Vaccinations
May 27th 2013 | 3:04 pm
#1
Thread Starter
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,327
From: Nusajaya
Vaccinations
I wanted to reply to a post on another thread, but the thread was closed.
The post was:
Only the view that there's a justification for not vaccinating, surely? You may not wish to vaccinate your child but one assumes you accept that such failure puts the child and others at risk. It may be that you think your child is more specialer than any other and so won't get ill and that you simply don't care about other people but you can't seriously suggest that you do so based on any sort of evidence; all the evidence points the other way.
I wanted to ask:
What, exactly, is the objection to some parents deciding not to vaccinate against certain illnesses?
If parent A decides that the vaccine carries less risk than the illness, but parent B decides that the vaccine carries more risk than the illness, and both act accordingly, how is parent B's "failure" putting others at risk?
Surely, parent A won't mind, because their child has been vaccinated, and won't catch the disease?
Those of the same opinion as parent B won't have vaccinated, and will accept the consequences.
In summary, how does not vaccinating become "not caring about other people"? Other people have choices, too.
The post was:
Only the view that there's a justification for not vaccinating, surely? You may not wish to vaccinate your child but one assumes you accept that such failure puts the child and others at risk. It may be that you think your child is more specialer than any other and so won't get ill and that you simply don't care about other people but you can't seriously suggest that you do so based on any sort of evidence; all the evidence points the other way.
I wanted to ask:
What, exactly, is the objection to some parents deciding not to vaccinate against certain illnesses?
If parent A decides that the vaccine carries less risk than the illness, but parent B decides that the vaccine carries more risk than the illness, and both act accordingly, how is parent B's "failure" putting others at risk?
Surely, parent A won't mind, because their child has been vaccinated, and won't catch the disease?
Those of the same opinion as parent B won't have vaccinated, and will accept the consequences.
In summary, how does not vaccinating become "not caring about other people"? Other people have choices, too.
May 27th 2013 | 4:18 pm
#2
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 28,998
Re: Vaccinations
I wanted to reply to a post on another thread, but the thread was closed.
The post was:
Only the view that there's a justification for not vaccinating, surely? You may not wish to vaccinate your child but one assumes you accept that such failure puts the child and others at risk. It may be that you think your child is more specialer than any other and so won't get ill and that you simply don't care about other people but you can't seriously suggest that you do so based on any sort of evidence; all the evidence points the other way.
I wanted to ask:
What, exactly, is the objection to some parents deciding not to vaccinate against certain illnesses?
If parent A decides that the vaccine carries less risk than the illness, but parent B decides that the vaccine carries more risk than the illness, and both act accordingly, how is parent B's "failure" putting others at risk?
Surely, parent A won't mind, because their child has been vaccinated, and won't catch the disease?
Those of the same opinion as parent B won't have vaccinated, and will accept the consequences.
In summary, how does not vaccinating become "not caring about other people"? Other people have choices, too.
The post was:
Only the view that there's a justification for not vaccinating, surely? You may not wish to vaccinate your child but one assumes you accept that such failure puts the child and others at risk. It may be that you think your child is more specialer than any other and so won't get ill and that you simply don't care about other people but you can't seriously suggest that you do so based on any sort of evidence; all the evidence points the other way.
I wanted to ask:
What, exactly, is the objection to some parents deciding not to vaccinate against certain illnesses?
If parent A decides that the vaccine carries less risk than the illness, but parent B decides that the vaccine carries more risk than the illness, and both act accordingly, how is parent B's "failure" putting others at risk?
Surely, parent A won't mind, because their child has been vaccinated, and won't catch the disease?
Those of the same opinion as parent B won't have vaccinated, and will accept the consequences.
In summary, how does not vaccinating become "not caring about other people"? Other people have choices, too.
May 27th 2013 | 4:29 pm
#3
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 7,866
From: Cochrane, Alberta
Re: Vaccinations
I think the main issue is that diseases that we could remove from the population continue to breed and spread. Take the recent measles outbreak in South Wales. Hundreds of cases from an unvaccinated population, now resulting in about 60,000 people rushing in to get the jab after all. I only heard of one death, maybe there were more. Not much I suppose, except to that young man's family.
