I am sure there is some of this happening because some are leaching off of the herd. But there are many more who just will out and out refuse to based on principle, and not just because they are relying on everyone else for protection.
I am sure there is some of this happening because some are leaching off of the herd. But there are many more who just will out and out refuse to based on principle, and not just because they are relying on everyone else for protection.
get used to it.. wrote:
You feel it is debunked science but others don't because they are not convinced that it has been studied enough by agencies and people without a dog in the fight
This is fine to respond with, but the initial claim that vaccines are directly linked to autism has been debunked. The initial claim that was founded on zero research. This doesn't mean that those that support vaccines are (generally speaking, not the other side of the wackos that are just as bad as the anit-vaxxers-because-of-autism-scare) outright removing it from possibility. The fact re: autism rising is that there are studies being performed to try and identify if there are any environmental factors (vaccines included) that are causing children to have autism.
The problem is that (most of) those who support vaccines are aware of the potential side effects and are understanding that those are less worrisome than the "side effects" (getting the disease(s)) of not taking them. Nobody is flatly saying "Vaccines have ZERO side effects". So when somebody refuses vaccines because "the disease is not common" or "my kids will just take the risk of getting it" are being extremely selfish, relying on the herd immunity that has been built up over the decades. The "risk of getting it" is so low today because of the work that the vaccine has done for years. I hope the people that think this way also don't vote, because 1 vote doesn't matter everybody else does and it'll get the job done.
I also hate the "they are my kids so I do what I want" arguments. I understand how this can come across as a "freedom". But being a new father, with a child too young for the MMR vaccine, that was too young for the whooping cough vaccine when he got a case of whooping cough, this subject has become very personal for me. We, to this day, have no idea where he could have picked up whooping cough, whether it was from a family member or somebody just in passing or at the pediatrician's office. The scary thing from the whole ordeal was that he never once had a cough and was only diagnosed because he had a runny nose and was still young enough that the Dr wanted to see what the virus or bacteria was. He was, on site, diagnosed with some viral infection, not contagious. His test results didn't come back for a week, in the meantime he saw family around the holidays, had to go on a trek to the grocery store with his mother, etc. Without knowing he had whooping cough, he could have easily spread it to cousins and family or coughed or sneezed out in public in passing. We had a very lucky early diagnosis and he never had serious symptoms. With the measles thing in California, this could have easily been measles, and he could have easily passed that on to an unknown number of people. And because he is too young to have the vaccine, he unwittingly becomes a potential cog in the outbreak of these diseases.
Then the response turns into "well if you're so scared then don't take them outside". No, you are making the choice to not vaccinate your kid, I'm not. So since you are choosing to endanger the public it is your children that shouldn't go outside. Not because they risk getting it, but because they risk getting it and not knowing and passing it on to everybody else.
Then the response turns to strawman arguments like "it is the illegals that are bringing it into the country". 1) It doesn't matter the cause - this is a disease that we can and have eradicated. 2) It has been shown in the past that the cause of outbreaks have been unvaccinated (or unable to be vaccinated) people going overseas where the diseases are not as regulated. So, regardless the cause, the disease(s) can and will survive to some degree, somewhere, and we need to do our best AS A WHOLE to keep it from being able to be spread. The best way to do this is through herd immunity, and everybody taking part. Just like voting - my one vote won't make a difference. But if enough people feel that way, then it will matter and eventually nobody votes and we don't have somebody representing the majority of people and how they feel.
Lastly, stop saying "it is my freedom to choose not to". It is simply you being selfish, not wanting to take the lesser risk of the vaccine, with the hope that you are protected from those handful of people that end up with the disease by a wall of people who are already vaccinated.
As "get used to it" noted, the reaction is partially a "conspiracy theory / government distrust" point. A bunch of folks think they are being duped in the name of profits for big pharma. This pulls some libertarians in from the right as well, who make a freedom argument.
The problem is, big pharma is really making its profits elsewhere. Mental health and lifestyle choice (e.g., Cialis) drugs are the big cash cows. The flu vaccine is a bit profitable, but your old-school MMR shots aren't buying anyone a yacht:
http://health.howstuffworks.com/medicine/medication/10-most-profitable-drugs.htm#page=6
The other major anti-vax group is the "purity" group, who is frightened about mercury and thimerosal, even though there's not much thimerosal in standard vaccines anymore and a reduction in thimerosal was accompanied by a rise in autism rates. This tends to be a more lefty phenomenon and is tied culturally to other trends like the paleo diet. It boils down to "Your body knows what it's doing - don't interfere". Note that this theory hasn't worked so well for other historical unvaccinated populations, like, say, the American Indians.
