Vaccination Resolution

[Dave Smith]

Nice try (not really) at dodging the questions. It's still your turn.

[Kelena]

I had the H1N1 shot. You should, too. The colors are incredible and I can hear mongooses talk! I also understand so much better what The Visitors are up to and why they thought it appropriate to park their spaceship in Pu'u O'. I get it now.

Also, I find myself trusting the Government so much more now! The first thing I did was go to the DMV and turn in my gun. Guess they thought I would shoot someone if I didn't get tenure! But turning in my gun made me feel good all over, and I got free pancakes.

True, there was the uncomfortable stint in the reeducation camp until I came around. I was stuck there with Sarah Palin when I specifically requested Levi Johnston as a cell mate. Sarah's smart though. She has signed on with the overlords and now does the afternoon propaganda show. She is great at it!

I want everyone in Hawaii to get the shot! There is nothing to fear but letting go of all those things that are holding you back from being part of our wonderful, global team!

You should get the shot willingly. If you pass a resolution against it, that suggests unwillingness and fear. You should fear those two things. Those are the things that the shot inoculates you against! That and the swine flu!

Share the shot! Touch the future! The Visitors are here to serve man! I translated the cover of their manual and it says "How to Serve Man!" (Still working on the rest).

[Greg]

Sorry k,
I don't really have any interest in proving whether or not you're on Emily's staff. You just seem to mimic her current staff opinion. My mistake.

Emily, again, please find new assistants who can help you become more effective.
___________________________________________________________________

So k, have you had time to point out a single person who has had a vaccination against their will?

Stoneface

[Bob Orts]

Kjlpahoa,
Let's put aside the issue of who is writing what and if vaccines are or are not safe. Let's get down to the core issue of the resolution introduction.

The citizens are rightfully questioning the rational of this resolution. It was badly researched and flawed for the get go. It showed a complete lack of understanding of the laws and begs the question; what idiot researched and wrote the Resolution?

The main point in the resolution relating to Hawaii was mention of HRS 302A-1157 as a forced vaccination of the people. Unfortunately, whoever researched the Resolution botched that item. The referenced HRS section does not imply any forced vaccination or quarantine of the people. It is about SCHOOLS and the right of the government to require vaccinations against a disease when a certain emergency exist as a condition of children to attend public schools. Nowhere in that section of HRS does it impose any requirement on the public at large. So by referencing it, the author was attempting to take a very specific set of circumstances on a very limited population and apply it to all citizens of the County. That is fear mongering in the worst way.
Can you explain that?

Second, the quarantine that section referenced was not a quarantine of those who were not vaccinated, but a quarantine of those who were vaccinated from those that were not. In essence, the schools are required when a health emergency exist, to quarantine those who are vaccinated by limiting access to schools from those who were not vaccinated. If a child is not vaccinated, they can't enter the school. They are not forced to get vaccinated, only are barred from mingling in the school with those who are vaccinated. Again, the author of the resolution falsely implied that someone was being forced to be quarantine for not getting vaccinated when in fact it was those who were vaccinated who were quarantined while in school from those who were not.
Care to explain that?

Lastly, the resolution references SB-781 & HB 671. Those two were enacted after a review revealed that under Hawaii law, only the health department agents could impose a forced quarantine on a citizen. So if a person was identified with a deadly contagious illness, unless the health departments agents was there to take action, nobody else had the right to force a person into a quarantine. Imagine someone opening their mail and finding anthrax inside, nobody but a health department agent could stop that person from taking the bus, going to the supermarket, or walking into a crowded assembly. The Police did not have that authority under Hawaii law. The bills simple gave the police the authority when instructed by the health department. But the author of the resolution made an attempt to distort the truth by making it sound like the Police could act on their own.
Care to explain that?

The whole issue of the resolution was that it was based on a whole bunch of distortions, mistruths, and bogus facts. That is what everyone is talking about. The author of the resolution made an issue that did and does not exist. By the Councilperson introducing it with all the faults and flaws, it indicated an almost laughable stupidity on her part. That's the issue she’s being called on the carpet about.
Can you explain why she shouldn’t be laughed out of office?

[TomK]

Bob,

Very well written and good points. On the other hand, although I feel this was a ridiculous resolution to bring to the county council in the first place, it passed. Surely it's not just one council person who should be targeted but the whole council? They're the ones that passed the resolution after all.

I'm not familiar enough with how council works so may be missing something.

Tom

[james weatherford]

Tom,
Well said about Bob's assessment and the resolution.

Also an interesting point about it taking more than one council member to adopt a resolution. Note that in this case the vote was 7 Yes, 1 No, and 1 Abstention.

One version on the street at the time was that some members voted yes just to get past the whole mess and move on. Even that doesn't reflect well on the body of the Council.


James Weatherford, Ph.D.
15-1888 Hialoa
Hawaiian Paradise Park

[TomK]

Incidentally, which council member voted no? I'm sure I can look this up but if someone could save me a little time I'd be grateful. Also, James, if your last point is true (and I fully understand it's hearsay) that's utterly disgraceful and indefensible behaviour by the council. I hope that wasn't the case but then I wonder for what other reason the resolution was passed by such a large majority.

Tom

[Rob Tucker]

J Yoshimoto voted no. I thanked him for his no vote.

[TomK]

Thanks, Rob.

[PaulW]

I think it's standard practice to vote yes for someone's pet project if it will have zero effect anyway. That way they're owed a favor for their own pet project. That's politics.