Blueridge Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 I got the following news in today's Natural News: A new law passed by the state Senate in Massachusetts calls for mandatory vaccinations of all citizens and a $1,000 / day fine for those who refuse to cooperate. It also legalizes health care "interrogations" of Mass. citizens, forced entry into homes without a warrant, the on-site destruction of buildings or objects suspected of harboring the virus, the government kidnapping of family pets, "involuntary transportation" of people into quarantine camps and much more. Are they kidding? Really? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tree House Academy Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 OMG! If that is true, that is just the kind of thing I was afraid of. I dont' live in Massachusetts, but I am sure other states are not far behind. I pray this isn't true! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MariannNOVA Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 http://www.naturalnews.com/026934_health_public_health_quarantine.html Click on the story to read it -- I am in the process of reading it as I would like to read the entire article, but I thought the link night prove helpful to anyone who wanted to do the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MariannNOVA Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 http://www.mass.gov/legis/bills/senate/186/st02pdf/st02028.pdf I would imagine that information pertaining to what criteria the Governor uses to declare a 'State of Emergency' would be helpful here. I'm still reading. Anyone here admitted to the Bar in Massachusetts? (NO, not THAT bar! :glare:) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LMA Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 What's so surprising? I'm not surprised. I haven't heard about it yet, but we have had so many outrageous laws anyway. We have forced health insurance and if you don't have it, you are penalized on your taxes so that you can't pay for your insurance. We are a no fault car insurance state. If you have been paying child support for a child shown not to be yours, you must continue to pay the support. This is the state where the legislators said we don't need a law to ban hand held cell phones while driving, but we have seat belt laws. A few years ago, they tried to pass a law to stop the bread baking odors from bakery companies because the odors caused smog. So, yes, these bills are for real. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
herbalgirl Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 Well, that is the state that forced everyone to get health insurance or be fined for it...:glare: Hopefully, the vaccine information you read re:MA isn't accurate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tutor Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 I just skimmed it and will read in more detail later, but the fine the OP mentioned seems to pertain to health care personnel who don't follow the procedures outlined in the document for a health emergency. Individuals may decline vaccination, but if their condition is deemed a health threat to the general populace, that individual may be isolated for the length of the incubation/ communicability of the disease. Healthy but exposed individuals may also be quarantined for the incubation period of the disease. I also would like to know what the standards are for declaring an emergency. The document states that a state of emergency or health emergency can be declared; I wonder what the declaration process for each of these is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donna T. Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 (edited) Well, I'm certainly no legal or medical expert. I have, however, been researching the swine flu/vaccine for a few months. I've read several articles about the vaccine possibly being mandatory in Maryland. I believe some of this was speculation based on a past event in Maryland where some parents were told they must immunize their children (who were in public school) for chicken pox and/or Hepatitus B or go to jail for 10 days. I believe the articles related to that event were dated in Nov. 2007. I've read that that incident created an environment in Maryland that many believe would led to forced vaccines for the swine flu for public school students in Maryland. And, I've read that other states, particularly Massachusetts, were looking at that situation to see what could be done to create mandatory flu vaccine recommendations. Here is a brief youtube video about the situation in Maryland: Edited August 28, 2009 by Donna T. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MariannNOVA Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 I also would like to know what the standards are for declaring an emergency. The document states that a state of emergency or health emergency can be declared; I wonder what the declaration process for each of these is. I skimmed but do not feel comfortable quoting or making a statement regarding criteria for declaring an emergency. I don't think I am going out on a limb here saying that in the State of Massachusetts it does appear, at first glance, that the Governor has much latitude in this area. Feel free to correct me if I am in error. I would have to do more research and more reading -- there are layers to this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blueridge Posted August 28, 2009 Author Share Posted August 28, 2009 Thank you, ladies. I'm still reading, too. My feathers just get ruffled when I hear the word 'mandatory'. :glare: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MariannNOVA Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 really, I have just had that kind of week since wednesday, so here goes: YOU SAID: My feathers just get ruffled when I hear the word 'mandatory' .....and in my unbelievably perverse mood (notice I have changed my avatar to an image of Squidward from Spongebob), I must respond: and 'womandatory' too! :lol: I'm sorry -- read my post (just put up now about 'needing a laugh' -- you'll understand). However, the article you initially referenced does make me uncomfortable,:confused1: and I will be doing research this evening. