Except I don't see how this will help him get the nomination since most people regardless of party think anti vaxxers are crazy. And most anti vaxxers are probably libs.
I think it's a good split between hippie, UMC, uber-researched liberal parents and religious-right, conservative, government-trying-to-take-my-stuff, conservative parents.
I went looking for this info recently when a friend complained that her Le Leche League was so "weirdly conservative" I was trying to tell her that the AP/anti-vax/anti-medical intervention groups are pretty much a 50/50 split. There aren't many studies to look exactly at this liberal vs. conservative lean, but a few studies showed that it was pretty much not an ideological divide.
"In a Pew poll that year that sought to differentiate between the views of scientists and average Americans of a variety of issues, people were asked whether childhood vaccines ought to be required, or if instead it should be left up to parental choice. 69 % of Americans thought they should be required (vs 82 % of scientists), while 28 % would leave it to parental choice (vs 17 % of scientists).
What’s interesting here is that Pew also provided a political breakdown of the results, and there was simply no difference between Democrats and Republicans. 71 % of members of both parties said childhood vaccinations should be required, while 26 % of Republicans and 27 % of Democrats said parents should decide. (Independents were slightly worse: 67 % said vaccinations should be required, while 30 % favored parental choice.)
Bottom line: There’s no evidence here to suggest that vaccine denial (and specifically, believing that childhood vaccines cause autism) is a distinctly left wing or liberal phenomenon. However, I will reiterate that we don’t really have good surveys at this point that are clearly designed to get at this question."
I appreciate everyone telling me I am wrong. I do. But I already admitted as such. In my area it is truly the libs who are weird about vaccines. But I get that this is not the case everywhere or that it's even the case that a majority of anti vaxxers are libs. Can we move on now? I do not wish to derail the Christy is a morAN discussion.
Not so sure about that. I hypothesize they're evenly divided between religious batshitcrazies denying science and liberal dumbfucks relying on "mommy instincts."
I think the anti-vax world is where you have gone so far to the extreme that you bump up against the other side.
I don't think he was pandering for votes. The antivaxxers are paranoid delusional nut jobs. They are not a voting block. Christie is smart enough to know this.
If I'm being honest, this issue is a hard one. I think the reaction to Christie may be somewhat over the top. I love vaccines as much as the next person, but what exactly was Christie supposed to say here? If some politician got up there and said, "yes, the government has the authority to round up its citizens and those visiting the country, and forcibly inject whatever drugs it deems necessary into those people's bodies," most sane people would be horrified. It's not that I don't think the government should do more to make sure people are vaccinated, or that I don't trust what science and doctors tells me. It's that I don't trust that the government will always be relying on the best science or always be most motivated by public interest. Nor do most voters.
So sure, in this case, mandatory vaccines do reflect both the best science and the best public interest. But somewhere, a politician who supports mandatory vaccinations will ultimately have to answer to the public about what they deem the appropriate scope of executive power. So it's easier to say it's a choice to avoid that very, very difficult question.
Honestly? He could have avoided going there. Support the fact that vaccinations are important, relay that your family is vaccinated (which he did) and any questions pertaining to choice he skirts around, I doubt it would be that hard to not address head on.
I think the anti-vax world is where you have gone so far to the extreme that you bump up against the other side.
I don't think he was pandering for votes. The antivaxxers are paranoid delusional nut jobs. They are not a voting block. Christie is smart enough to know this.
If I'm being honest, this issue is a hard one. I think the reaction to Christie may be somewhat over the top. I love vaccines as much as the next person, but what exactly was Christie supposed to say here? If some politician got up there and said, "yes, the government has the authority to round up its citizens and those visiting the country, and forcibly inject whatever drugs it deems necessary into those people's bodies," most sane people would be horrified. It's not that I don't think the government should do more to make sure people are vaccinated, or that I don't trust what science and doctors tells me. It's that I don't trust that the government will always be relying on the best science or always be most motivated by public interest. Nor do most voters.