It's always a heated debate, this one.
Even if you are vaccinated I understand you might still catch the relevant virus but hopefully not get the illness so badly. Parent B has their choice, of course, and yes accepts the possibilities that go with it. But if half the class in school are not vaccinated and measles pops up, it puts everyone at a higher risk because it spreads so easily and affects more than the 15 kids with measles - it affects the larger population as they all go home, visit grandma, visit a new born cousin, etc, etc.
That's my tuppence on this emotive subject.
It's always a heated debate, this one.
Even if you are vaccinated I understand you might still catch the relevant virus but hopefully not get the illness so badly. Parent B has their choice, of course, and yes accepts the possibilities that go with it. But if half the class in school are not vaccinated and measles pops up, it puts everyone at a higher risk because it spreads so easily and affects more than the 15 kids with measles - it affects the larger population as they all go home, visit grandma, visit a new born cousin, etc, etc.
That's my tuppence on this emotive subject.
May 27th 2013 | 11:41 pm
#4
Assimilated Pauper
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 40,070
From: Ontario
Re: Vaccinations
I think the main issue is that diseases that we could remove from the population continue to breed and spread. Take the recent measles outbreak in South Wales. Hundreds of cases from an unvaccinated population, now resulting in about 60,000 people rushing in to get the jab after all. I only heard of one death, maybe there were more. Not much I suppose, except to that young man's family.
It's always a heated debate, this one.
Even if you are vaccinated I understand you might still catch the relevant virus but hopefully not get the illness so badly. Parent B has their choice, of course, and yes accepts the possibilities that go with it. But if half the class in school are not vaccinated and measles pops up, it puts everyone at a higher risk because it spreads so easily and affects more than the 15 kids with measles - it affects the larger population as they all go home, visit grandma, visit a new born cousin, etc, etc.
That's my tuppence on this emotive subject.
It's always a heated debate, this one.
Even if you are vaccinated I understand you might still catch the relevant virus but hopefully not get the illness so badly. Parent B has their choice, of course, and yes accepts the possibilities that go with it. But if half the class in school are not vaccinated and measles pops up, it puts everyone at a higher risk because it spreads so easily and affects more than the 15 kids with measles - it affects the larger population as they all go home, visit grandma, visit a new born cousin, etc, etc.
That's my tuppence on this emotive subject.
What is the case for not having a child immunised against, say, measles, mumps, rubella, polio, TB, diptheria?
May 28th 2013 | 12:03 am
#5
Professional Cat herder
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 5,709
From: TORONTO- yay!!!
Re: Vaccinations
The problem is that people have forgotten the benefits we've reaped as a society from managing to near eliminate some of the nasties via vaccinations.
Our children don't suffocate from diptheria, we don't have ward upon ward of people in iron lungs who may or may not ever leave them. You don't see a generation of children crippled permanently after contracting polio. So we start to think that "hey we don't need these vaccines after all!"
Unfortunately we are now in a society where scientific illiteracy is seen as "cool" and acceptable. You will never win the argument.
Our children don't suffocate from diptheria, we don't have ward upon ward of people in iron lungs who may or may not ever leave them. You don't see a generation of children crippled permanently after contracting polio. So we start to think that "hey we don't need these vaccines after all!"
Unfortunately we are now in a society where scientific illiteracy is seen as "cool" and acceptable. You will never win the argument.
May 28th 2013 | 3:22 am
#6
Magnificently Withering
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,908
From: Oakville, ON
Re: Vaccinations
The problem is that people have forgotten the benefits we've reaped as a society from managing to near eliminate some of the nasties via vaccinations.
Our children don't suffocate from diptheria, we don't have ward upon ward of people in iron lungs who may or may not ever leave them. You don't see a generation of children crippled permanently after contracting polio. So we start to think that "hey we don't need these vaccines after all!"
Unfortunately we are now in a society where scientific illiteracy is seen as "cool" and acceptable. You will never win the argument.
Our children don't suffocate from diptheria, we don't have ward upon ward of people in iron lungs who may or may not ever leave them. You don't see a generation of children crippled permanently after contracting polio. So we start to think that "hey we don't need these vaccines after all!"
