Disney Information Station Logo

Go Back   The DIS Discussion Forums - DISboards.com > Just for Fun > Community Board
Find Hotel Specials & DIScounts
 
facebooktwitterpinterestgoogle plusyoutubeDIS Updates
Register Chat FAQ Tickers Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 12-06-2012, 12:37 PM   #211
A_Princess'_Daddy
DIS Veteran
 
A_Princess'_Daddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,241

Quote:
Originally Posted by luvmy3 View Post
She is following the rules. The law allows for religious exemptions if a parent claims its against their religion so she can claim that. I don't care of she lies, unless there is a law that says she has to furnish proof of her religious beliefs and she forges documents stating her religion, she is following the rules just by claiming it.
No, she is not. How are you not following this? The OP stated that she does not have a religious objection and therefore now needs to lie about having one (and was concerned that the school would see through her lie) because she doesn't want to follow the law or accept the consequences of not following the law.

The law does not provide an exemption for anybody who "has a religious objection or is willing to lie and say they do". It provides an exemption for anybody who "has a religious objection". Therefore, she is not following the rules.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pigeon View Post
You've never exceeded the speed limit, I'm sure.
Reductio ad absurdum at its finest there, but it doesn't apply to this conversation at all.

But yes, in answer to your question, I have broken the speed limit many times and I've been pulled over and given a ticket. I faced the consequences of my actions, which the OP is not willing to do. I also learned to change my behavior and didn't have people telling me that I should lie and say I was hurring to the hospital to see my wife who was in labor...

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrosby View Post
Actually, we do

Society is full of 'rules' that don't always make sense; put in place because it's easier to make blanket policies; and because we can't possibly ever allow people to use common sense( because, of course, people can't be trusted to have any )

I 'pick and choose' all the time. And I willingly accept the consequences. "My" world needs to make sense. YMMV.
Yes, I willingly accept the consequences of my choices, as well. The OP is not willing to accept the consequences of her choice to not vaccinate her child, however, and therein lies the issue.

Look, at the end of the day I fully expect the OP to either lie about a religious objection or to find a doctor who will create an alternate reality in order to fit her needs, and I don't expect the world to end as a result of her actions. I just won't say that it's the right thing to do because I disagree with her values in this case.
__________________
DW Me DD DS
BWV 5/22/10-5/30/10 & 3/12/11-3/19/11, AKV 11/18/11-11/27/11, BWV 2/23/12-2/27/12, BLT 3/16/12-3/25/12, Many trips before, too many to try to count
A_Princess'_Daddy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2012, 12:46 PM   #212
A_Princess'_Daddy
DIS Veteran
 
A_Princess'_Daddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,241

Quote:
Originally Posted by JennaDeeDooDah View Post
Anyone else ever wonder which side of the vaccine argument Charles Darwin would be on?

Did I just stir the pot a little more? I really am curious and can see him being on either side.
I think he would agree that the gene pool could use a little chlorine.

A mass outbreak of polio or diptheria or measles across the unimmunized population might cause people to rethink their stance of hiding behind the protection of the herd, but it would be a shame to punish children for the actions/inactions of their parents.
__________________
DW Me DD DS
BWV 5/22/10-5/30/10 & 3/12/11-3/19/11, AKV 11/18/11-11/27/11, BWV 2/23/12-2/27/12, BLT 3/16/12-3/25/12, Many trips before, too many to try to count
A_Princess'_Daddy is offline   Reply With Quote
|
The DIS
Register to remove

Join Date: 1997
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 1,000,000
Old 12-06-2012, 12:51 PM   #213
luvmy3
When I drink I find its easier to watch my children because I see all 3 of them double, so all 6 of them of them take all my attention
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 20,034

Quote:
Originally Posted by luvsJack View Post
Oh, I see. So we get to pick and choose which rules we follow "to the letter" and which ones we can lie our way out of and which ones we can find a loop hole to?

Gotcha!

Like I said, the OP knows that it is a lie. If she is worried about a reaction that her child had, all she has to do is talk to the dr. about it. If she doesn't trust her dr. to give her good advise, then she needs to find another dr. that she does trust.
Yes, when it comes to the choice between injecting our children with a vaccination we don't want them to have, or lying so we don't have to, I think a parent can do whatever they want to do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Princess'_Daddy View Post
No, she is not. How are you not following this? The OP stated that she does not have a religious objection and therefore now needs to lie about having one (and was concerned that the school would see through her lie) because she doesn't want to follow the law or accept the consequences of not following the law.