So sure, in this case, mandatory vaccines do reflect both the best science and the best public interest. But somewhere, a politician who supports mandatory vaccinations will ultimately have to answer to the public about what they deem the appropriate scope of executive power. So it's easier to say it's a choice to avoid that very, very difficult question.
Honestly? He could have avoided going there. Support the fact that vaccinations are important, relay that your family is vaccinated (which he did) and any questions pertaining to choice he skirts around, I doubt it would be that hard to not address head on.
I haven't read the transcript of the questioning, nor can I find it. But sure, any politician can evade. But don't tell me that people are in arms because he didn't evade an issue.
I'm not mad he didn't evade. I'm mad he lit a match on a powder keg. "Parents choice" is actually not vaccination policy in the US. It's vaccines are required or you need to fit into an exception. So he even framed the issue incorrectly and right out of the anti vaxxers playbook.
Except I don't see how this will help him get the nomination since most people regardless of party think anti vaxxers are crazy. And most anti vaxxers are probably libs.
I see two factions of anti vaxxers. The hippie liberals and fundie evangelical conservatives. Most anti vaxxers I know fall into the latter category due to where I live.
Same. Every anti-vaxxer I know is on the fundie side. Well, one's not Christian, but a very conservative religion.
Post by sparrowsong on Feb 2, 2015 13:58:19 GMT -5
And because I really thought this was on point, c&p from the ML thread on this.
"Like, literally, THIS IS HOW THE END OF THE WORLD STARTS. You turn a public health crisis into a political talking point; you encourage people to identify their health decisions with a political party and make those decisions accordingly; and you inadvertently create a massive pandemic of a heretofore eradicated illness that sweeps the nation unchecked and kills up to 50% of its victims." -lucyhoneychrrch
In the midst of a measles outbreak a leader shouldn't say "welp parents choice." You don't tie down the kids and force a vaccine on them either. Basically you say what Obama said.
Not so sure about that. I hypothesize they're evenly divided between religious batshitcrazies denying science and liberal dumbfucks relying on "mommy instincts."
I think the anti-vax world is where you have gone so far to the extreme that you bump up against the other side.
I don't think he was pandering for votes. The antivaxxers are paranoid delusional nut jobs. They are not a voting block. Christie is smart enough to know this.
If I'm being honest, this issue is a hard one. I think the reaction to Christie may be somewhat over the top. I love vaccines as much as the next person, but what exactly was Christie supposed to say here? If some politician got up there and said, "yes, the government has the authority to round up its citizens and those visiting the country, and forcibly inject whatever drugs it deems necessary into those people's bodies," most sane people would be horrified. It's not that I don't think the government should do more to make sure people are vaccinated, or that I don't trust what science and doctors tells me. It's that I don't trust that the government will always be relying on the best science or always be most motivated by public interest. Nor do most voters.
So sure, in this case, mandatory vaccines do reflect both the best science and the best public interest. But somewhere, a politician who supports mandatory vaccinations will ultimately have to answer to the public about what they deem the appropriate scope of executive power. So it's easier to say it's a choice to avoid that very, very difficult question.
Christie is kind of known for his harsh statements at times. I can see him saying, "Listen, people should get the measles vaccination and make sure they're vaccinated. We're talking about making sure all of our kids and our community is protected. It's a public health issue. I understand no one likes shots, but just do it, people."
Not so sure about that. I hypothesize they're evenly divided between religious batshitcrazies denying science and liberal dumbfucks relying on "mommy instincts."
I think the anti-vax world is where you have gone so far to the extreme that you bump up against the other side.
I don't think he was pandering for votes. The antivaxxers are paranoid delusional nut jobs. They are not a voting block. Christie is smart enough to know this.
