Sep 23
Doesn’t look like anything is holding this back from becoming law. I hope the people will resist this strongly.
TruthMission
Search for truth and discuss difficult issues in a safe place
Follow me
Doesn’t look like anything is holding this back from becoming law. I hope the people will resist this strongly.
September 23rd, 2009 at 6:25 pm
Wrong.
Did they read the bill?
http://www.mass.gov/legis/billsrch.htm
Senate No. 2028
It has nothing to do with H1N1. The flu is 3x more dangerous than H1N1. H1N1 would not cause a state of emergency. People can only be isolated or quarantined IF “his or her refusal [to vaccination or treatment] poses a serious danger to public health or results in uncertainty whether he or she has been exposed to or is infected with a disease or condition that poses a serious danger to public health, as determined by the commissioner, or a local public health authority operating within its jurisdiction.”
2028 does not authorize police to vaccinate people. The bill authorizes a “local public health authority” as defined in Section 1 of Chapter 111 (or page. 8, section 3 of 2028). The police cannot arrest people because they refuse vaccination. If someone refuses vaccination, they would be given the option to be isolated or quarantined (IF they pose a serious danger to public health). If (and only if) they refuse either option, then they can be arrested without a warrant.
Nobody has a “great big list” of everybody that had a flu shot. And, well, I would hope neighbors would report other neighbors that are causing other people to die.
Again, this is for serious health emergencies. Fox News is just playing on people’s fears of H1N1 and combining it with people’s hate for the government to make what they think is a news story.
September 23rd, 2009 at 6:29 pm
Oops, end of my 1st paragraph:
“or a local public health authority operating within its jurisdiction.”
September 24th, 2009 at 8:51 am
You are right that is isn’t just H1N1 but that is the the fear they are playing on to advance the bill and that may be used to enact a state of emergency.
“People can only be isolated or quarantined IF “his or her refusal [to vaccination or treatment] poses a serious danger to public health or results in uncertainty whether he or she has been exposed to or is infected with a disease or condition that poses a serious danger to public health, as determined by the commission or a local public health authority operating within its jurisdiction.”
- This is still the government making the decision and not yourself. It is also very broad. To me this reads as follows: they can quarantine you if you are suspected to have been exposed to a disease that may be a public hazard.
I am not sure what you would consider mandatory.
“If someone refuses vaccination, they would be given the option to be isolated or quarantined (IF they pose a serious danger to public health)”
- A serious danger to public health is subjective. The media and government are freaked out about H1N1 but as you have already stated is it not as dangerous as the regular flu.
“If (and only if) they refuse either option, then they can be arrested without a warrant.”
-Again this is mandatory in my book. Options: get a shot, become quarantined/isolated or get arrested.
“2028 does not authorize police to vaccinate people. The bill authorizes a “local public health authority” as defined in Section 1 of Chapter 111 (or page. 8, section 3 of 2028).”
- Judge Andrew said “non-health care licensed personnel which we read as being police.” – I admit I could not find this wording in the bill when I did a quick search. I will email him about this.
September 24th, 2009 at 2:56 pm
I didn’t mean that the bill is for other things including H1N1. I meant that it is not for H1N1. Are there state officials claiming that we need to get this passed because of H1N1? To me, it seems like critics of the bill are connecting it to H1N1, not proponents.
The bill actually gives people more rights rather than taking them away.
And, finally, here’s a good point:
Now, responding to your comments…
The governor has to declare a state of emergency first. That doesn’t happen very often in Massachusetts, unless there’s a snowstorm.
Agree–there is subjectivity, but there still has to be a state of emergency first.
Thanks for emailing Judge Andrew.
September 26th, 2009 at 11:13 am
“I didn’t mean that the bill is for other things including H1N1. I meant that it is not for H1N1. Are there state officials claiming that we need to get this passed because of H1N1? To me, it seems like critics of the bill are connecting it to H1N1, not proponents.”
- In this video it seems as though this guy voted for it in the context of H1N1. Saying “It’s too bad that we have to have something like that pending to get us to finally act.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxxYIeE0_p0
“The bill, Auerbach and other top officials said in interviews, would never force anyone to be vaccinated unwillingly, and its extraordinary measures – such as quarantining people who decline inoculations – would be reserved for equally extraordinary times, such as a bioterror attack or the emergence of a highly lethal, rapidly spreading germ. Swine flu, caused by the H1N1 virus, is not such a germ, Auerbach said.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/09/17/in_public_health_bill_a_contagion_of_fear/”
- I agree that is isn’t a threat but I believe it could easily be used as a perceived threat to take action.
I don’t know what the old laws stated but I don’t like what they have come up with as a new solution.
“The governor has to declare a state of emergency first. That doesn’t happen very often in Massachusetts, unless there’s a snowstorm.”
- That doesn’t mean they won’t. This bill is written for when that does happen.
It gives government more power over us. They are taking choice away from us and I very much do not like that.
September 26th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
Well, as State Sen. Richard Moore points out, this bill has been in development for a long time (since the bioterrorism threats after 9/11). H1N1 only served as a reminder for the necessity to proceed with the bill, because infectious diseases can spread rapidly without warning.
Once again, Massachusetts is leading the way with progressive laws and you should be happy to live there. Because of the law, state officials will be able to act swiftly in order to prevent the spread of infectious diseases and other health emergencies. Most states are very far behind… For example, we just banned smoking in public restaurants here in NC, despite the well known benefit of smoking bans (including a 36% drop in heart attacks over 3 years).
Also, Federal officials can override state officials. They also have the power to isolate and quarantine. http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/sars/Factsheetlegal.htm
How would you prefer government deals with infectious diseases? Should they step back, watch them spread and let people get vaccinated or quarantined if they want to? How would you feel if a parent of a child with H1N1 refused to take their kid to the doctor, and school authorities were powerless in keeping them out of the classroom? Would you want your child in the classroom?
September 26th, 2009 at 8:06 pm
“How would you prefer government deals with infectious diseases? Should they step back, watch them spread and let people get vaccinated or quarantined if they want to? How would you feel if a parent of a child with H1N1 refused to take their kid to the doctor, and school authorities were powerless in keeping them out of the classroom? Would you want your child in the classroom?”
I think the shots should be available and optional. If the vaccines are effective then why would it matter if my unvaccinated child was in the classroom with all the vaccinated kids.
It’s not against the law to bring a sick kid to school but most, I’m sure, would stay home anyway.
I am for more choice by the individual.
September 26th, 2009 at 10:19 pm
Ok, well what if the shots were only 30-60% effective?
I am for choice too, but within reason. We can’t choose which side of the road to drive on and we can’t smoke everywhere (not that either of us are stupid enough to smoke). Laws exist to protect people, and that’s what this one is doing. In a state of emergency that’s affected by this bill, you’re probably not going to want to leave the house anyway. But, if you have to, at least there will be a better chance that you will live because the government provides vaccinations and/or facilities for quarantine.
September 27th, 2009 at 7:41 am
There is debate as to weather vaccination is effective and safe long term. The choice to take them should be up to the individual.
If the disease was something other then H1N1 and was an actual concern in my opinion then I would personally avoid my child and myself to be in public places as I am sure most people would. I don’t think I would make it illegal to do so though. I don’t think it works anyway. I think when they closed the schools in Mexico (maybe somewhere else) that they kids just play outside with each other instead.
Watch this video: http://digg.com/d315Rlt
September 27th, 2009 at 8:39 am
We all know that there are two different ways to view government. One holds that all government is good and well-intentioned and will always benefit us. The other is that all government is evil, and has the intention of slowly, methodically disempowering and enslaving us. This argument has always existed and always will.
As it stands in the US, it is the government’s job to offer safety and security to the population in many areas. We may like this or we may not, but it is the case. This is a tough thing to square with a public which holds views as different as those named above. Someone from some political viewpoint will always be able to further their own political agenda by attacking either how much or how little the government is trying to do in absolutely any case.
