on 12-04-2015 12:03 PM
From January 2016 parents who do not vaccinate their kids will lose up to $15 000 in allowances/concessions, except in cases of medical and some religious reasons.
Solved! Go to Solution.
on 12-04-2015 07:42 PM
@am*3 wrote:Yes, the no jab, no pay.. is not an ultimate solution.
Yeah, but wishing belongs in fairy land. Children die but as long as your social ideals are met.
on 12-04-2015 07:44 PM
@nevynreally wrote:
@azureline** wrote:
My post is in relation to the one about unvaccinated children giving it to vaccinated children.
Makes no sense whatsoever so don't try to make it about anything else.How many babies who could not be vaccinated were infected?
I dont know the answer to that, but where is the proof that it was ever caused by an unvaccinated person?
12-04-2015 07:49 PM - edited 12-04-2015 07:50 PM
@secondhand-wonderland wrote:
@nevynreally wrote:
@azureline** wrote:
My post is in relation to the one about unvaccinated children giving it to vaccinated children.
Makes no sense whatsoever so don't try to make it about anything else.How many babies who could not be vaccinated were infected?
I dont know the answer to that, but where is the proof that it was ever caused by an unvaccinated person?
The parents of a newborn exposed to any illnesses preventable by vaccination wouldn't care about proof.
And, very interesting you responded like that.
on 12-04-2015 07:58 PM
on 12-04-2015 08:06 PM
@azureline** wrote:
As a responsible parent of 5 children and 2 who could not be fully vaccinated, I removed my children from contact with others when necessary.
If they were sick they did not attend school nor were they in contact with babies.
Not sure why anyone would think otherwise.
BS. Can't know before being told that some of these were around, and by then would have been exposed.
Whoops.
Fail.
12-04-2015 08:09 PM - edited 12-04-2015 08:11 PM
@nevynreally wrote:
@secondhand-wonderland wrote:
@nevynreally wrote:
@azureline** wrote:
My post is in relation to the one about unvaccinated children giving it to vaccinated children.
Makes no sense whatsoever so don't try to make it about anything else.How many babies who could not be vaccinated were infected?
I dont know the answer to that, but where is the proof that it was ever caused by an unvaccinated person?
The parents of a newborn exposed to any illnesses preventable by vaccination wouldn't care about proof.
And, very interesting you responded like that.
I responded like that because the theme seems to be that it is the unvaccinated that are putting young babies, too young to be vaccinated at risk. That unvaccinated are like big cess pools of disease just waiting to infect the nearest newborn or immunocompromised person. When it is a known fact that vaccinated people will be exposed to a lot more in terms of infectious disease causing viruses (either live or attenuated) and any number of "killed by formaldehyde" animal viruses that find their way into vaccines due to the nature of manufacture.
These diseases aren't always vaccine prevented. People have to realize that is not just failure to vaccinate, vaccination failure is also a problem.
*Edited to correct gramma.
on 12-04-2015 08:12 PM
on 12-04-2015 08:12 PM
on 12-04-2015 08:16 PM
Okay. I reply to a poster, and a different one replies. Rinse/repeat.
on 12-04-2015 08:24 PM
@secondhand-wonderland wrote:
How can a child who is not carrying a disease spread a disease? When it is a well known fact that the recently vaccinated will actually shed the disease they have been vaccinated against for up to two weeks after vaccination. Childhood diseases are not back with a vengeance. Where do you get your information?
Where do you get your information?