but I'm happy to report that California actually got something right.  They did not choose to penalize users of plastic shopping bags.  For those of you not in the know, our esteemed legislators have been looking at a bill that would have banned plastic shopping bags or (possibly) required a surcharge to use said bags.  Our idiot Assembly passed this tripe back in June and the Senate voted it down yesterday.  I guess it is true that a stopped clock is correct at least twice each day.

Assemblywoman Brownley, D-Santa Monica (of course!), the person responsible for introducing this bill, likes to use inflammatory language to advance her agenda.  She says that plastic shopping bags are a "single use" item and she even goes so far as to call them "urban tumbleweeds."  Does this mean that most people only use these bags to carry in their groceries and then toss them in the garbage?  Really?  Where in the heck is Brownley hanging out that plastic bags are freely blowing around in the breeze?  I can't say that I've seen them in my neck of the woods, but perhaps it's a plastic bag-slinger's paradise in The People's Republic of Santa Monica?  I guess it must be all tenants from rent-controlled units. . .hm.

I find it unintentionally hilarious that she said yesterday was, "a sad day for California."  Interestingly enough, I think it would have been a far sadder day to have added yet another layer of legislation that restricts freedom of choice.  I might be something of a hippie and I might generally vote Republican, but I always will side with freedom. Don't use plastic grocery sacks if you don't want to.  I might make the sharp point that no one is trying to restrict your right to purchase a reusable woven shopping bag for toting your groceries.

Look, I do some pretty environmentally-friendly things, but I also cherish my freedom of choice in many areas of daily life - even if my choice doesn't fit an environmental-driven agenda.  I prefer reusable items to manage my menses, I choose to use cloth towels instead of paper towels, and I only use cloth napkins rather than paper napkins.  Guess what?  I also want to use plastic grocery bags. 

Why is it that certain groups want to force others to make the same choices that they do?  Actually, that's not exactly true because being forced to do something isn't really a choice at all.  Now is it?

My choices may not be your choices. I'm okay with that and it doesn't really bother me if someone else doesn't want to make the same decisions that I make.  Freedom of choice, baby, I'm always going to side with freedom of choice.

Let Love Win

If anyone should have an axe to grind against homosexuals marrying, it should be me.  Some, maybe most, of my readership realizes what I mean.  I truly believe that I would not have suffered my first marriage had homosexual acceptance been more widespread.

Note that I'm not saying to celebrate homosexuality or otherwise edify it.  I'm saying to give it the same amount of consideration as you would heterosexuality or any bedroom kink.  Which is to say, don't worry about it or think of it at all if it doesn't concern or interest you.

Understand that condeming homosexuals closets them.  Closeted people do foolish things to make themselves appear heterosexual to fit in with society.  Foolish things like marrying a sweet young woman.  Foolish things like trying to start a family with their new wife.  Foolish things like carrying on secret affairs and potentially exposing their naive wife to any number of STDs.  I can not accept a situation that leads people to so desperately deny who they are that they are willing to drag another person into their deception to make themselves look complete by society's standards.

Yesterday it was ruled that California's Prop 8 is unconstitutional. 

Once upon a time, I actually gave a crap who could or couldn't be "married."  I mistakenly thought that homosexuals could have "civil unions" and heterosexuals could have "marriage" and everything would be fine.  I kept thinking it was just a semantics issue, but I guess it wasn't.

I can admit that I was wrong.  I was totally wrong.  I mean, as we've seen time and time again, "separate, but equal" never is truly equal.  Do people really want inequality?  I know that I don't.  And, again, this is the opinion of someone who was left with major issues about homosexuals in the wake of a painful marriage and divorce.  But my personal issues don't mean that I support inequality.

What is marriage anyway?  Basically, it's forming a legally recognized partnership within a state.  Kind of like a business.  Would we ever legislate who should be allowed to go into business?  No, we wouldn't.  And the free market would revolt against the very notion of government dictating who can form a company. 

I have heard many people say that allowing homosexuals to marry would make a mockery of marriage and that we must prevent them from marrying to protect the sanctity of marriage.  I say that is complete and utter bullsh*t.  If anyone has made a mockery of marriage, it's the heterosexuals who have had the right all along.  Seriously.  We can get what basically amounts to a drive-thru wedding ceremony and we can dissolve a marriage almost as quickly.  Speaking of such things, does not divorce in general make a mockery of the very idea of marriage being sanctified? 