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elizabeth Conley Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 1. We're talking about a declared pandemic here! That's a very rare situation indeed. 2. Anti-vaccine people have to understand, there are some very unpleasant diseases out there. If there's a pandemic of any kind, general tolerance for the blanket refusal to accept vaccines will not continue past the first hundred or so deaths. 3. It would be a good idea to make sure that people who are deathly allergic to a particular vaccine are isolated rather than placed in group detention, but otherwise the legislation sounds reasonable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MariannNOVA Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 1. We're talking about a declared pandemic here! That's a very rare situation indeed. That's why I am reading -- I agree with you. From my days on Wall Street, back when dinosaurs roamed the earth, I would have to spend HOURS upon HOURS reading bills that were being considered, or were passed by Congress and then were going to the Senate -- on both the local and Federal level. These documents are all related to other documents and seldom are as sweeping as first glance may make them seem. And, that is why I provided the links to just two of the documents that have to be read and understood before anyone jumps to the conclusion that the 'unvaccinated' will be yanked from their homes and trucked off to 'outbreak' camps a la the movie, 'Outbreak'. I think it's good you told folks to cool down -- folks should be reading, digesting, and forming opinions.:001_smile: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mommyof4ks Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 (edited) I am still confused, which is nothing new lol. Why are 'they' picking on the swine flu? The 'regular' flu kills 36,000 people in the country every year and yet there are no mandatory vaxes (not that there should be, just sayin'). The low end of the projection is 30,000 will die and the high is 90,000, so it will probably fall somewhere in the middle. Is it because this one is hitting 'the working crowd' as opposed to the elderly and very young? This could affect production and commerce? I still don't get it! Forgive my ignorance. As for the article, I think it would be hard for this to be implemented. Who would be sent out to look for sick people and push for vaxes? Our gov't is broke, most states are broke. IDK. Edited August 28, 2009 by dwkilburn1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thessa516 Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 (edited) 1. We're talking about a declared pandemic here! That's a very rare situation indeed. 2. Anti-vaccine people have to understand, there are some very unpleasant diseases out there. If there's a pandemic of any kind, general tolerance for the blanket refusal to accept vaccines will not continue past the first hundred or so deaths. 3. It would be a good idea to make sure that people who are deathly allergic to a particular vaccine are isolated rather than placed in group detention, but otherwise the legislation sounds reasonable. 1. The WHO has already declared the Swine flu pandemic (level 6). Whether it's rare occasion to declare a pandemic or not really isn't an issue. 2. So, because a new vaccine doesn't cause immediate death in the first hundred or so people we should all be okay with it? 3. Well, that's crazy. Isolating people who are allergic to vaccines? Why? How about not forcing them to have the vaccine in the first place? Why not let each person be responsible for his/her own health? Edited August 28, 2009 by thessa516 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perry Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 1. The WHO has already declared both the Avian and Swine flus pandemic (level 6). Whether it's rare occasion to declare a pandemic or not really isn't an issue. No, there is no avian flu pandemic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thessa516 Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 No, there is no avian flu pandemic. Oops, mea culpa. I just went to WHO to prove you wrong and realized that the avian flu page has the link to the swine flu pandemic level. I should have read more carefully. I went back and corrected my original statement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elizabeth Conley Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 1. The WHO has already declared the Swine flu pandemic (level 6). Whether it's rare occasion to declare a pandemic or not really isn't an issue. 2. So, because a new vaccine doesn't cause immediate death in the first hundred or so people we should all be okay with it? 3. Well, that's crazy. Isolating people who are allergic to vaccines? Why? How about not forcing them to have the vaccine in the first place? Why not let each person be responsible for his/her own health? 