Share this page on facebook
Editorials
Defying science, inviting measles and worse PDF Print E-mail
News
Written by Ozaukee Press   
Wednesday, 17 December 2014 18:43

The 1950s horror story of polio in Wisconsin should be a warning to those who refuse vaccinations for their children

Ebola, the disease born in Africa that causes death after appalling suffering in a high percentage of the victims, frightens Americans even though there have been only eight people diagnosed with the virus in this country, six of whom contracted it in Africa.

    Wisconsin residents old enough to remember the 1950s have an informed perspective from which to view the ebola scare. In 1955, a virus capable of inflicting mass suffering and death infected 2,544 Wisconsinites, mostly children, killing 166 of them. Many survivors were left crippled or with life-shortening health impairments. The disease was polio and being scared was wholly justified. Parents were terrified.

    That same year inoculations with the polio vaccine developed by Dr. Jonas Salk began. By 1965 no new polio cases were reported in Wisconsin.

    Could polio come back? It could. In fact, its stalking horse is already here. It’s called measles.

    After years with no reported cases of this childhood disease once thought defeated forever by vaccination, there has been a flare-up of measles, recently including cases in Milwaukee.

    “Measles is making a terrifying comeback in the U.S., with some 600 cases reported this year, more than in any year in the past two decades,” according to Dr. Haider Javed Warraich of the Harvard Medical School. Writing in the Wall Street Journal, he laid the blame on “the increasing number of people refusing vaccinations, usually on behalf of their children.”

    Measles is not in the same league of dread diseases as ebola and polio, but there is a reason the doctor described its return as terrifying. Extremely contagious, measles can cause encephalitis, pneumonia and deafness. It can be fatal.

    Thousands of American children are being left vulnerable to measles because their parents have bought into various theories holding that vaccines cause autism and other health problems for children.

    These theories have been thoroughly discredited by science, yet the doubters persist and seem to be growing in numbers and influence. Distrust of science is not unusual in America, as the rejection of the science of evolution and climate change by large minorities attests.             Newsweek quoted a prominent antivaccine advocate in Mississippi as saying, “I saw the Disney movie ‘Bears,’ and if God gave bears the instinct to survive their harsh reality, then human beings certainly have the instinct to protect children. Mumps, measles and rubella don’t scare me.”

    Such ignorance would be easier to dismiss if it weren’t that children have to pay the price for it. And it’s not just the children of the vaccine objectors who have to pay it. Vaccination programs start to lose effectiveness in preventing disease outbreaks when less than entire populations are inoculated. It is worrisome that the percentage of children in Wisconsin who meet vaccination requirements is steadily dropping.

    Only 91% of Wisconsin students have received the required vaccinations. State law requires 15 doses of five vaccines to enter kindergarten, but parents can easily—too easily—opt out by checking a box on the immunization form and signing it.

    Wisconsin is one of 20 states that allows these so-called personal conviction waivers. The state should toughen the exemption standards by at least requiring consultation with health workers for parents refusing vaccination for their children.

     The outbreak threat now is measles. But the same root cause—parents who reject scientific proof about vaccinations—could lead to a decline in polio inoculations that could revive the infectious disease that once spread fear and, in many cases, tragedy in Wisconsin and elsewhere.

    Parents who demonize the vaccinations that are considered the most effective public health initiative in history should learn about that horror story. They need a good scare.


 
Marching to the brew pub PDF Print E-mail
News
Written by Ozaukee Press   
Wednesday, 10 December 2014 19:04

The Port Common Council moved in lock step closer to selling public harbor land for a brew pub, but left an escape route that could save the city from a mistake

The Port Washington Common Council put on an impressive demonstration of government by unanimous vote at its meeting last week. Dealing with an issue of surpassing importance and significant controversy, in the face of a chamber packed with opponents of the council’s proposed action, not a single alderman raised a question, expressed a doubt or revealed so much as a scintilla of hesitancy before voting 7-0 to put public lakefront land on the market as a site for a brew pub.

    The more than 30 members of the public who attended the meeting didn’t get a debate or even a discussion of the pros and cons of selling publicly owned land at the harbor for commercial development.

    What they did get was comments from several aldermen maintaining that their vote would not commit the city to selling the land but was meant merely to, as one alderman put it, “see if there’s an idea out there” for the commercial use of what is now a parking lot at the north end of the downtown marina. Another alderman, Council President Dan Becker, emphasized, “This action tonight commits the city to absolutely nothing.”

    It is doubtful those comments succeeded in soothing the objectors. The remarkably fast pace of the move to declare the land surplus and offer it for sale—approvals by the Community Development Authority, Plan Commission and Common Council in a span of only two weeks—has left many in the city with the perception that city officials are on a mission to quickly convert the public harbor land to a brew pub site.

    Yet the statement that the council vote to declare the parking lot surplus property does not commit the city to selling the land is absolutely true. Council members would do well to remember that, because it can be their out, their way of escaping a mistake that Port Washington history is not likely to judge kindly.