The law does not provide an exemption for anybody who "has a religious objection or is willing to lie and say they do". It provides an exemption for anybody who "has a religious objection". Therefore, she is not following the rules.



Reductio ad absurdum at its finest there, but it doesn't apply to this conversation at all.

But yes, in answer to your question, I have broken the speed limit many times and I've been pulled over and given a ticket. I faced the consequences of my actions, which the OP is not willing to do. I also learned to change my behavior and didn't have people telling me that I should lie and say I was hurring to the hospital to see my wife who was in labor...



Yes, I willingly accept the consequences of my choices, as well. The OP is not willing to accept the consequences of her choice to not vaccinate her child, however, and therein lies the issue.

Look, at the end of the day I fully expect the OP to either lie about a religious objection or to find a doctor who will create an alternate reality in order to fit her needs, and I don't expect the world to end as a result of her actions. I just won't say that it's the right thing to do because I disagree with her values in this case.
I'm following just fine, thanks.
The OP has choices, #1 keep her kid in pre-school and get the vaccine, or #2 keep her kid in pre-school and not get the vaccine, or #3 not keep her kid in pre-school. You may not like what she chooses, but it doesn't make it any less of a choice. Again, the law says she can claim religious exemption, it doesn't say she has to prove it. She is working the system to protect her child, I don't see a problem with it.
luvmy3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2012, 01:02 PM   #214
SaraJayne
Stop moving those smilies!
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 12,075

Quote:
Originally Posted by luvmy3 View Post
Yes, when it comes to the choice between injecting our children with a vaccination we don't want them to have, or lying so we don't have to, I think a parent can do whatever they want to do.



I'm following just fine, thanks.
The OP has choices, #1 keep her kid in pre-school and get the vaccine, or #2 keep her kid in pre-school and not get the vaccine, or #3 not keep her kid in pre-school. You may not like what she chooses, but it doesn't make it any less of a choice. Again, the law says she can claim religious exemption, it doesn't say she has to prove it. She is working the system to protect her child, I don't see a problem with it.
SaraJayne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2012, 01:12 PM   #215
pacrosby
DIS Veteran
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: central massachusetts
Posts: 1,950

Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Princess'_Daddy View Post

Yes, I willingly accept the consequences of my choices, as well. The OP is not willing to accept the consequences of her choice to not vaccinate her child, however, and therein lies the issue.

.
Actually, in this or a similar circumstance what I meant is that I would be willing to accept the consequences of lying....if found out. I will admit to having broken 'rules' by lying about something and under certain circumstances I will likely find myself doing so again. And yes, I would be ok with my children not only knowing that I did/do so but also ok with them doing the same...under certain circumstances (given the neverending list of absurd 'policies' and 'rules' that we now seem to be faced with on a daily basis). My children and I actually have endless conversations about this very thing.

Last edited by pacrosby; 12-06-2012 at 01:24 PM.
pacrosby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2012, 01:26 PM   #216
A_Princess'_Daddy
DIS Veteran
 
A_Princess'_Daddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,241

Quote:
Originally Posted by luvmy3 View Post
I'm following just fine, thanks.
The OP has choices, #1 keep her kid in pre-school and get the vaccine, or #2 keep her kid in pre-school and not get the vaccine, or #3 not keep her kid in pre-school. You may not like what she chooses, but it doesn't make it any less of a choice. Again, the law says she can claim religious exemption, it doesn't say she has to prove it. She is working the system to protect her child, I don't see a problem with it.
By lying, though, correct? Because the law does not say she can pretend to have a religious objection, it says she can have a religious objection. And since she's choosing to do the former because she does not have the latter, while I will stipulate that you are correct that it's a choice, it's not actually a legal choice, as it's a decision to lie to break the law. For example, if my neighbor was keeping me up at night playing loud music, you would be correct in saying I have a choice to ask my neighbor to turn down the loud music, or to shut my windows, or to break into his house and steal his stereo equipment and smash it with a sledgehammer, but only the first two of those choices are actually legal.

