Do you agree that, with rare exception, children in SA should be fully vaccinated for age as a condition of enrolment into early childhood services?

Read the Early Childhood Services and Immunisation Discussion Paper and join in the conversation below.

Leave a comment

Rebecca Nowikow

19 Jun 2019

No. It would be discrimination.

- A child who HAS Hepatitus B and HIV by LAW can attend early childcare and kindergarten WITHOUT legally having to disclose this information. If these children by law can attend without disclosure and access these services then why deny healthy children access to the same services?

https://www.sahealth.sa.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/public+content/sa+health+internet/health+topics/legal+matters/hiv+and+hepatitis+disclosure

- Unless a vaccinated child has had their bloods taken to prove their body has acquired immunity from the given vaccine then they also can catch and spread the infectious diseases. This is shown just by looking at government websites, package inserts for the vaccine and reading data on each disease and previous cases. Take the link below on pneumococcal for example...

https://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/15C3D92378263DBDCA257C9700814898/$File/IPD-Oct-Dec-2018-Qrt.pdf

-The current guidelines are suffice where if an outbreak was to occur the unvaccinated child should be kept at home.

- The government is discussing FULL vaccination in regards to this new proposal. Why? Given that Tetanus is not contagious. Australia was declared Polio free in 2000. Rubella free in 2018. In 2017 one person in Australia had Diptheria, so in a population of 20 Million, the odds for catching Diptheria were 1 in 20 Million, while being struck by lightning is 1 in 12000. The point being, is fully vaccinated necessary?

-The parent who chooses to vaccinate their child is Free to Do so, there are risks involved but for them the risk of the disease outweighs the documented (See vaccine package insert) potential adverse reactions. They can have comfort knowing their child has (most likely) immunuty from these illnesses.

-The parent who chooses not to vaccinate their child is Free to Do so, as for them the risks of the documented adverse reactions outweigh the benefits of immunitt from these rare but serious diseases in our current South Australian climate.

-The latter group already is being financially discrimated against with government benefits for childcare rebate being denied and family tax benefits being withheld.

To withhold early childhood education to these families just further polarises them and cultivates a culture of fear and apartheid which is shocking in our day and age and we ALL should be saddened about this.

Paul Allen > Rebecca Nowikow

23 Jun 2019

It's not fair. You're getting all logical. 😊

Log in to reply

Log in now to comment

Don't have an account? Register here.

T Anne Noir

17 Jun 2019

No, it is really quite illogical for a number of reasons. Firstly, the vaccine schedule now contains a significant number more vaccines than previous generations - babies now for example receive almost twice as many vaccines as I did as a child, and more again as my parents. A child’s own parents and grandparents, people they would spend every day with, are not vaccinated against half the illnesses that children today are vaccinated for so they have every likelihood of catching vaccine preventable diseases from family members as other kids. This is also the case in that vaccine immunity wears off over time, 3-5 years for whooping cough, 10–30 years for measles for example. A huge number of our society therefore is not immune to these diseases even if they have previously been vaccinated so unless the children are going to be kept inside and out of public places forever it makes no logical sense to enforce a law like this at kindergarten. Secondly, if parents have decided against vaccines altogether or wish to selectively vaccinate and not follow the schedule this law won’t change that fact. History shows us that enforcing strict laws like this to coerce parents into a decision they do not agree with usually pushes them further away. It will only mean that children, who have no say over this decision, are denied access to early education. This is nothing short of discrimination particularly as many children in lower socioeconomic circumstances may also miss vaccines as their parents may have less access to transport or do not prioritise the vaccines in the face of other family or personal challenges. Thirdly, in 2017 the Australian Medical Association (SA branch) expressly outlined their opposition to this law siting the importance of early childhood education for all children is greater than enforcing a strict vaccine policy particularly in a state where vaccine levels are so very high anyway. Under no circumstances is it acceptable for the state government to ignore the advice of the AMA on a matter which pertains to a medical intervention. If the Australian Medical Association opposes this law then there is absolutely no place for the state government to overrule this reccomendation given that our states politicians are not medical professionals. In order to address vaccine hesitancy, the state government would be better off increasing their vaccine education to parents and to offer alternatives to the very heavy vaccine schedule such as spreading vaccines out, making some vaccines optional or simply making some more important vaccines such as polio and measles mandatory for kindergarten entry but others such as influenza and hepatitis optional. These types of strategies would be more successful in encouraging vaccine hesitant parents in vaccinating their children, far more so than a blanket ban on children entering kindy and childcare services. Lastly although vaccines have a high safety record, there are occasions where a child will have an adverse reaction, sometimes severe or life changing. By removing parent choice and enforcing vaccines through government legislation, the government becomes financially liable. It would be a sad shame is Australia went the same way as the US who have paid over $4billion in legal costs to families of vaccine injured children since 1986. The SA government would have greater success in improving vaccination rates by education and inclusivity and giving parents options rather than such coercive legislation. By not passing this bill SA has the opportunity to demonstrate its commitment to inclusive education for all children and to work collaboratively with concerned parents to help them overcome any vaccine fears they may have. This law will do nothing but blindly follow other states and split parents against each other. I hope that South Australia shows the rest of the nation that we are better than that.