If I'm being honest, this issue is a hard one. I think the reaction to Christie may be somewhat over the top. I love vaccines as much as the next person, but what exactly was Christie supposed to say here? If some politician got up there and said, "yes, the government has the authority to round up its citizens and those visiting the country, and forcibly inject whatever drugs it deems necessary into those people's bodies," most sane people would be horrified. It's not that I don't think the government should do more to make sure people are vaccinated, or that I don't trust what science and doctors tells me. It's that I don't trust that the government will always be relying on the best science or always be most motivated by public interest. Nor do most voters.
So sure, in this case, mandatory vaccines do reflect both the best science and the best public interest. But somewhere, a politician who supports mandatory vaccinations will ultimately have to answer to the public about what they deem the appropriate scope of executive power. So it's easier to say it's a choice to avoid that very, very difficult question.
I think he could have simply said that he supports the CDC guidelines and has followed them with his own children and not taken it further. That seems like a safe answer politically.
From Governor Christie’s Office: “Below are Governor Christie’s full remarks when asked about the issue of vaccinations and the concerns over the recent outbreak of measles. To be clear: The Governor believes vaccines are an important public health protection and with a disease like measles there is no question kids should be vaccinated. At the same time different states require different degrees of vaccination which is why he was calling for balance in which ones government should mandate.”
Question: Governor you’re here, this company makes vaccines. There’s a debate going on right now in the United States, the measles outbreak that’s been caused in part by people not vaccinating their kids. Do you think Americans should vaccinate their kids? Is the measles vaccine safe?
Governor Christie: All I can say is that we vaccinated ours. That’s the best expression I can give you of my opinion. It’s much more important, I think, what you think as a parent than what you think as a public official. And that’s what we do. But I also understand that parents need to have some measure of choice in things as well so that’s the balance that the government has to decide. But I can just tell people from our perspective, Mary Pat and I have had our children vaccinated and we think it’s an important part of making sure we protect their health and the public health.
Question: But you’re leaving people the option of not getting vaccinated and that potentially presents a great public risk.
Governor Christie: Michael, what I said was that there has to be a balance and it depends on what the vaccine is, what the disease type is and all the rest. And so I didn’t say I’m leaving people the option. What I’m saying is that you have to have that balance in considering parental concerns because no parent cares about anything more than they care about protecting their own child’s health and so we have to have that conversation, but that has to move and shift in my view from disease type. Not every vaccine is created equal and not every disease type is as great a public health threat as others. So that's what I mean by that so that I’m not misunderstood.
Question: Do you think some vaccines are dangerous?
Governor Christie: I didn't say that. I said different disease types can be more lethal so that the concern would be measuring whatever the perceived danger is by vaccine and we've had plenty of that over a period of time versus what the risk to public health is and you have to have that balance and that's exactly what I mean by what I said.
Fair enough. I see now where people were coming from. I do think though that there is just no way he was pandering to the anti-vaxxer voting block, that this was more of a poor choice of words than any sort of proclamation on policy, and that we are going to see a lot more politicians get caught in some kind of word trap when talking about this issue.
In any event, I doubt there's anyone looking to Chris Christie for validation of their conspiracy theories.
Fair enough. I see now where people were coming from. I do think though that there is just no way he was pandering to the anti-vaxxer voting block, that this was more of a poor choice of words than any sort of proclamation on policy, and that we are going to see a lot more politicians get caught in some kind of word trap when talking about this issue.
In any event, I doubt there's anyone looking to Chris Christie for validation of their conspiracy theories.
You would think the same of Jenny McCarthy, but here we are! <)
Fair enough. I see now where people were coming from. I do think though that there is just no way he was pandering to the anti-vaxxer voting block, that this was more of a poor choice of words than any sort of proclamation on policy, and that we are going to see a lot more politicians get caught in some kind of word trap when talking about this issue.
In any event, I doubt there's anyone looking to Chris Christie for validation of their conspiracy theories.
You would think the same of Jenny McCarthy, but here we are! <)
In a world where Jenny McCarthy, Andrew Wakefield, Dr. Sears, that crazy cardiologist from Arizona, and Megan Heimer are mini celebrities, don't count out the anti Vax movement to follow false idols.
