Some Questions for the Whangarei daycare

I have two views on these stories : Daycare 'bullies' for kicking out HIV boy - National - NZ Herald News.  and  HIV boy childcare ban a human rights issue

My first one is strictly a business related question, and it pretty much applies to any private business. Surly a business owner has a right to chose with whom it does business with. If, in this instance, the daycare, chooses not to have as a customer a particular child then that surely must be their right as a business. If they choose only to deal with some customers and they have viable business model than I have no issue with that.

My other view, and this this is very specific to this issue is this:

• Is this a decision based on Fear?


• Is this a decision based on Panic?


• Is this a decision based on Ignorance?


• Does the day care allow un-vaccinated children to attend?


• Does is preclude disabled children from attending?


• Does is preclude special needs children from attending?


• What about a child that has, say for example, leukemia?


• Does if actively ban or supervise, check or make sure that children with Measles are excluded from daycare when they have that particular virus?


• Does if actively ban or supervise, check or make sure that children with Mumps are excluded from daycare when they have that particular virus?


• Does if actively ban or supervise, check or make sure that children with Chicken Pox are excluded from daycare when they have that particular virus?


• Does if actively ban or supervise, check or make sure that children with Nits are excluded from daycare when they have that particular infection?


• Does it allow children with peanut allergy to attend?


• Does it allow children with flu or cold symptoms to attend?


• Does each child require a health compliance certificate to ensure they are not in some way genetically impaired?

As reported this is pretty disgusting. If this is a decision of the owners and is based on a threat of children being pulled out of the ECE center then let them go, apparently ECE centers would have us belive that there an over supply of children and under available of places. No one is under any health threat that is not understood, or known about.

Ir this was about a religious preference, or stigmatism based on religiousness then I'd be horrified. This isn't something to be horrified about this is something that makes you pity the ignorance of some people and makes you wonder if we're still living in the 1800's.

Related articles

• Daycare Dangers Preview (fox2now.com)

Anti Vax nonsense

The "Immunisation Awareness Society Inc" is like the anti-abortion pro-life nonsense

They aren't promoting a choice or information they are spreading gossip, innuendo and mis-information based on scare tactics, half-truths and anecdote

They have a couple of principles http://www.ias.org.nz/about/

Of them these are the ones that make me fume

1. That natural immunity is far superior to artificial immunity
        >  Of course the measles outbreak in Auckland at the moment is natural, but of the 26 cases 23 are with children that have not been vaccinated

4. That appropriate allopathic (conventional) and homoeopathic/naturopathic treatment in the event of illness is safer and more effective than trying to prevent illness through artificial immunity.
       > Whilst I might agree that Naturopathy has some basis in fact, homeopathy never in a trillion years is a sugar pill or glass of water ever going to be effective unless you crave sugar or are dehydrated

5. That most diseases contracted by a healthy child, at an appropriate age in childhood, provide important challenges to the immune system enabling it to mature and strengthen, and almost always provide lifelong immunity to the disease.
      > I just don't know where to begin with this, appropriate age to catch a disease for which you have no immunity from, what's with that? and "almost always" = "sometimes never"

They have some great objectives, but none of which is to ensure that disease like Measles doesn't become an unwelcome epidemic.

It might be that I, and the vast majority of people, see vaccine as a sensible option that is seems they disguise thinly their loathing for vaccine in every sentence, but "To empower parents to take responsibility for their own and their family's health regarding vaccination" means nothign if their child then gets a vaccine preventable disease, like measles

I have never read such nonsense as that by  Jonathan Eisen who has "an understanding" which is the equivalent of a shreik of "I know my rights" by someone confronted by a policeman http://www.offtheradar.co.nz/vaccines/131-vaccination-rates-in-nz-select-committee.html

He does however make one valid observation "Viruses come and go in their frequency and virulence". Yes that would be true, the need for a herd to protect against a disease would change, if the incidence of a disease diminished because of increased immune response then over time would expect to see an increase in the incidence of that disease again, as the immune response waned in response top the lessened threat.

thre is an outbreak that has 26 cases diagnosed  - Twenty-four of the cases were in unimmunised people, while the other two possibly had one measles immunisation overseas
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10733801 I bet the IAS will conveniently ignore that