Log in to reply

Log in now to comment

Don't have an account? Register here.

Ebony Boxall

17 Jun 2019

No! Every child should have the right to an education! By taking that away you are going to be dealing with a whole new problem! Parents will have to leave their jobs to raise their children under 6, the children may not be on the same level as their peers when they do start school, if they will even be allowed to go to school? But you already know that and don't care.
This isn't about trying to have a higher immunisation rate, if 95% still isn't enough for 'Herd Immunity', then what is.. 100%? your kidding yourself if you think you are ever going to achieve 'Herd Immunity'. Once you implement this, your just going to make it mandatory to be fully up to date to enter School, Highschool and Uni/College. Have a job and keep it, obtain a licence, travel etc. This has nothing to do with achieving Herd Immunity and everything to do with taking away Human Rights. Every one should have the right to say no to something they don't want. The recommended schedule is ever-growing and expecting everyone to comply with every vaccine that's recommended is insane! When is enough enough? I am surprised you are even bothering getting public opinions? Your acting like you haven't already made a decision and our opinion is going to change anything. Stop trying so hard to divide the people and have everyone under your control because your on the right way to starting a war.

Log in to reply

Log in now to comment

Don't have an account? Register here.

Raina Day

13 Jun 2019

No way! The freedom over an individuals health is one of the last and most important things we still have somewhat control of!! If you take this away, we have absolutely no freedom left. NONE. Not even over our OWN bodies! How dare you lobby to take this away from us and the generations after us! You are not God! We are not your property to dictate as you please! I've watched my child die hours after his 2 month shots from encephalopathy. Along with THOUSANDS, probably MILLIONS of other parents who have had to witness the same ordeal. Vaccine's are not safe. They are legally declared in supreme court as unavoidably unsafe!! -> https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-152.pdf. Vaccine's were not the knight in shining armor as the health professionals have been taught in med school. The death rates from infectious diseases had already declined 90% prior to vaccine's and continued to decline at the same rate. Read pages 1313 & 1314 in the Pediatrics Journal -> http://vaccinesafetycommission.org/pdfs/45-2000-Pediatrics-Vital-Statistics.pdf . Vaccine reactions are grossly underreported and this gives a false view of the percentage of adverse reactions. We know in the US where there is a Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System they have paid over 4 BILLION DOLLARS in compensation to families who have suffered vaccine reactions -> https://vaccineimpact.com/2018/u-s-government-continues-to-pay-millions-in-vaccine-injuries-and-death-settlements/ , and still they estimate only 1-10% of reactions are ever reported. Vaccine adverse side affects range from as mild as a fever, ear ache, seizure to as severe as encephalopathy, brain damage and death. Here's just one sample of the Dtap vaccine insert with listed possible reactions -> https://www.fda.gov/media/75157/download . I am pro choice! It is not a one size fits all! Where there is risk, there must be choice!