And you're fine with her decision to lie to circumvent the law, and I'll freely stipulate that's not the end of the world that she's choosing to do so, but I just want to make sure we're on the same page with our understanding of the facts. Because if you don't see how saying you have a religious objection when you, in fact, do not have one is NOT following the law, then you are not actually following at all, regardless of your inclusion of the cute laughing/pounding smiley...
__________________
DW Me DD DS
BWV 5/22/10-5/30/10 & 3/12/11-3/19/11, AKV 11/18/11-11/27/11, BWV 2/23/12-2/27/12, BLT 3/16/12-3/25/12, Many trips before, too many to try to count
A_Princess'_Daddy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2012, 01:27 PM   #217
pacrosby
DIS Veteran
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: central massachusetts
Posts: 1,950

Quote:
Originally Posted by luvsJack View Post
Sure, as long as you are willingly to accept the consequences.

The consequences here are that the OP can choose not to follow the rule and her child will not be allowed in preschool. She isn't willing to accept the consequences so it is being suggested that she lie instead. That's not the same thing as "accepting the consequences".
Actually as explained in my post above in this case I meant the consequences for lying, if caught.

For me the question is whether by not following the rule/lying I will be harming someone else. In this case I'm not of the opinion that not having the vaccine is putting the other kids at significant risk especially since the vaccine is available to those who want it (and let's not forget, NJ is the only state with this rule). If I felt otherwise I would disagree with lying to get out of it.

Last edited by pacrosby; 12-06-2012 at 01:34 PM.
pacrosby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2012, 01:29 PM   #218
A_Princess'_Daddy
DIS Veteran
 
A_Princess'_Daddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,241

Maybe the OP should run for office in NJ on a platform of repealing the law? Let the public have a voice about what is apparently to some a critical issue...
__________________
DW Me DD DS
BWV 5/22/10-5/30/10 & 3/12/11-3/19/11, AKV 11/18/11-11/27/11, BWV 2/23/12-2/27/12, BLT 3/16/12-3/25/12, Many trips before, too many to try to count
A_Princess'_Daddy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2012, 01:45 PM   #219
Mouse House Mama
Luckiest Mommy in the World!!!
Hello-Buddy the Elf what's your favorite color?!
I wonder if they make pullups for adults
I was not the farter- I was the fartee
 
Mouse House Mama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: The movie in my mind
Posts: 11,800

Well here is something I am curious about. All of this fighting about the flu shot (which we don't get) but what about other vaccines for the adults that are caring for the children? Are daycare/teachers required to get the pertussis vaccine? There have been many outbreaks of that in the last few years and it is reccommended that adults get the vax because they can spread that to children very easily. Why no upset and forcing the adults to get that vax?
__________________
I'm a diehard flip flopper!!!
Our Happy Family!!!
DHMEDS DDDS DD DD
Thanks be to God for this indescribable gift....
WL Sept. 2004,Poly June 2005,Poly April 2006 with Grandma & Grandpa, Pop Aug. 2006, WL Dec. 2006, FW Cabins Feb. 2007,AllStar Music Jan. 2008, Poly Aug. 2008,Yacht Club Aug. 2009, Poly Aug. 2009, Pop Aug. 2011, Pop May 2012, All Star Music June 2013, Bonnet Creek July 2013
Mouse House Mama is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2012, 01:57 PM   #220
JennaDeeDooDah
My oh my what a wonderful day!
 
JennaDeeDooDah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Texas
Posts: 4,880

Quote:
Originally Posted by mhsjax View Post
Gee, I don't know. I do that my parents never had the vaccine, they both died in their middle eighties and they never had the flu. I am 49 and have been vaccinated one time, stupidity I guess, and I had the flu one time. It was a very mild case but was diagnosed as the flu by a Dr. My3 kids have never had one, they all went through pre school and NEVER had the flu, still haven't. Maybe if none of us got flu shots, survival of the fittest would prevail. Everyone not strong enough to survive a virus would die. Not trying to be ugly, but if you want to through out Darwinism, lets just go there also.
I'm not saying he would side one way or the other. I think that you could argue he would agree with either stance. He could be against vaccines because he believes that you need to have evolved to the point that your body can naturally fight off illnesses. He could be for vaccines because he believes that we have evolved to a point where we know how to at least limit our chances of getting an illness. I wasn't trying to say that he would definitely agree with one side or the other. Just wondering which side people thought he would likely fall on.
__________________