    The process, nonetheless, continues to move at speed. Requests for proposals to buy the land will soon be distributed to potential buyers. Offers will likely come in. But trading the public’s lake views and proximity to the water for something as banal as a brew pub would be such an uneven exchange that any offers received should be set aside until a thorough reconsideration of the use of the parking lot land can be conducted.

    An exercise in creating a new downtown development plan led to an epiphany among officials that the parking lot between Washington Street and the inner harbor is not really needed to park cars. How that morphed into a judgment that a brew pub would be a highest and best use of the land defies understanding.

    In land-use decisions made in many communities fortunate enough to be located beside oceans, lakes and rivers, publicly owned waterside land is treated is an asset of incalculable value to be developed only for public use in recreation or aesthetic appreciation of natural beauty. Respected studies have shown that this approach, besides protecting public resources, increases the value of nearby commercial development.

    A comprehensive plan for all of Port Washington’s lakefront land, both publicly and privately owned, is needed and could well conclude that sacrificing public land of significant natural value for commercial development would be a step backward by both economic and quality-of-life calculations.

    Even short of such a study, it stands to reason that the city government should keep control of the lakefront land the people own. Selling the parking lot for a brew pub or some similar use would close the door to the city ever taking advantage of better opportunities that would keep it in the public domain, such as the Kiwanis Club’s offer to create a park there at its expense or future options that could include institutional or cultural use of the property, with views and water access intact, in which the public would have a stake.

    Meanwhile, negative reaction to the council’s unanimous vote is building in the community—another reason it is good that, in the aldermen’s own words, the city is not committed to selling the harbor land.


 
Yes to mileage charge, no to confiscatory fees PDF Print E-mail
News
Written by Ozaukee Press   
Wednesday, 03 December 2014 19:07

Lawmakers should back DOT plan to study a per-mile assessment for roads, but reject fees on new cars and electric cars and then cap highway spending

The fairest way to have users pay the costs of highway construction and maintenance is to collect a fee on miles traveled.

    There is a nod to that in the many-faceted transportation funding plan unveiled by Wisconsin Transportation Secretary Mark Gottlieb in November.

    The plan recommends changing state law to allow the DOT to require vehicle owners to report odometer readings when they renew their registrations. The idea is that the numbers gathered could pave the way for mileage charges in the future.

    It would be better if this were a recommendation for the real thing—a per-mile fee to be enacted as soon as possible to help the state cover its road-funding shortfall, as was recommended by a task force last year. Still, this is a start, one of the pieces of Gottlieb’s plan that should be approved by the Legislature.

    Besides its basic fairness, a mileage fee is appealing in that it could eliminate the need for two onerous provisions of the transportation funding plan—taxes on new car purchases and on hybrid and electric vehicles.

    Gottlieb is calling for charging new car buyers a fee of 2.5% of the suggested retail price for road funding. Essentially a road tax, it would cost the buyer of a $25,000 vehicle $625.

    The idea might make sense as a revenue source—it would raise about $150 million a year—but certainly not in any other way. It would be a disincentive to new vehicle buying that would hurt dealers, and it would impose a hardship on buyers of what is for most families a necessity of life (on top of a sales tax that adds 5.6% to the cost of cars in southeastern Wisconsin). What’s more, it’s unfair: New car and light truck buyers get no more benefit from roads than the used car buyers who would be exempt from the tax.

    Even less palatable in the financing plan is a proposal to extract a fee of $50 a year from owners of hybrid and electric vehicles. This would punish the state residents who buy vehicles that limit harmful emissions by using little or no fossil fuel. It would be an intrusion into the market that could discourage sales of the vehicles that are kindest to the environment.

    The fee idea derives from the fact that hybrids and electric vehicles pay little or none of the gas taxes that currently are the mainstay of road funding. An argument can be made that such vehicles deserve a break, but apart from that, the proposed $50 is confiscatory. Even with the higher rate Gottlieb is proposing for the gas tax, its average cost per car would be about $27 year.

    The per-mile fee the state should adopt would treat all vehicles the same regardless of the source of their engine power.

    The DOT secretary’s plan, however, continues to rely heavily on the gas tax. Gottlieb recommends a new formula with a base of 15.5 cents per gallon plus 8% of the average wholesale price of gasoline. The DOT estimates the new gas tax would be about 38 cents per gallon, about 5 cents a gallon higher than the current tax.

    Until a mileage tax can be applied, the gas tax is a practical and quite fair method of assessing drivers for road costs, and the increase is justified.

    Gottlieb’s financing plan is configured as an eclectic bundle of revenue-raising devices—including borrowing and dipping into general tax revenue for transportation—in the hope that enough of the recommendations will survive the Legislature’s sausage-making machine to generate the more than $2 billion the DOT wants for the next two years.

    The organizations WISPIRG, which advocates for consumers, and 1000 Friends, which promotes land use that discourages urban sprawl, say that amount is too much. Both argue persuasively that Wisconsin overspends on highways. They point out that the DOT does not account for the fact that people are driving less today than 10 years ago and thus its projections for future highway needs are inflated.

    Legislators should start to solve Gottlieb’s problem by making it smaller—by reducing highway spending.



 
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > End >>

Page 1 of 91
advertisement
Banner
Banner
Banner