Raina Day > Raina Day

13 Jun 2019

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-152.pdf
http://vaccinesafetycommission.org/pdfs/45-2000-Pediatrics-Vital-Statistics.pdf
https://vaccineimpact.com/2018/u-s-government-continues-to-pay-millions-in-vaccine-injuries-and-death-settlements/
https://www.fda.gov/media/75157/download
Tomljenovic, C. A. (2013, July). Aluminum in the central nervous system (CNS): toxicity in humans and animals, vaccine adjuvants, and autoimmunity. Retrieved from PubMed.com: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23609067/
yutika Mehta. (2014, 6 4). BioMed Research International, Review Article. Retrieved from Hindawi: https://www.hindawi.com/journals/bmri/2014/247218/

Log in to reply

Log in now to comment

Don't have an account? Register here.

Sonia Micel

10 Jun 2019

PRO-CHOICE! I believe in the freedom of choice, to choose what we wish to put in our own bodies and as loving parents into our children’s bodies. I do not want to be bullied and discriminated against by the government.
The no jab no play policies aim to ban unvaccinated children from all childcare and kindergartens is greatly distressing to me as we live in a free country and we believe all children should have the right to an early education (especially kindergarten). As parents we love our children more than anything and strive to give them the absolute best opportunities. We do not want our children to be disadvantaged and discriminated against. When I was first pregnant I never would have thought that the government may not allow my children to go to kindergarten, this is a fundamental right in Australia (and paid for by all tax payers)! My family is already disadvantaged by not receiving the Family Tax Benefit and my children can’t attend childcare as we can’t afford the full payments of over $100 a day per child (which is not subsidised for us).
If there is a large group of children in Australia not attending kindergarten, these children will be at a significant disadvantage when they attend school. The emotional, social and physical development of young children is crucial to their overall development; they learn skills that will set them up for the rest of their lives. It is important to invest in young children, not take away.
Please listen to those whose children will be affected by this and listen to all people who are PRO-CHOICE for vaccinations, early education should be for all!

Log in to reply

Log in now to comment

Don't have an account? Register here.

Andrew Wilkins

07 Jun 2019

Yes. Access to vaccinations for children is the best and most effective way to stop disease and viruses from killing as many children as they historically used to. A really good summary of why vaccination is the most effective is this video by Kurzgesagt – In a Nutshell.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBkVCpbNnkU

Log in to reply

Log in now to comment

Don't have an account? Register here.

Paul Allen

05 Jun 2019

Here are 38,787 reasons for people to have a choice in what is injected into their children. Mass medication is always a bad idea. J Pediatr. 1997 Oct;131(4):529-35. PMID: 9386653 A total of 38,787 adverse events was reported during the study period...Of the deaths with known age, 72.4% were reported in the first year of life, and 63.7% of these were male. The peak age for death reports was 1 to 3 months, with a gradual decline through age 9 months, after which death was relatively rare. Adverse events with onset of symptoms the day of vaccination accounted for 45.5% of total reports; 20.4% had onset of symptoms the following day.

Log in to reply

Log in now to comment

Don't have an account? Register here.

Bill Gates

05 Jun 2019

I absolutley think that children should be fully vaccinated before enrolement in early childhood services. The efficacy of vaccinations for young children is undeniable, both for the protection of the individual, but also of the community as a whole. Should the majority of children be vaccinated (barring the few who are unable to be vaccinated for legitimate medical reasons), the few who can't are in most cases fully protected as a result of heard immunity. The sheer notion that we should allow unvaccinated children to enrol in early childhood services and jeapordise the health, wellbeing and lives of those not fortunate enough to be able to be vaccinated is ludicrous. Do what you want with your child, detrimental as it may be, but dont risk the health and lives of those arround you to do it.

Bill Gates > Bill Gates

05 Jun 2019

**herd immunity.

As it turns out, I can't spell.

Raina Day > Bill Gates

13 Jun 2019

Go vaccinate yourself. You are slowly destroying the health of our race. Allergies, autoimmune disease, autism, heavy metal toxicity, asthma, ADHD, epilepsy...I don't remember Nana suffering any of these!

Log in to reply

Log in now to comment

Don't have an account? Register here.