Personally, I look at marriage itself as a religious rite.  I really wish that the government wasn't involved in it at all.  Unfortunately, our laws and tax code are set up to encourage certain things:  homeownership, child rearing (no gay jokes, please), and marriage.  With that in mind, why can't the government just issue civil union licenses to anyone over the age of majority?  Gay, straight, polygamist (I don't have a problem with polygamy either), everyone.  Let all of these persons enjoy the same rights and benefits.  Would anyone have a legitimate objection to this?  If there is one, I just don't see it.

If the government is issuing only civil union licenses, let marriage remain a religious rite that conveys no special societal or financial perks.  Kind of like a christening or communion ceremony.  The only people who would care to participate in such a ceremony are those who are active in a denomination or those who would like to join a congregation.  This also preserves the rights of a clergy person to accept or deny a request to perform the ceremony.

Before anyone gets their panties twisted about a clergy person denying a request to perform a ceremony, understand that they can do it right now.  Indeed, the person who conducted my second wedding ceremony didn't seem all that keen to marry us because we weren't active in a church, we'd both been married previously, and we were living together.  He actually suggested that we might as well have a judge conduct our ceremony.  Over time, we joined his congregation and won him over in our pre-marital counseling sessions.  But he absolutely had the right to discriminate against us based on our history and what was then our present state.

Ultimately, if homosexuals are willing to make the same commitment that heterosexuals make, why shouldn't they be able to do so?  They should.  And, if they are willing to make the same commitment, why should they be refused the same rights and benefits?  They shouldn't be denied. 

I can't lie; I wouldn't exactly do cartwheels if my son ended up being a homosexual and I also wouldn't be thrilled if he blazed a path across the bedrooms of countless women.  But I wouldn't want him to be punished for either and I'll still love my son no matter what.

Live and let live and let love live.  Yesterday's decision wasn't a judgement against hate.  It was a victory for love.

Personal Wealth is Not an Indicator of Personal Character

I really wanted to spend some time writing this post, but I am totally beat tonight so I'll be impossibly brief.

I've heard many complain that Meg Whitman spent tens of millions of her own personal dollars to win the Republican primary for California Governor. I've heard many complain that her personal money could have or should have been put to better use for the greater good than to run an effective political campaign. I've also heard many imply that she can't possibly be a good candidate/politician (that's an oxymoron, right??) because she is fantastically wealthy.

I've read that the current President of the United States, President Obama, ran a campaign that is estimated to have cost $2.4 billion in 2008. That's BILLION with a B. Kinda makes Meg's millions look like chump change, doesn't it? I do consider personal funds and raised funds to be the same because a dollar is a dollar is a dollar. That and another dollar might get you a cup of coffee. Seriously though, does it really matter where the funds came from? It doesn't to me. Frankly, I think that spending personal funds is a way of literally putting your money where your mouth is.

Could $90 million be put to better use than running a successful political campaign? Perhaps - I think it depends. Would $90 million fix any number of problems that California is facing? No. It wouldn't fill the black hole that is our public education system. It wouldn't fix all of our roads and transportation woes. It wouldn't solve negotiations with our public employee unions. $90 million might sound like a lot of money for your personal household, but it is a minuscule drop in the ocean that represents California's budget.

Is it socially acceptable for me to say that poor people have poor moral fiber? That they are plagued with character flaws? That they are untrustworthy because they are poor? No, of course it isn't acceptable to say such ugly things. So why is it socially acceptable to say all of the above about the so-called "rich?" It shouldn't be, but I find that it seems to be. What motivates this type of thinking? I'm inclined to dismiss it as good ol' class envy, but that seems so simple and pathetic.

I don't want to burst any bubbles, but politics is like a popularity contest. A popularity contest that you have to be hella rich to win. The richer you are, the greater your chances. And if you weren't rich going in, you sure as heck are coming out.

Why am I writing this? Why am I concerned with Meg Whitman and those who despise her? I don't give a rip about Meg Whitman. I don't even know very much about her politics (though I heartily suspect that she's a total RINO), but I do know about Jerry Brown. I'm afraid that I already know who will get my vote based on that reason alone.