Unfortunately we are now in a society where scientific illiteracy is seen as "cool" and acceptable. You will never win the argument.
The risk of complications arising from vaccination pale into complete insignificance beside the risk of, for instance, testicular atrophy and male infertility following mumps in adolescence, or foetal abnormality or spontaneous abortion as a result of measles during pregnancy.
There is, in general, a very poor understanding of statistical risk analysis amongst the public, fostered by some seriously irresponsible journalism. Almost all of the so-called arguments against childhood immunization play on this lack of understanding. There is, simply put, absolutely no justification for failing to immunize children against preventable diseases. It's irresponsible not only for one's own child but for society as a whole.
May 28th 2013 | 3:27 am
#7
Born again atheist
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 30,259
From: Europe (to be specified).
Re: Vaccinations
^This. This in spades. More specifically, there is a hugely increased risk to vulnerable patients (the very young, who cannot be vaccinated, the elderly, whose immune systems are less effective, and the immunocompromised, including people on a whole range of medications for other ailments).
The risk of complications arising from vaccination pale into complete insignificance beside the risk of, for instance, testicular atrophy and male infertility following mumps in adolescence, or foetal abnormality or spontaneous abortion as a result of measles during pregnancy.
There is, in general, a very poor understanding of statistical risk analysis amongst the public, fostered by some seriously irresponsible journalism. Almost all of the so-called arguments against childhood immunization play on this lack of understanding. There is, simply put, absolutely no justification for failing to immunize children against preventable diseases. It's irresponsible not only for one's own child but for society as a whole.
The risk of complications arising from vaccination pale into complete insignificance beside the risk of, for instance, testicular atrophy and male infertility following mumps in adolescence, or foetal abnormality or spontaneous abortion as a result of measles during pregnancy.
There is, in general, a very poor understanding of statistical risk analysis amongst the public, fostered by some seriously irresponsible journalism. Almost all of the so-called arguments against childhood immunization play on this lack of understanding. There is, simply put, absolutely no justification for failing to immunize children against preventable diseases. It's irresponsible not only for one's own child but for society as a whole.
May 28th 2013 | 7:08 pm
#8
Forum Regular
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 72
Re: Vaccinations
I wanted to reply to a post on another thread, but the thread was closed.
The post was:
Only the view that there's a justification for not vaccinating, surely? You may not wish to vaccinate your child but one assumes you accept that such failure puts the child and others at risk. It may be that you think your child is more specialer than any other and so won't get ill and that you simply don't care about other people but you can't seriously suggest that you do so based on any sort of evidence; all the evidence points the other way.
I wanted to ask:
What, exactly, is the objection to some parents deciding not to vaccinate against certain illnesses?
If parent A decides that the vaccine carries less risk than the illness, but parent B decides that the vaccine carries more risk than the illness, and both act accordingly, how is parent B's "failure" putting others at risk?
Surely, parent A won't mind, because their child has been vaccinated, and won't catch the disease?
Those of the same opinion as parent B won't have vaccinated, and will accept the consequences.
In summary, how does not vaccinating become "not caring about other people"? Other people have choices, too.
The post was:
Only the view that there's a justification for not vaccinating, surely? You may not wish to vaccinate your child but one assumes you accept that such failure puts the child and others at risk. It may be that you think your child is more specialer than any other and so won't get ill and that you simply don't care about other people but you can't seriously suggest that you do so based on any sort of evidence; all the evidence points the other way.
I wanted to ask:
What, exactly, is the objection to some parents deciding not to vaccinate against certain illnesses?
If parent A decides that the vaccine carries less risk than the illness, but parent B decides that the vaccine carries more risk than the illness, and both act accordingly, how is parent B's "failure" putting others at risk?
Surely, parent A won't mind, because their child has been vaccinated, and won't catch the disease?
Those of the same opinion as parent B won't have vaccinated, and will accept the consequences.
In summary, how does not vaccinating become "not caring about other people"? Other people have choices, too.
The average person knows next to nothing about immunology, the history of vaccinations, disease and/or immunity.