*1993 - CBR* *1996 - CR* *1999 - Poly* *2005 - College Program* *2005 - CBR* *2006 - Off site* *2008 - ASMu* *2012 - Pop* *2012 - POR* *2013 - All Star Sports* *2013 - Disneyland* *2014 - ASMO* *2014 - AoA* *2014 - WL* *2015 - POR* *2015 - CR*


JennaDeeDooDah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2012, 02:02 PM   #221
mfd25wife
DIS Veteran
 
mfd25wife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: NE Arkansas
Posts: 2,045

Quote:
Originally Posted by luvsJack View Post
The individual child is considered, that is why there are reasons for exemptions. But the OP doesn't honestly fall under either of those exemptions. Should they force children that have medical issues or allergies to the vaccine to have the shot? (remember, this rule also includes children in child care, so we are including more than the 3 day a week preschool child here) And should we also change the freedom of religion that we all have?

Her child is not forced into preschool either.

Children under 5 are one of the highest risk groups for having complications from the flu. Children under 2 are an even higher risk.

Children under 6 months are not given the vaccine (someone correct me if I am wrong, but I thought that is what I understood from the CDC). If your 4
year old attends a preschool that also cares for children under 6 months (child care center with infants); would you really be ok with your 4 year old getting the flu from home and bringing it to that infant? It doesn't matter the
reason, would you be ok with it?
If it's for ALL the children who attend, all who attend should be required with no exemptions. The Chios who cannot be immunized doesn't have to go to school there or does the religious objector, if there are exemptions, the law isn't for all the children to be protected. "It's for all the children unless they have a good reason to opt out".

In your scenario, my 4 yr old is more likely to spread staph since we all carry it on our skin. If I worried about my child passing on a virus or bacteria, we'd never leave the house. If my 4 yr old didn't get a shot and a 6 month old got the flu, no one has a clue who carried it unless the 4 yr old is the only non vaccinated person besides the 6 mo old and the 6 mo old never goes anywhere but home and daycare. The likely culprit would be the daycare worker holding a baby (also non vaccinated) and then handing another baby something, like a rattle. You cannot irradiate all germs. No, I would not feel
bad because a 6 month old baby got the flu unless someone could prove it was because of the 4 yr old, which is impossible.

My 20 yr old keeps the nursery at church on Sunday's sometimes. As I mentioned before, she has not been vaccinated. If a child at church gets the flu, where did it originate? Again, no one knows unless my daughter is actively
sick and we aren't talking about sick kids with the flu, we've been talking about carriers. What if my daughter gets sick. Based on your argument, the parents of the children at church should not be ok with it because obviously she got it from the unvaccinated babies at church, not walmart or college or WDW, where we just were.

Someone, I'm not sure who it was, said using WDW was ridiculous because they don't have as much exposure. 2-3 yrs ago, DH and I were at Sunshine
Seasons and a couple and toddler were in front of us. Toddler was on floor. Toddler made kitty noises and cow noises. He really was a cute kid. Now, he's sitting directly on floor, not a stroller. Mom tells him that's good he knows animal sounds. He proceeds to bend over and lick the the floor and bark. mom's answer was, "you are such a cute doggie". All I could think was, "Oh my gosh! Doesn't she know what is likely on this floor where people have walked through restrooms, yards, paths where there's bird pooh or vomit, etc." I wanted to sanitize him myself. Obviously, I said nothing but if child got e-coli or other various bacteria, I'm would have thought it was from licking the floor. It's not Disney's fault. But, it's not ridiculous to say a child is more exposed there than a daycare. Btw, just read the food poison threads. People are quick to point out exposure to bugs, viruses, etc.
__________________
9/95-Honeymoon Embassy Suites; 7/00-off site; 6/02 off site; 6/15-6/21/08 Coronado Springs; 6/21-6/26/08 Saratoga Springs ; 6/19-6/23/09 AKV Kidani
6/11-6/19/10 SSR; 12/4-12/12/10 Grand Floridian, AKV-Kidani, AKL-Jambo; 5/18-5/28/11 Boardwalk Villas, Beach Club Villas
11/6-11/13/11 AKV-Kidani;11/18-11/26/12 OKW, BLT, SSR
mfd25wife is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2012, 02:07 PM   #222
luvmy3
When I drink I find its easier to watch my children because I see all 3 of them double, so all 6 of them of them take all my attention
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 20,034

Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Princess'_Daddy View Post
By lying, though, correct? Because the law does not say she can pretend to have a religious objection, it says she can have a religious objection. And since she's choosing to do the former because she does not have the latter, while I will stipulate that you are correct that it's a choice, it's not actually a legal choice, as it's a decision to lie to break the law. For example, if my neighbor was keeping me up at night playing loud music, you would be correct in saying I have a choice to ask my neighbor to turn down the loud music, or to shut my windows, or to break into his house and steal his stereo equipment and smash it with a sledgehammer, but only the first two of those choices are actually legal.

And you're fine with her decision to lie to circumvent the law, and I'll freely stipulate that's not the end of the world that she's choosing to do so, but I just want to make sure we're on the same page with our understanding of the facts. Because if you don't see how saying you have a religious objection when you, in fact, do not have one is NOT following the law, then you are not actually following at all, regardless of your inclusion of the cute laughing/pounding smiley...
Does the law state you have to prove your religious beliefs against vaccinations or does it state that you can claim them? Is she lying, yes. Is she breaking the law by claiming she has a religious objection, not if all she has to is claim one. Lying may be morally wrong, but in this case is it against the law? I don't care enough to look it up, but if you want to to make sure we are on the same page, go for it.
Maybe you don't quite follow, loopholes and such
luvmy3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2012, 02:24 PM   #223
mhsjax
DIS Veteran
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Jacksonville, Fl
Posts: 8,549

Quote:
Originally Posted by JennaDeeDooDah View Post
I'm not saying he would side one way or the other. I think that you could argue he would agree with either stance. He could be against vaccines because he believes that you need to have evolved to the point that your body can naturally fight off illnesses. He could be for vaccines because he believes that we have evolved to a point where we know how to at least limit our chances of getting an illness. I wasn't trying to say that he would definitely agree with one side or the other. Just wondering which side people thought he would likely fall on.
Oh yeah, I get that. I tried to word it so you wouldn't think I was accusing you of having him on one side vs the other. And I also agree with your post above. The survival of the fittest just came to mind and I couldn't resist it and I said "not to be ugly" because I didn't want people thinking that I want kids and older people thrown out there to survive germ warfare, it was just an interesting topic to me.
mhsjax is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2012, 02:50 PM   #224
A_Princess'_Daddy
DIS Veteran
 
A_Princess'_Daddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,241

Quote:
Originally Posted by luvmy3 View Post
Does the law state you have to prove your religious beliefs against vaccinations or does it state that you can claim them? Is she lying, yes. Is she breaking the law by claiming she has a religious objection, not if all she has to is claim one. Lying may be morally wrong, but in this case is it against the law? I don't care enough to look it up, but if you want to to make sure we are on the same page, go for it.
Maybe you don't quite follow, loopholes and such
N.J.S.A. 26:1A  9.1 provides an exemption for pupils from mandatory
immunization if the parent or guardian of the pupil objects thereto in a written
statement signed by the parent or guardian upon the grounds that the proposed
immunization interferes with the free exercise of the pupils religious rights.

You're going to read it your way, I'll read it my way. When I was in law school, and mind you it was over a decade ago and I am not a practicing attorney, I learned that knowingly signing a false statement to circumvent a rule or law is generally fraud, although not a fraud in this case that the authorities have the time or resources to pursue. I'll point out that the structure of the wording and the use of "if..." implies that the aforementioned condition must be met and I'll say that I suspect they wrote the law requiring a written statement because they want the parents/guardians to legally attest to their belief, which in this case the OP does not share. You will likely point out that it doesn't say that the parents actually have to believe what they're saying. I'll say that it's implied that when you make a signed written statement, it is a statement that is assumed to be true. You'll say that they didn't write it that way so it's still OK to lie. Then you'll use all sorts of cute snark and emoticons because you'll grow increasingly frustrated or decide to just toy with me, and I'll snark back because I have a tendency to pick at things that bother me and I'm killing time waiting for a flight and finished both of my books and other work so this is vaguely entertaining to me. We will go around and around, and obviously not change each other's minds, but it's an entertaining intellectual endeavor. Sound about right? C'est la vie!
__________________
DW Me DD DS
BWV 5/22/10-5/30/10 & 3/12/11-3/19/11, AKV 11/18/11-11/27/11, BWV 2/23/12-2/27/12, BLT 3/16/12-3/25/12, Many trips before, too many to try to count
A_Princess'_Daddy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2012, 02:56 PM   #225
luvsJack
DIS Veteran
 
luvsJack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: My own little corner of the world
Posts: 12,863