They also can't point to any widespread bad outcome that decades of vaccination of 90% plus of the population has wrought. There are isolated reactions, but it's not like we've seen any major issues (and of course autism has now been eliminated as casually linked).
Both of these groups fail to do proper risk-reward calculations. They view the risk of the vaccines as higher than the risk of being un-vaccinated.
To be fair, this may have actually been true where vaccination rates are really high. If everyone else is protecting you, then maybe the miniscule risk of an adverse vaccine reaction is higher than the risk of contracting a super rare disease. Of course, everyone can't behave this way, because as people jump on the bandwagon the herd immunity drops and the risks of being unvaccinated quickly escalate. If everyone bears the tiny risk of vaccination equally, we get to eliminate the big risk of awful diseases - most people are willing to make this trade - others are selfish.
All but the diehards in both of these groups will react quickly in the event a real nasty disease (Polio! Don't call it a comeback!) re-emerges. Then they will vaccinate immediately, and we will see a streak of laws requiring vaccination. It's just a matter of time (but really sad that in rare cases, kids will suffer and die in the meantime).
Right???? wrote:
In nature, animals with weak immune systems die off. When the weak die, the collective and future generations benefit.
If we are looking to protect the herd... why are we protecting the weak, sick, and feeble?
Is it possible that disease is spreading because we have so many weak people living today? As a healthy adult, should I have to medicate because society is promoting weak genetics?
Ja good luck breeding da master race immune to all disease. Darwin is not all kulturkampf and politik. Za reasons of science require processes of society that frustrate the "naive" hopeless dream of racial purity. Ver did you schtudy you ideot.
It is not selfish for people to believe that vaccines are harmful and to not want to give them to their kids. Their kids are their priority. They have and should have the right to choose, as you do. If I feel there are significant potential negative consequences to vaccinating, I really don't give a rats ass what the consequence to society is. It is the health of my child, and you CANNOT prove causation with my child being unvaccinated to yours being sick.
If there are 100 babies on one ledge and yours on another, and you could only save yours OR the 100, which would you choose?
I would choose my baby. Sorry.
get used to it.. wrote:
It is not selfish for people to believe that vaccines are harmful and to not want to give them to their kids. Their kids are their priority. They have and should have the right to choose, as you do. If I feel there are significant potential negative consequences to vaccinating, I really don't give a rats ass what the consequence to society is. It is the health of my child, and you CANNOT prove causation with my child being unvaccinated to yours being sick.
If there are 100 babies on one ledge and yours on another, and you could only save yours OR the 100, which would you choose?
I would choose my baby. Sorry.
First, your analogy is awful. That is dealing in extremes, but beside that, it is incorrect. You are implying that the relative risk/reward (% of children that have reactions to vaccines vs % of kids that could get severe, long term issues from the disease) is the same. And while I would agree that it is that way currently, as I mentioned in my previous post, it is only this close because of vaccines and her immunity. If you were to go back to 40 years ago, the likelihood of contracting, say measles, was significantly higher than it is today.
But it does paint the picture of your thought process - it is you and your kid and that is it. It is, by definition, selfish. If that is too ugly a word for you, then so be it, but it doesn't change it. No big deal, just admit it and allow for herd immunization to continue to lower the likelihood of your unvaccinated child to contract the disease. And to answer your question, I would choose my child in your situation 100 times out of 100. With likelihood =1, there is no chance, therefore I choose my child. As that likelihood lowers to zero and the likelihood of the risk increases, then decisions need to be made.
Now to the bulk of what you are saying: you feel. You FEEL that the risk of vaccines is too great. Awesome. So be it, make your decisions. But with those decisions, come consequences. Any government run facility CAN require vaccination to admit your child (schools, dr clinics, etc) in order to protect those who are unable to get vaccinations. No offense, it isn't your personality, but we need to quarantine you for the sake of everybody else.