The 'average' person believes what they read as long as its printed in a newspaper. Vaccinations are backed by very large corporations who make very large amounts of money, who are able to promote themselves with very large media outlets.
Even if 10 million people believe the same thing, it doesn't mean its true.
I too asked a question about the legalities surrounding vaccinations in Canada and received a barrage of rhetoric and bias.
The thread was then unceremoniously closed.
May 28th 2013 | 7:09 pm
#9
Forum Regular
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 72
Re: Vaccinations
Children coming from the UK do not require vaccinations to enter Canada.
May 28th 2013 | 7:25 pm
#10
Forum Regular
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 72
Re: Vaccinations
P.S. Geedee if you would like to access the science, please pm me - happy to provide you with information, both pro and con regarding vaccinations as well as human immunity in general. Happy to help someone genuinely interested in making an informed decision or who just wants information.
May 28th 2013 | 10:56 pm
#11
Professional Cat herder
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 5,709
From: TORONTO- yay!!!
Re: Vaccinations
Hi Geedee. Should you form your opinion or take seriously the views from a few people who you don't know on an internet forum as opposed to doing your own research, based on empirical evidence, you may be sorely disappointed with the outcome.
The average person knows next to nothing about immunology, the history of vaccinations, disease and/or immunity.
The 'average' person believes what they read as long as its printed in a newspaper. Vaccinations are backed by very large corporations who make very large amounts of money, who are able to promote themselves with very large media outlets.
Even if 10 million people believe the same thing, it doesn't mean its true.
I too asked a question about the legalities surrounding vaccinations in Canada and received a barrage of rhetoric and bias.
The thread was then unceremoniously closed.
The average person knows next to nothing about immunology, the history of vaccinations, disease and/or immunity.
The 'average' person believes what they read as long as its printed in a newspaper. Vaccinations are backed by very large corporations who make very large amounts of money, who are able to promote themselves with very large media outlets.
Even if 10 million people believe the same thing, it doesn't mean its true.
I too asked a question about the legalities surrounding vaccinations in Canada and received a barrage of rhetoric and bias.
The thread was then unceremoniously closed.
You asked a question, got an answer within the first 10 posts
The thread then drifted to talk about vaccination in general
You chose to take it as a personal insult
And you'd be surprised by the scientific background of some of our posters
May 28th 2013 | 11:35 pm
#12
Forum Regular
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 72
Re: Vaccinations
Hi. I didn't 'choose' anything. the thread was closed after much rhetoric and opining.
Do all threads get closed even though posters still post?
Bit of a non sequitur calling this a "discussion forum" if that is the case. Discuss only what we think you should discuss?
We are all adults here and are capable of engaging in a conversation without throwing daggers at each other or being 'moderated' ad nauseum because old timers on this forum and moderators don't 'like it'.
Minus the rhetoric and hyperbole, discussions are useful. Personal opinions, ad hominem and straw man arguments usually aren't.
Do all threads get closed even though posters still post?
Bit of a non sequitur calling this a "discussion forum" if that is the case. Discuss only what we think you should discuss?
We are all adults here and are capable of engaging in a conversation without throwing daggers at each other or being 'moderated' ad nauseum because old timers on this forum and moderators don't 'like it'.
Minus the rhetoric and hyperbole, discussions are useful. Personal opinions, ad hominem and straw man arguments usually aren't.
May 28th 2013 | 11:59 pm
#13
Assimilated Pauper
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 40,070
From: Ontario
Re: Vaccinations
P.S. Geedee if you would like to access the science, please pm me - happy to provide you with information, both pro and con regarding vaccinations as well as human immunity in general. Happy to help someone genuinely interested in making an informed decision or who just wants information.
May 29th 2013 | 12:09 am
#14
Professional Cat herder
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 5,709
From: TORONTO- yay!!!
Re: Vaccinations
I too am eager to see what you've got that contradicts decades of peer reviewed studies.
May 29th 2013 | 1:12 am
#15
Magnificently Withering
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,908
From: Oakville, ON
Re: Vaccinations
Hi. I didn't 'choose' anything. the thread was closed after much rhetoric and opining.