Quote:
Originally Posted by mfd25wife View Post
If it's for ALL the children who attend, all who attend should be required with no exemptions. The Chios who cannot be immunized doesn't have to go to school there or does the religious objector, if there are exemptions, the law isn't for all the children to be protected. "It's for all the children unless they have a good reason to opt out".

In your scenario, my 4 yr old is more likely to spread staph since we all carry it on our skin. If I worried about my child passing on a virus or bacteria, we'd never leave the house. If my 4 yr old didn't get a shot and a 6 month old got the flu, no one has a clue who carried it unless the 4 yr old is the only non vaccinated person besides the 6 mo old and the 6 mo old never goes anywhere but home and daycare. The likely culprit would be the daycare worker holding a baby (also non vaccinated) and then handing another baby something, like a rattle. You cannot irradiate all germs. No, I would not feel
bad because a 6 month old baby got the flu unless someone could prove it was because of the 4 yr old, which is impossible.

My 20 yr old keeps the nursery at church on Sunday's sometimes. As I mentioned before, she has not been vaccinated. If a child at church gets the flu, where did it originate? Again, no one knows unless my daughter is actively
sick and we aren't talking about sick kids with the flu, we've been talking about carriers. What if my daughter gets sick. Based on your argument, the parents of the children at church should not be ok with it because obviously she got it from the unvaccinated babies at church, not walmart or college or WDW, where we just were.

Someone, I'm not sure who it was, said using WDW was ridiculous because they don't have as much exposure. 2-3 yrs ago, DH and I were at Sunshine
Seasons and a couple and toddler were in front of us. Toddler was on floor. Toddler made kitty noises and cow noises. He really was a cute kid. Now, he's sitting directly on floor, not a stroller. Mom tells him that's good he knows animal sounds. He proceeds to bend over and lick the the floor and bark. mom's answer was, "you are such a cute doggie". All I could think was, "Oh my gosh! Doesn't she know what is likely on this floor where people have walked through restrooms, yards, paths where there's bird pooh or vomit, etc." I wanted to sanitize him myself. Obviously, I said nothing but if child got e-coli or other various bacteria, I'm would have thought it was from licking the floor. It's not Disney's fault. But, it's not ridiculous to say a child is more exposed there than a daycare. Btw, just read the food poison threads. People are quick to point out exposure to bugs, viruses, etc.
No its not ridiculous. A child is more prone to get the flu in child care. And no your child is not more likely to spread staph. You cannot "sanitize" a child.

Flu and colds are spread easily through children because they touch their noses and mouths and then touch toys, chairs, tables, books, or whatever else is around in the preschool/center. And many at 4 still tend to put things in their mouths. THIS is what spreads flu and cold germs, not crawling around on the floor! When your child wipes his nose and then touches a book and hands it to his/her friend--he/she just spread his cold or flu to someone else.
Being at WDW does not necessarily subject you to the flu virus. Touching something that a sick person has picked up will. (unless you are in the habit of picking things after a stranger at WDW). Also, while you are visiting a place like WDW, you can use hand sanitizer after shopping, touching rails, etc. Teachers and child care providers cannot follow your child around all day with hand sanitizer.

I would RATHER my child lick a floor than put a toy that a sick child had in his/her hand in her mouth.

And to say there should be no exemptions is really a bit absurd. Do you not realize that this regulation is not just for children whose parents choose to send them to preschool? Its also for children in child care because their parents are WORKING. Are would you prefer to support these families so mom or dad can stay home with their child.
__________________


10 pounds closer to Skinny Island!
luvsJack is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply



Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

facebooktwitterpinterestgoogle plusyoutubeDIS Updates
GET OUR DIS UPDATES DELIVERED BY EMAIL



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:27 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

Copyright © 1997-2014, Werner Technologies, LLC. All Rights Reserved.

You Rated this Thread: