Posts by ron
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Rogan wrote: "I can't see the difference between existing legislation that influences/governs family situations and the proposed amendment to section 59...am I missing something?"
Well, yeah, you are missing something.
Parents are able to do all manner of things with kids, potentially dangerous things which can and do cause kids injury. But that's a parental decision. I wouldn't want to see a law imposed on what activities kids can and cannot do. As far as I'm aware, and I could be wrong, no child has ever been hospitalised or died from a light smack to the bottom or hand. But this debate has produced numerous references to NZ's rate of child deaths, references to the situation in Sweden, our child abuse record as measured by the UN, etc. All of these references may be interesting but they're irrelevant. Even Walter Mitty wouldn't expect that our rate of child abuse is going to improve if this bill is passed. Let's be intellectually honest about the debate.
-
"That Lindsay Perigo at the childbeaters march certainly looks like someone I'd never let my kids go near to".
Why, because he's gay?
-
"I think the point Collins was trying to make in her oh so unweildly way was that she thought Kiro wasn't being independant, that she was trotting out the Labour party line. Which is pretty stupid considering it's a green party bill".
Right, so why are Labour MPs being whipped into line over this? In fact, not one Labour MP is prepared to vote against the bill. Why? Not because they agree with it; some of them don't.
-
"If Kiro didn't independently advocate for children she wouldn't be fulfilling her responsibilities under the law".
That might be so, but how is criminalising decent parents advocating for children? It's difficult to see how separating kids from their parents, which is likely to be more prevalent if the bill is passed, is in the best interests of kids. I doubt that Ms Kiro, who thought that smacking her own kids was OK, has thought about the consequences of the bill for kids.
-
> is anyone aware of the Tamihere family history?
No, why don't you enlighten us.
-
"What has astounded me though, is the argument put forward by some National MP's that people such as Helen Clark aren't fit to talk about this legislation because they aren't parents".
Can't say that I've heard that one. But I did hear that Helen, just prior to the last election, was dead against banning smacking. Now she says she's changed her mind. I wonder how many Labour voters have changed their mind and wished they hadn't voted Labour.
-
Don,
You sure have a bee in your bonnett.
"ron/ross has been throwing around so much misinformation".
So much misinformation that you can't actually say what it is. You do not get to pass Go and collect $200.
"ron - if someone contracts the disease despite being vaccinated they have exactly the same chance of ending up in hospital as someone who contracted the disease and was not vaccinated".
You've clearly missed the point. The point of the vaccine is to PREVENT kids from catching the disease. Therefore, vaccinated kids should not be ending up in hospital. However, they are ending up in hospital.
"Given the Green's stance on protecting our children (smacking) I find their opposition to immunisation incredibly hypocritical. I wonder if it leads to more deaths and disability than child abuse".
For the record, I'm opposed to Bradford's bill outlawing smacking. But that is another debate. And I think you'll find that the Greens - like me - are not opposed to immunisation. But they have raised valid questions about this particular vaccine.
Out of interest, have you ever been on a hospital waiting list? If so, would you rather have not been on one?
-
Jon wrote: "She indicated that it's likely that given the vaccination program is only a few years old that it may be too early to really be able to meaningfully determine the success of the program".
I'm not sure by that comment Jon. Your wife should know that the proramme ended in June 2006 (although under 5s can still access the vaccine). The effect of the vaccine - even if it worked - doesn't last forever. Babies are now given a booster shot because the Health Ministry realised that three shots weren't enough. This begs the question: why didn't the MoH test the vaccine to determine if three shots were enough? If three shots aren't enough for babies, what "protection" does the same number of shots offer older kids? At least 34 fully vaccinated kids have contracted the epidemic strain. Other fully vaccinated kids have contracted other strains of the disease.
The fact remains that the epidemic strain of the disease was waning naturally before rollout. The vaccine is and was unnecessary.
-
Who's thinking straight?
James wrote: "Thus, if you're looking at cost savings, then there is saved cost not only from prevented deaths, but prevented hospitalisations".
No argument there. But the cost of hospitalisation is low. Why spend a fortune on a disease that doesn't cost a lot to treat, and when there is no evidence that the vaccine is necessary, safe or effective? As I've said, cost savings apply to all diseases and morbidity. You seem to think that menignococcal disease is unique.
"After all, the vaccine (if it works) prevents infections".
Again, no argument. If it did work, I would expect very few kids would need to be hospitalised. Infection rates should be relatively higher (say, 4-6%) for the unvaxed population compared with the vaxed population (0-1%). Rates of infection are almost identical for both populations. The vaccine isn't working.
-
"There is also the fact that because it's a now issue, delaying it would miss the point of it".
Fictitious claim #3
Between 2001 and roll-out, the numbers of deaths and cases fell by 70% and 50% respectively. There was no need to commit more than $200 million of taxpayers' money when the "epidemic" was waning naturally. The Lancet medical journal has described the efficacy of the parent vaccine, which was trialled but never released, as "insufficient to justify a public immunisation programme". There is no evidence that MeNZB is more effective than the parent vaccine.