Think of it this way - everybody in our country is huddled into one large crowd. There are those that cannot be vaccinated (under 1 year for measles as an example) or those with immune deficiencies - they CAN contract the disease. Regardless of cause (some person infiltrating our huddle - immigrant - or somebody going on vacation outside of the huddle and bringing it back) somebody gets the disease. The only way they can pass that disease is by relative contact, so the ring of people around that person can potentially get it, but anybody on the outside of that person is safe. It is pretty obvious the more people you randomly insert into that huddle that are not immune, the easier it will spread - say 10 people are around each ring, and 95% of people are immune, then the chances of that disease passing along is very very little because of random distribution. But say one of those 10 surrounding people is not immune, they pick it up, then those around them are susceptible. So now you are adding 9 people to original 10, and therefore increasing likelihood of it spreading even larger. No, lower the immunity % down to 80% and all of a sudden for each person that catches the disease, you would expect 2 of the surrounding 10 people to get it. None of this matters to you because you still say "it doesn't outweigh the risk to my child".
This is a fine conclusion, I just hope you also deride anybody you know for having children after the age of 35 because all they are doing is increasing the likelihood of a child having down syndrome. And realistically, this risk is being taken with zero reward - why not just have children sooner or adopt if you weren't ready or weren't able to for a long while?
Right???? wrote:
If we are looking to protect the herd... why are we protecting the weak, sick, and feeble?
We're not looking to protect the herd. We're looking to protect ourselves and our relatives. So for us it's better to protect a weak family member even if you and your family die.
Of course I am dealing with extremes, just like the pro vaxers and anti vaxers are dealing with the unknown. I don't care about probability and risk. If I believe chemotherapy is harmful long term and I am given a 20% chance to live with it and 80% chance to die, I am not taking the chemo. For individuals, it isn't about risk assessment. We don't calculate that in our heads. It is based on emotions and fear, just like yours. With these diseases, everyone is acting like you will die if you get the disease. Yes, there is a chance you might die with the measles or any other disease, but the likely hood is very unlikely in this country. And the vaccines don't confer 100% immunity, so all this talk about unvaccinated people spreading it is just silly because vaccinated people can too.People over 35 usually don't read statistics to decide if they want to take the risk after 35 of having a down syndrome baby. It is an emotional decision. So my emotional response is: If I feel the risk of my child having a bad consequence from a vaccine is greater than the risk of them dying from a disease that they could be vaccinated for, I am NOT going to have them get the vaccination. I don't really factor your kids or anyone else's in that decision and it is really silly in my opinion for others to do so either.
ehhhh wrote:
get used to it.. wrote:It is not selfish for people to believe that vaccines are harmful and to not want to give them to their kids. Their kids are their priority. They have and should have the right to choose, as you do. If I feel there are significant potential negative consequences to vaccinating, I really don't give a rats ass what the consequence to society is. It is the health of my child, and you CANNOT prove causation with my child being unvaccinated to yours being sick.
If there are 100 babies on one ledge and yours on another, and you could only save yours OR the 100, which would you choose?
I would choose my baby. Sorry.
First, your analogy is awful. That is dealing in extremes, but beside that, it is incorrect. You are implying that the relative risk/reward (% of children that have reactions to vaccines vs % of kids that could get severe, long term issues from the disease) is the same. And while I would agree that it is that way currently, as I mentioned in my previous post, it is only this close because of vaccines and her immunity. If you were to go back to 40 years ago, the likelihood of contracting, say measles, was significantly higher than it is today.
But it does paint the picture of your thought process - it is you and your kid and that is it. It is, by definition, selfish. If that is too ugly a word for you, then so be it, but it doesn't change it. No big deal, just admit it and allow for herd immunization to continue to lower the likelihood of your unvaccinated child to contract the disease. And to answer your question, I would choose my child in your situation 100 times out of 100. With likelihood =1, there is no chance, therefore I choose my child. As that likelihood lowers to zero and the likelihood of the risk increases, then decisions need to be made.
Now to the bulk of what you are saying: you feel. You FEEL that the risk of vaccines is too great. Awesome. So be it, make your decisions. But with those decisions, come consequences. Any government run facility CAN require vaccination to admit your child (schools, dr clinics, etc) in order to protect those who are unable to get vaccinations. No offense, it isn't your personality, but we need to quarantine you for the sake of everybody else.
Think of it this way - everybody in our country is huddled into one large crowd. There are those that cannot be vaccinated (under 1 year for measles as an example) or those with immune deficiencies - they CAN contract the disease. Regardless of cause (some person infiltrating our huddle - immigrant - or somebody going on vacation outside of the huddle and bringing it back) somebody gets the disease. The only way they can pass that disease is by relative contact, so the ring of people around that person can potentially get it, but anybody on the outside of that person is safe. It is pretty obvious the more people you randomly insert into that huddle that are not immune, the easier it will spread - say 10 people are around each ring, and 95% of people are immune, then the chances of that disease passing along is very very little because of random distribution. But say one of those 10 surrounding people is not immune, they pick it up, then those around them are susceptible. So now you are adding 9 people to original 10, and therefore increasing likelihood of it spreading even larger. No, lower the immunity % down to 80% and all of a sudden for each person that catches the disease, you would expect 2 of the surrounding 10 people to get it. None of this matters to you because you still say "it doesn't outweigh the risk to my child".