John Doeadeer

05 Jun 2019

No, I don't agree that children should be vaccinated as a condition for entry to early childhood services. I think that vaccinations, barring any medical reason against a child having them, should be given to ALL children whether or not the parents agree. Up to physically removing the child from the parents with police presence during the vaccinations if necessary. Harsh as that sounds, this is not a debate about whether pink is an acceptable colour for a boys room, or whether girls should be allowed to wear shorts instead of skirts at school. This is not about the individuals right to choose. The decision not to vaccinate your child impacts EVERYONE around you, and since science has proven vaccinations to be effective and safe, the individuals rights in this instance should be removed. If the antivaxxers want to scream and shout about the unfairness of it then so be it, meanwhile their child can grow up hating the government for ensuring they had to live with sh*tty, ignorant parents instead of dying young of an easily preventable disease.

Raina Day > John Doeadeer

13 Jun 2019

You are what is wrong with our world. Despicable.

Log in to reply

Log in now to comment

Don't have an account? Register here.

David Cross

04 Jun 2019

Policy should be implemented to protect children from unsafe parents, multiple doctor approval should be required to not vaccinate your child.
The state seems to be working hard to stop abortion services, however once children are out of the womb happy to dust thier hands of them.

Log in to reply

Log in now to comment

Don't have an account? Register here.

Steve Jobs

03 Jun 2019

Not only do I agree, I am disappointed that the government is giving a forum to people who believe that it shouldn’t.

Science has proven beyond any rational that vaccines work. Giving people a place to argue against that shouldn’t even be an option, it gives their highly dangerous, misguided opinion far too much credibility.

Log in to reply

Log in now to comment

Don't have an account? Register here.

Ahmed Mansoor

03 Jun 2019

Absolutely yes. As I see, like seat belts, vaccines save lives and should be mandatory (except for medical exceptions). People refuse to
The state is like mother and citizens are like children who should be kept safe and healthy in all and best possible ways. It only takes a visit to a less fortunate society or unfortunate event of a child suffering from a vaccine-preventable disease, to see the horrors of these diseases.

Log in to reply

Log in now to comment

Don't have an account? Register here.

Paul Allen

03 Jun 2019

It's interesting that there isn't a single reference to the scientific literature to this point from those that insist 'the science is out' and if you don't agree with them you must be an idiot, so try this reference. The more often and the younger children are when they are vaccinated the more likely they are to die. Hum Exp Toxicol. 2012 Oct;31(10):1012-21. doi: 10.1177/0960327112440111. Epub 2012 Apr 24.
Relative trends in hospitalizations and mortality among infants by the number of vaccine doses and age, based on the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), 1990-2010.
Goldman GS1, Miller NZ.
No... seriously, read the research for once in your life instead of accusing anyone who disagrees with you of not having any.

Alistair Edwards > Paul Allen

03 Jun 2019

I have a Bachelor of Medical Science with honours.

To be fluent in a scientific field (i.e. be an expert) takes approximately 10+ years of full-time research and active engagement in that field. It is not appropriate to *exclusively* reference a pebble that supports your argument (often it doesn't and is being misinterpreted by laypersons anyway), when there is an enormous boulder right next to it that rejects your argument. Experts have typically become intimately familiar with both the boulder and the pebble, and reached an informed conclusion. If you are not an expert in the field, it is best to defer to the judgement of those that are. Similarly, it is inappropriate to exclusively reference the opinion of a handful of experts that support your argument, when there are far more that do not.

I could easily link a single reference to support the efficacy of vaccines. Hell, I could link hundreds, but it's irrelevant when there is an overwhelming scientific consensus among experts who are far more familiar with the literature than either of us.

Paul Allen > Paul Allen

05 Jun 2019

Congratulations on your Batchelors of Medical Science with honours Alistair. No doubt with ten years of study you came across the concept of the hierarchy of evidence. You may have noticed that professional opinion was on the bottom most rung of the evidence hierarchy? So no, I don't accept you know best because you completed a course of study. You like everyone else must provide data, The data you need to supply to me is a study that compares the health long term of a vaccinated versus and unvaccinated population. When I say unvaccinated I mean people who have not had vaccines, not those that have had an incomplete vaccine schedule. Give me that and then I can take you seriously, until then don't try to pass off an appeal to authority as adequate evidence. You can study the wrong thing for a hundred years and still be in the dark.