Rand Paul, M.D., says most vaccines should be ‘voluntary’
Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul (R), a likely 2016 presidential candidate and a certified physician, weighed in on the vaccination debate Monday by asserting that he believes most vaccines should be voluntary.
"I'm not anti-vaccine at all but...most of them ought to be voluntary,” Paul told Laura Ingraham on her radio show Monday. "I think there are times in which there can be some rules but for the most part it ought to be voluntary.”
Paul’s comments follow a minor controversy Monday stirred by remarks by New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R)—another potential 2016 candidate—in which he called for “balance” in vaccination requirements in order to allow for parental discretion. The Republican governor walked back his comments several hours later.
"The Governor believes vaccines are an important public health protection and with a disease like measles there is no question kids should be vaccinated," Christie's office said in a statement.
A nationwide measles outbreak has transformed mandatory vaccination practices into a potent political issue. Medical professionals attribute the outbreak to increasing vaccination skepticism and have urged parents to vaccinate their children. On Sunday, President Obama weighed in, saying "there is every reason to get vaccinated — there aren’t reasons to not."
Paul's comments were distributed online by the Democratic National Committee Monday.
Paul pointed to a 2007 effort by then-Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R), who is also considering a 2016 run for the Republican nomination, that would have required young girls to receive a vaccine for human papillomavirus (HPV). That move was sharply attacked by social conservatives who said requiring vaccination against HPV, which is a sexually transmitted disease, would encourage promiscuity. The Texas legislature eventually overturned the mandate. Perry later called the order “a mistake.”
“While I think it’s a good idea to take the vaccine, I think that’s a personal decision for individual’s to take,” Paul said, attempting to strike a balance between responsible medical protocols and personal choice.
Paul went on to mention that he was frustrated when doctors suggested his son be vaccinated for Hepatitis B, which he said made him uncomfortable as a parent.
“I didn’t like them getting 10 vaccines at once so I actually delayed my kids’ vaccines and had them staggered over time,” he said.
This is the same guy who made it mandatory for flu shots for babies and kids in a preschool/day care. He also went on record in the fall telling everyone to get a flu shot. Makes me wonder why the sudden change of heart?
Post by penguingrrl on Feb 2, 2015 16:08:58 GMT -5
Yet another asshole who hasn't seen what these diseases actually do to people. I can't believe anyone who has seen someone suffer the long-term effects or die due to vaccine preventable diseases would even question them being necessary from a herd immunity standpoint in order to protect our most vulnerable citizens.
This is the same guy who made it mandatory for flu shots for babies and kids in a preschool/day care. He also went on record in the fall telling everyone to get a flu shot. Makes me wonder why the sudden change of heart?
I'm guessing he feels that the ultra conservative fundamentalist Christian (which by and large opposes vaccines) block is a strong enough voting block that he will need them either to get through the primary or the general, so he's trying to appease them.
This is the same guy who made it mandatory for flu shots for babies and kids in a preschool/day care. He also went on record in the fall telling everyone to get a flu shot. Makes me wonder why the sudden change of heart?
I'm guessing he feels that the ultra conservative fundamentalist Christian (which by and large opposes vaccines) block is a strong enough voting block that he will need them either to get through the primary or the general, so he's trying to appease them.
I'm guessing he feels that the ultra conservative fundamentalist Christian (which by and large opposes vaccines) block is a strong enough voting block that he will need them either to get through the primary or the general, so he's trying to appease them.
How long before the Duggars back him? UGH!
They never will. He's way too liberal for their standards even if he's trying to shift himself to look more conservative (like the bullshit he played with gay marriage to try to look more conservative).
He's a politician and will find what the controversial topic is and ride it on one side. Teachers, cops and firefighters were evil so he rode that one. Sandy was a way to take a hard stance and ride it out as best as he could, even if it meant snuggling up to Obama. And this I guarantee he looked at what votes he would need for a presidential nomination and he was lacking in the fundy, hippie, homeschooling area. And he took a stance to get those votes.