This is a fine conclusion, I just hope you also deride anybody you know for having children after the age of 35 because all they are doing is increasing the likelihood of a child having down syndrome. And realistically, this risk is being taken with zero reward - why not just have children sooner or adopt if you weren't ready or weren't able to for a long while?
I find it strange that you are ignoring logic and statistics and making a decision based on a feeling.
I try to make my decision based on logic and evidence, when I don't know something, I reach out to those who have much more knowledge than I do in order to get the necessary information to make an informed decision. I don't see why you won't do the same.
In your chemo example you talk about not taking chemo if it has long term negative effects, but the other option is death (which to most people is a negative).
It isn't completely about society but also about your kid, who isn't old enough to make these decisions. You are concerned about long term impacts yet discount the possibility of death (therefore eliminating any possibility of long term anything). You are right that vaccines are not 100% effective but have you looked at some of the more recent numbers? 97% immunity with the vaccine vs. 90% of contracting the virus if exposed (now the probability of being exposed is low due to the herd immunity). Have you actually looked at the numbers and played the scenarios forward?
I understand your talk of emotion, but that is how people end up making bad decisions. I much rather make a decision based on facts, logic, and some common sense rather than on emotions alone. That is concerning to me, especially when you are not an expert in this field.
You need to realize not getting chemo doesn't mean certain death in my example, just as getting measles doesn't mean permanent death and impairment for those who contract it. For those reasons, we make our decisions based on emotions...how we feel about medical procedures, quality of life, etc. I work in healthcare, so these issues are on my radar constantly. In PT, I talk to people all the time about joint replacements. Many people need and would benefit from joint replacements, but won't get them because they hate doctors, worry it won't turn out well because a friend's didn't, worry they will never wake up. These people all make their decisions based on their experiences, which create emotion, so you have to respect where they are at. The same rings true with vaccinations and other medical issues. You may not give it much thought because you work in engineering or business or some other area, but because I work in healthcare, I have emotional issues related to it. Some anti vaxers have friends who have had kids who had negative responses to vaccines and they can see the implications from it. It can be scary. It isn't about numbers.
Don't agree wrote:
I find it strange that you are ignoring logic and statistics and making a decision based on a feeling.
I try to make my decision based on logic and evidence, when I don't know something, I reach out to those who have much more knowledge than I do in order to get the necessary information to make an informed decision. I don't see why you won't do the same.
In your chemo example you talk about not taking chemo if it has long term negative effects, but the other option is death (which to most people is a negative).
It isn't completely about society but also about your kid, who isn't old enough to make these decisions. You are concerned about long term impacts yet discount the possibility of death (therefore eliminating any possibility of long term anything). You are right that vaccines are not 100% effective but have you looked at some of the more recent numbers? 97% immunity with the vaccine vs. 90% of contracting the virus if exposed (now the probability of being exposed is low due to the herd immunity). Have you actually looked at the numbers and played the scenarios forward?
I understand your talk of emotion, but that is how people end up making bad decisions. I much rather make a decision based on facts, logic, and some common sense rather than on emotions alone. That is concerning to me, especially when you are not an expert in this field.
And with the latest outbreak, depending on just how big it gets, more of their friends will have negative experiences with the actual measles. Hopefully it doesn't come at the expense of a child's life. At that point, it's too late to hop off the anti vaxxer bandwagon.
I would also like to know where all of these kids are that have these bad reactions. I'm 44 have raised 2 kids and lived in several different areas of the US. I've never know anyone that had a kid with a bad reaction. Unless they are counting autism as a negative reaction, I don't believe most of them.
Seriously, I'm done trying to say anything to you after this - you contradict yourself and make the most ridiculous claims while ignoring the same claim because it doesn't fit your narrative.I'll finish with the below two things:
get used to it.. wrote:
You need to realize not getting chemo doesn't mean certain death in my example, just as getting measles doesn't mean permanent death and impairment for those who contract it.