Alistair Edwards > Paul Allen

10 Jun 2019

Providing my qualification was only intended to demonstrate that I am familiar with the scientific research process outside of high-school or dr google.

>but it's irrelevant when there is an overwhelming scientific consensus among experts who are far more familiar with the literature than either of us.

The point was not to try and convince you about vaccine efficacy. And it wasn't to say that I'm an expert in vaccines either, because I'm not. It's that linking a single study doesn't prove anything. The article you linked is a good example of this. The two authors both have conflicts of interest, used data from a database that has no filter for input (seriously, their own website has warnings about using the data), and applied statistical methods that have since come under scrutiny.

The hierarchy of evidence is simply a guideline that says a properly conducted study for a particular scenario will most likely be stronger evidence that one expert's opinion. It doesn't mean we should discard the opinions of thousands of experts in favour of a minority of cherry-picked studies.

Paul Allen > Paul Allen

12 Jun 2019

I have hundreds of references Alistair, that's without resorting to drawing attention to the criminal activities that the vaccine manufacturers have been found guilty of. Can you point out just one study that compares the long term health of a vaccinated population verses an unvaccinated population (not a partially vaccinated population)?. It seems to me that that is the only rational starting point to determine the value of vaccines, yet the C.D.C. in the U.S. said they had no such study available to them. Perhaps you do. Perhaps you're not old enough to remember measles parties in the 60's and 70's to spread measles and generate full natural immunity which was a relatively innocuous disease before the fear mongering and vaccine promotion. And yes, professional opinion is a form of evidence, the lowest.

Clare McGuiness > Paul Allen

20 Jun 2019

Hi Paul. In the study you are proposing, you would need to start with two groups of babies growing up in the same conditions, and withhold vaccines from one group. I do not think such a study would not receive ethics approval due to the unreasonable risk of harm to the unvaccinated babies. However, there are many studies available that test the efficacy of vaccines using rigorous and defensible methodologies, and the weight of evidence supports vaccines as safe and effective.

Paul Allen > Paul Allen

21 Jun 2019

Clare if you can't find an unvaccinated control group, why the hell does vaccination need to be mandated? This is such a nonsense argument. I can assure you this study, which has never been done, would have no trouble finding a volunteer group of unvaccinated children if there was ever the will to document the truth about vaccine damage. The problem is not an excess of ethics, its the excessive lack thereof. Moreover you just changed the argument. It's not about reducing the incidence of a particular disease. It's about the consequence of the approach being far worse than any percieved benefit. And no, the science is anything but settled regarding vaccine safety despite the propagnda and rhetoric . Thats why there has been $4,100,000,000 usd paid in the U.S. in compensation to the vaccine injured despite it being ridiculously difficult to claim and prove harm. I know your post is not your argument Claire. It's just the big pharma rhetoric. But it's one of their dumber poeces of propaganda.

Log in to reply

Log in now to comment

Don't have an account? Register here.

Candice Cowley

03 Jun 2019

Absolutely all children (other than say medical exceptions) should be vaccinated. I almost died from chicken pox as a child (the vaccine wasn't available in Australia at the time) and it's an experience I would never want anyone to have to go through.

Log in to reply

Log in now to comment

Don't have an account? Register here.

Alycia Kennedy

03 Jun 2019

Yes I completely agree, and like others have said, only exceptions should be for medical reasons verified by a doctor.

Log in to reply

Log in now to comment

Don't have an account? Register here.

Jamila Bost

03 Jun 2019

I fully and passionately agree with this. Barring medical reasons (Verified by an actual doctor, or multiple, even), there is no scientific or logical reason not to vaccinate your children, and yourself.

Log in to reply

Log in now to comment

Don't have an account? Register here.

Felix Wilson

03 Jun 2019

Completely agree. I am the son of a person who suffered from Polio and still suffers the after effects to this day. Had the vaccine been around a life time of operations and impaired mobility would have been avoided. I think that vaccines have been so successful that people have forgotten the benefits they bring. Also too much Dr. Google

Government Agency

SA Health > Felix Wilson

03 Jun 2019

Hi Felix, thank you for taking the time to share your story with us and participate in this consultation.

Log in to reply

Log in now to comment

Don't have an account? Register here.