Do all threads get closed even though posters still post?
Bit of a non sequitur calling this a "discussion forum" if that is the case. Discuss only what we think you should discuss?
We are all adults here and are capable of engaging in a conversation without throwing daggers at each other or being 'moderated' ad nauseum because old timers on this forum and moderators don't 'like it'.
Minus the rhetoric and hyperbole, discussions are useful. Personal opinions, ad hominem and straw man arguments usually aren't.
Do all threads get closed even though posters still post?
Bit of a non sequitur calling this a "discussion forum" if that is the case. Discuss only what we think you should discuss?
We are all adults here and are capable of engaging in a conversation without throwing daggers at each other or being 'moderated' ad nauseum because old timers on this forum and moderators don't 'like it'.
Minus the rhetoric and hyperbole, discussions are useful. Personal opinions, ad hominem and straw man arguments usually aren't.
We are no longer talking here about whether children need to be vaccinated to enter the Canadian schooling system - that's been answered, and Geedee asked a very specific question at the head of this thread:
What, exactly, is the objection to some parents deciding not to vaccinate against certain illnesses?
Of course, if one subscribes to the often-quoted-out-of-context Thatcherism that "there's no such thing as society" then one wouldn't have a problem with such a selfish attitude. Much as I disagree with many of her social policies, this is an unkind reflection of the Leaderene's views. What gets lost in the editing is what she went on to say: "There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation." [my emphasis].
IMHO those who chose not to vaccinate their children are all about the entitlement and forgetful of the obligation.
if you want some evidence, you could start with the list of references at the end of the Wikipedia entry on herd immunity:
- John TJ, Samuel R (2000). "Herd immunity and herd effect: new insights and definitions". Eur. J. Epidemiol. 16 (7): 601–6. doi:10.1023/A:1007626510002. PMID 11078115.
- a b c History and Epidemiology of Global Smallpox Eradication From the training course titled "Smallpox: Disease, Prevention, and Intervention". The CDC and the World Health Organization. Slide 16-17.
- a b Fine P (1993). "Herd immunity: history, theory, practice". Epidemiol Rev 15 (2): 265–302. PMID 8174658.
- Jamison DT, Breman JG, Measham AR, ed. (2006). "Chapter 4: Cost-Effective Strategies for the Excess Burden of Disease in Developing Countries
- Section: Vaccine-preventable Diseases". Priorities in Health: Disease Control Priorities Companion Volume. World Bank Publications. ISBN 0-8213-6260-7.
- Glanz JM, McClure DL, Magid DJ, et al. (June 2009). "Parental refusal of pertussis vaccination is associated with an increased risk of pertussis infection in children". Pediatrics 123 (6): 1446–51. doi:10.1542/peds.2008-2150. PMID 19482753.
- Gupta RK, Best J, MacMahon E (May 2005). "Mumps and the UK epidemic 2005". BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) 330 (7500): 1132–5. doi:10.1136/bmj.330.7500.1132. PMC 557899. PMID 15891229.
- Salathé M, Bonhoeffer S (December 2008). "The effect of opinion clustering on disease outbreaks". J R Soc Interface. 5 (29): 1505–8. doi:10.1098/rsif.2008.0271. PMC 2607358. PMID 18713723.
- Fair E, Murphy T, Golaz A, Wharton M (2002). "Philosophic objection to vaccination as a risk for tetanus among children younger than 15 years". Pediatrics 109 (1): E2. doi:10.1542/peds.109.1.e2. PMID 11773570.
- Fu F., Rosenbloom D. I., Wang L., Nowak M. A. (2010). "Imitation dynamics of vaccination behaviour on social networks". Proceedings of the Royal Society B 278 (1702): 42–49. doi:10.1098/rspb.2010.1107. PMC 2992723. PMID 20667876.
- Perisic A., Bauch C. T. (2009). "Social contact networks and disease eradicability under voluntary vaccination". In Meyers, Lauren Ancel. PLoS Computational Biology 5 (2): e1000280. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000280. PMC 2625434. PMID 19197342.
- "Vaccine vacuum". Harvard Gazette. 2010-07-29