In New Orleans, for example, it was the local, state, and federal government’s duty to have good, effective planning for evacuation of the populace in the event of a serious natural disaster. It seems obvious now that their evacuation plan should have been much more comprehensive. This being said, at whatever time officials might have been doing appropriate evacuation pre-planning, someone (Fox news?) would have been able to further their own agenda or increase their viewership/listenership by boldly “exposing” that “right now, behind closed doors, the government is laying out plans that would allow the police and government officials to come and take citizens from their homes against their will, using force if necessary and without even having a warrant of any kind!” This statement would be absolutely accurate but, while Fox News might question, in indignant tones, “Can this possibly be constitutional?”, my question would be, if a media outlet stirs up enough public outcry to actually put a stop to a government “plot” to move people away from danger, would the population be better off or worse off? What they would be doing would be good for Fox’s ratings but would very likely result in the deaths of American citizens. Whatever the case, It does seem to me absolutely inevitable that, if insufficient planning is done and the population suffers and people die, someone will be loudly shouting that the government is criminally incompetent. Another big news story.
September 27th, 2009 at 9:46 am
The 1976 swine flu scare is a great success story for containment:”maximum military containment efforts succeeded unexpectedly in confining the new strain to the single army base where it had originated. On that base a number of soldiers fell severely ill, but only one died”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influenza_vaccine#Flu_vaccine_acceptance
The Guillain-Barré syndrome experienced by the lady in the video is very rare for modern vaccines. According to research published this year (http://ow.ly/rgIc), the incidence is 1 in a million for modern influenza vaccines. But, yes, I agree that flu vaccinations should be optional. Influenza isn’t deadly unless you have other preexisting conditions. Everyone who has died from the most recent swine flu outbreak has had something else wrong with them. And that’s actually a case for reforming health insurance right there, as there have been swine flu deaths of the uninsured:
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/09/25/swineflu-boehner-constituent/
Modern flu vaccines are about 75% effective.
Mexico’s swine flu response was praised by the WHO and 70% of citizens approved of the way the outbreak was handled:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/swine-flu/5281924/Swine-flu-WHO-praises-Mexicos-response-to-virus.html
Raising awareness of the virus was probably the most effective strategy. Closing schools is going a bit too far, unless there are a significant number of outbreaks at the school. It’s really strange to see some US schools close prematurely (before any incidents).
In summary, I agree with you regarding freedom of choice for having a vaccination (even though the odds are that you face a greater danger not being vaccinated). For modern influenza, I agree with you that people should have the freedom to go in public if they chose. I think the issue here is when do you define what is an emergency and when do you force a choice of vaccination or containment? Is it when 50 healthy people die, or when 10 healthy people die? The concern is that the governor has potential to overstep his bounds.
I think that sure, there is potential. But, the state government also has checks and balances… and how likely is is that the governor would be re-elected if he made a decision that the public didn’t like? Our system isn’t perfect, but I think it does an adequate job when unpopular decisions are made.
October 26th, 2009 at 10:25 am
I just want to point out that they have declared a national state of emergency over this specific virus. Despite it being a major threat in my opinion.
This just reinforces what I said earlier: – I agree that is isn’t a threat but I believe it could easily be used as a perceived threat to take action.
October 27th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
FactCheck, the bipartisan website, released their H1N1 article recently. They address Thimerosal “poisoning” and other rumors about the vaccine:
http://factcheck.org/2009/10/inoculation-misinformation/
Regarding the national emergency, H1N1 has claimed 1,000 lives. When an emergency is declared, the president or governor also needs to state what laws are being temporarily overridden. In this case, he is giving power to health officials to move emergency rooms off-site to prevent spreading. The declaration was not intended to scare any one.
Seasonal flu claims 36,000 lives per year (http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/disease/us_flu-related_deaths.htm), but the season hasn’t started yet and shots are readily available. But, H1N1 is in full-swing and we needed the emergency declaration to save lives.
Currently, we don’t have enough H1N1 vaccine to administer it to all healthcare workers, never mind the other high-risk groups…
In my opinion, it’s 2009 and any death caused by influenza is inexcusable. The distribution of the H1N1 vaccine has not met expectations. Just like with the seasonal flu, ordinary citizens that go to the doctor regularly shouldn’t panic or require a flu shot. There isn’t, and will never be, an expectation that everybody will get a shot (it’s administratively impossible). But, if you’re in a high-risk group you owe it to yourself and to society to get the vaccinations.