Adam Henderson

03 Jun 2019

All children should be vaccinated barring an autoimmune disease or similar that makes it unsafe for them.

Government Agency

SA Health > Adam Henderson

03 Jun 2019

Hi Adam, thanks for participating in the discussion. There are medical reasons why a child may be not be vaccinated and these children would be
considered to have a medical exemption to vaccination. As you described, a child would be exempt if they are immunocompromised due to illness (e.g.
leukaemia, cancer, HIV) or medical treatments (e.g. high-dose steroids or chemotherapy). Thanks again for your input.

Log in to reply

Log in now to comment

Don't have an account? Register here.

Imogen Allen

03 Jun 2019

Yes, absolutely. The only allowable exceptions should be medical and verified by a doctor.

Log in to reply

Log in now to comment

Don't have an account? Register here.

Peter Monk

03 Jun 2019

Agreed. We are now starting to see the outcomes of the breakdown of herd immunity and it puts at risk children who, for legitimate reasons, cannot be immunised.

Log in to reply

Log in now to comment

Don't have an account? Register here.

David Kempster

02 Jun 2019

I most certainly agree. Both my children were vaccinated, as was I, and I see no reason to allow those who are not vaccinated for reasons of parental gullibility to put at risk those who can't be vaccinated for genuine medical reasons. Anti-vax is a conspiracy theory as idiotic as anti-fluoride or chem-trails in the sky, and should be treated with the same respect- none.

Log in to reply

Log in now to comment

Don't have an account? Register here.

Andrew Buch

02 Jun 2019

Immunise the antivaxx dummies. Forced immunizations otherwise fines. Dont punish the children.

David Kempster > Andrew Buch

02 Jun 2019

Pity we can't immunise against stupidity and gullibility.

Paul Allen > Andrew Buch

03 Jun 2019

Funny how you don't use any scientific references Andrew Buch. Maybe the 'dummies' are the ones who get their information only from the channel 9 news or the people that make money from selling them. Perhaps you should be subjected to enforced education on unbiased research.

Log in to reply

Log in now to comment

Don't have an account? Register here.

Ash Curnow

02 Jun 2019

Strongly agree. Policy should be based on scientific knowledge and advice, not driven by misinformation spread by a disbarred, corrupt ex-doctor and a spent playboy model. Anti-vaxx campaigners are causing outbreaks of preventable diseases, and spread misinformation and outright lies to further their ideology. They should not be able to play games with public health.

Paul Allen > Ash Curnow

03 Jun 2019

Strongly agree Ash, look at research like this.
Relative trends in hospitalizations and mortality among infants by the number of vaccine doses and age, based on the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), 1990-2010.
Goldman GS1, Miller NZ.

Log in to reply

Log in now to comment

Don't have an account? Register here.

Inam Darwish

02 Jun 2019

I agree!

Parents who do not want to vaccinate their children may do so, however, they should not put everyone else's children's lives at risk for their own personal choice! Making vaccinations mandatory before entering early childhood services will save lives! The science is out!

Log in to reply

Log in now to comment

Don't have an account? Register here.

Alistair Edwards

02 Jun 2019

Strongly agree.

The overwhelming scientific consensus is that vaccines work as intended with few exceptions. The opinions of laypersons should not be factored into issues that a) directly impact others' innocent children and b) require specialised education and well-developed critical thought processes to fully comprehend.

Parents should have the right to choose what is best for their children. However when those choices impact the well-being of others in their communities, their choice is no longer benign. Herd immunity is an important factor in the efficacy of immunisation, and willingly diminishing herd immunity in any institute should (I think) be considered criminally negligent. Those children who are genuinely incapable of receiving vaccinations for medical reasons are the primary victims of this action.

If a parent does not wish to vaccinate their child, then that is their prerogative, even if I strongly disagree with it on behalf of their child whose trust they are violating. But I cannot stress enough that it is unacceptable that these parents are allowed to inflict their ignorance on others' vulnerable children.

In conclusion: a parent can choose not to vaccinate their child, but that choice should at the very least be accompanied by restrictions (such as blocked enrolment into early childhood services) in an effort to bolster herd immunity.

Log in to reply

Log in now to comment

Don't have an account? Register here.