Just like having an adverse reaction, be it serious and lifelong or a headache, from the vaccine is SIGNIFICANTLY lower than any chance of permanent impairment or "permanent death" (wasn't aware their was temporary death). This is even true in times of extremely low contraction of the disease because of the work of herd immunity for decades.
get used to it.. wrote:
In PT, I talk to people all the time about joint replacements. Many people need and would benefit from joint replacements, but won't get them because they hate doctors, worry it won't turn out well because a friend's didn't, worry they will never wake up.
Oh congratulations, you work in PT - where all the conditions affect the person and only the person. Are you choosing to ignore the arguments against your opinions and feelings because you know you can't refute them or because you don't understand them? Having a joint replacement is NOWHERE NEAR choosing to get vaccinated or not. Nobody else cares about your kids, we care about our kids and our family just like you care about your family and your kids as you have outlined. Therefore, if you truly cared about your kids and cared about not have even the slightest chance of them having some permanent freak occurrence happen to them from something like a vaccine, then you would care about everybody else having their kids vaccinated so that they don't infect yours in the case that they are immune deficient or something similar. Get it? Not difficult - by caring about herd immunity you are caring about your child not having a low likelihood occurrence happening to them, like contracting a preventable disease and having a lifelong issue or "permanent death". And this low likelihood occurrence is SIGNIFICANTLY MORE LIKELY to happen than an adverse reaction from a vaccine.
And sorry one more thing - did you completely miss my initial point? I do have a personal tie to this - much stronger than you and your PT healthcare work. My less-than-3-month old son caught whooping cough. But it wasn't bad, he didn't have to go to the emergency room, he didn't even ever have a cough. I should be the one saying "hey, these diseases aren't a big deal, way overblown". But I'm not, because I understand how EASILY and UNKNOWINGLY these things can be caught and passed on.
Once again, you don't want to use the term "selfish" because it is a negative term - but that is what you are doing. And it is stupidly selfish because, as I described above, your behavior being repeated by others (and you apparently would encourage everybody you know based on your anecdotal experience and environment) is actually making your child more likely to run into these diseases some day.
But go ahead, don't have your kids vaccinated - I'll do my part to help the herd immunity keep them safe. Because that is the risk I accept being a part of this society.
Only Very few people may die from measles, but I've never heard of anyone dying from autism. This anti-vaccine cause has exposed a serious fear of autism, maybe even a prejudice.
Dr. Wakefield had his own financial reasons for his "study." He was planning to launch some diagnostic kit or rival vaccine while he was performing his "research." I believe the study involved only 10-12 children, and much of his data was disputed by the children's own medical records. But if he could sabotage the mmr manufacturer, he'd be able to make a buck.
A side note. The organization Autism Speaks is urging parents to vaccinate their children.
And I know lots of unvaccinated people who have never had an issue either. But cases will will show up on both sides of the issue. Some vaccinated kids will have reactions and some unvaccinated kids will get sick. That is why it should remain a choice.
worker wrote:
And with the latest outbreak, depending on just how big it gets, more of their friends will have negative experiences with the actual measles. Hopefully it doesn't come at the expense of a child's life. At that point, it's too late to hop off the anti vaxxer bandwagon.
I would also like to know where all of these kids are that have these bad reactions. I'm 44 have raised 2 kids and lived in several different areas of the US. I've never know anyone that had a kid with a bad reaction. Unless they are counting autism as a negative reaction, I don't believe most of them.
Then don't ever speed. Speed limits were set up to protect society. Driving faster endangers your community. Next time you exceed the speed limit think about what a hippodrome you are. Face it. You couldn't care less about the good of society. You personally vaccinated your kids because you thought it was the best for them. Other people will make the same or different decision based on their own experiences, but don't expect anyone to believe for a second you made this personal choice for everyone else. It is laughable. If for one second you personally thought vaccines could or would harm your child you would not do it. Some people think vaccines are dangerous so they make this decision for themselves.
Autism isn't the only issue people have with vaccinations but you use it to try to make the opposing side sound ridiculous and it is a sad poor tactic.
Never did I say joint replacements were as serious as vaccines. I used it as a point to illustrate why people make choices.
Sorry, need to reply AGAIN.
I don't speed and I am always cautious on the road. Once again, nice straw man. The person driving below the speed limit is just as much a danger as well. Do we ticket them?
I am in the process of having my first child vaccinated - absolutely. Because I make decisions based on a combination of logic, common sense, personal belief (which is guided by history in general, not just my personal view). It is good for him for a multitude of reasons - first and foremost, I do not want him exposed to potentially dangerous diseases. But also, just as importantly, is that I am acting in the best interest of society considering my son's personal situation - if the vaccine does not work for him for any reason at all, I understand the importance of having everybody possible vaccinated in order to rid our society of the disease as best as possible.