1. But the Governor of the State of Massachusetts has not. 2. That's not what I meant at all. What I tried to convey was that after the first few hundred people die in a pandemic, the general population will become very upset. They'll ask for the best protection medical science provides. If the best protection available is a vaccine, there will be strong pressure on all to take the vaccine. 3a. No, it's not crazy to isolate people who cannot safely take a vaccine rather than throw them into group quarantine with people who have refused to take said vaccine. It's humane. Here's why: isolation is the unvaccinated person's best hope of surviving a truly deadly epidemic. If they can't safely take the vaccine, it's the decent thing to do. 3b. Because choosing not to protect ourselves from a communicable disease is a decision that effects more people than ourselves. If I catch a deadly communicable disease, I will almost certainly transmit this disease to others, infecting and potentially causing the death of an incalculable number of people. It's not fair for me to impose this risk upon uncounted numbers of people if I can possibly help it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scubamama Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 Thank you, Elizabeth. I like your reasoning style! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cillakat Posted August 30, 2009 Share Posted August 30, 2009 Well, I'm certainly no legal or medical expert. I have, however, been researching the swine flu/vaccine for a few months. I've read several articles about the vaccine possibly being mandatory in Maryland. I believe some of this was speculation based on a past event in Maryland where some parents were told they must immunize their children (who were in public school) for chicken pox and/or Hepatitus B or go to jail for 10 days. That happened in GA last year too....the we're going to be tough on non-vaccinating parents. But in the end it was nothing. They only wanted proof of vaccines OR a vaccine waiver. There was no forced vaccinating. They just wanted boxes checked. It's amazing to me what people will believe. Katherine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cillakat Posted August 30, 2009 Share Posted August 30, 2009 2. That's not what I meant at all. What I tried to convey was that after the first few hundred people die in a pandemic, the general population will become very upset. They'll ask for the best protection medical science provides. If the best protection available is a vaccine, there will be strong pressure on all to take the vaccine. So far you're wrong. Far more than 100 people have died of H1N1 - 1,100 is a lowball estimate- and there is no public pressure that I'm feeling for the vaccine. In fact, most are incredibly suprised when I tell people I'm signing up for the next trial round at Emory. Even my very provaccine friends and family members have concerns about the safety of the H1N1 and are not rushing to line up for the vaccine nor are they pressuring others. Katherine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perry Posted August 30, 2009 Share Posted August 30, 2009 Model States Emergency Health Powers Act Any governor can declare this emergency power. Start at page 20 and see what they can do. Seize your property, lock you up, force vaccinations, etc. It's a medical martial law. The CDC numbers do not support the hysteria. hysteria Dictionary: hys·ter·i·a (hĭ-stĕr'ē-ə, -stîr'-) Home > Library > Literature & Language > Dictionary n. Behavior exhibiting excessive or uncontrollable emotion, such as fear or panic. I keep hearing about hysteria. Who's hysterical? I'm not seeing it. I see people who have questions and want to know what's going on. I see frequent updates in the news about how it's spreading. I'm not seeing people panic, or even much fear. But I don't watch tv or listen to talk radio. Maybe that's where it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elizabeth Conley Posted August 30, 2009 Share Posted August 30, 2009 ...Far more than 100 people have died of H1N1... Not in one U.S. state, or God forbid, town. The reasons why the global community is taking swine flu seriously has more to do with the historic harm similar viruses have wrought in the past than the current casualty count. The WHO calls it a pandemic right now, but that's just rhetoric. Here are their definitions: http://www.who.int/csr/disease/avian_influenza/phase/en/index.html When a real health crisis hits a state or town, that really changes things. Yellow Fever is only fatal in 3% of cases, but people take these epidemics quite seriously. In spite of the fact that mosquitoes are the vector for yellow fever, some countries still have mandatory yellow fever vaccination programs and enforce this on visitors. The more civilized a nation grows, the more risk aversive the populations becomes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shelly in the Country Posted August 30, 2009 Share Posted August 30, 2009 Another thing: I'm probably going to regret posting anything about this. Correct me if I'm wrong (I'm but a simple lay person who worries too much), but if this pandemic gets to the point where folks are dropping like flies it will basically be "too late" to control the spread because the "worst case scenario" happened. If the powers that be try to control the spread before a "worst case scenario" occurs they will be charged with overreacting. I really do think folks are interpreting this whole event through their own lens of risk aversion. I'm quite risk averse (and hate getting sick), so I tend to take things quite seriously. Others folks are less risk averse and so this all appears to be blown out of proportion unless the truly historically horrible happens, at which point it's too late to do anything but make more coffins. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.