If autism isn't the only issue, then please provide the other side effects and their % of occurrences? This is the point we are all trying to make - some people "think" they are dangerous because they have heard a story or may even know somebody who has had an adverse reaction loosely connected to some vaccine. But they haven't heard of a story or personalized an actual disease, so that isn't dangerous. Well, lets sum all those up and find out what is more likely to happen - the getting the disease and having a serious consequence is proven to be significantly more likely than having an adverse reaction to a vaccine. Get it? Take emotion and feeling out of it - you can admit to this.
What your stance seems to be is that it is ok to override history with personal emotion and feeling. That is fine, but as you read through that last line, you realize how that sounds and want to scream out "no, that is not what I am saying". But it is - we all see it. You joint example is exactly that. I don't care the severity of joint replacement - in fact, I would argue that is an even more serious and likely occurrence of serious consequences such as death than getting a vaccine - but you are saying that people think of others that have had complications or died and get emotional about it and decide not to do it because, hell, they can live with a bum knee. That is fine - but lets put your joint replacement example in the same scenario as vaccines:
**All %s made up but in relative terms it is the same concept** You need to have joint replacement, but your grandfather had a knee replacement and never woke up from the anesthetics. So your PT tells you that only X% of joint replacements end up with death. But if you don't get it, that there is a 2X% chance of dying as a complication to your knee issue. (I know this isn't true, but this is the relevant part of the likelihood of having a complication or serious instance of the disease) Your stance is that the emotional response of "well, it happened to my grandfather, so screw the %s" is the correct way to go? This isn't even considering the herd immunity and being a proper member of society. You are saying, screw the %s, lets go with emotion. Just because people do make decisions this way, doesn't mean it is intelligent nor acceptable.
Lastly, to address your point about vaccinating for everybody else - you're correct, I do it to protect my kid first and foremost. No question. But what you don't understand is that it has the added benefit of protecting him, myself, my wife, my whole family and friends, by this concept we keep using of herd immunity. As I pointed out above - the likelihood of a complication from the vaccine is lower than the likelihood of contracting the disease itself. Isn't this benefit enough to have your own child immunized? The added benefit is that by everybody doing this, our society is protected as a whole from an outbreak, allowing for the case that my own son does not take to the vaccine and is not immunized. See how that is a benefit to my son as well?
Look, you are arguing to argue, I get that. You want it to be ok to make a decision based on emotion and feeling. You want to lump this into the "I'm free to choose what I want to do, it is my body" - I understand that. I am actually very pro choice about a whole lot of things, all sorts of freedoms. But, from a very selfish standpoint, I want everybody immunized so that we have the best possible chance of eradicating a disease or a few because I understand that there are those who DON'T have a choice to be immunized because of health reasons or age reasons, you get that? By you having a choice, you are endangering those who do not have a choice. This is what needs to be regulated.
I am all for choice, by the way. You choose to not immunize your children, thats fine. But I don't want you around my children in the case that they are not able to be immunized. I don't want you at my public health offices, clinics, or hospitals. I don't want you at my public schools. I don't want to support your children who get sick with treatment - so no coverage in healthcare for these diseases, unless vaccination attempts are shown or proof of inability is shown. Send them to private schools, send them to private healthcare offices, don't take them to public events, don't let them play at city or state or national parks. Do you get the idea?
Get used to it.. wrote:
If for one second you personally thought vaccines could or would harm your child you would not do it. Some people think vaccines are dangerous so they make this decision for themselves.
By the way, this is why you are worthless in this discussion. I absolutely know they could harm my child in many ways. I read plenty of books (as you are required to do so while pregnant), I have done plenty of research, have heard it both from those who support and are against, and I understand there is a risk inherent in vaccinating him. But you are more likely to be hit by lightning or bit by a shark or shot in a major city than having a serious side affect to vaccines. Take a look at this chart:
http://www.vaccines.com/vaccine-allergic-reaction-odds.cfmThen come have a serious conversation. I know there are risks involved, I also know that they are very very limited, and just because little Johnny down the street had a reaction when I was growing up does not change the fact that it was a 1 in a million thing. Worrying about vaccines and not getting them because you know somebody who has been affected and you get emotional about it, is like not getting out of bed because somebody you care about was struck by lighting and it is raining outside.
You also have to understand that one of the reasons you can make that choice for your kids and even consider not vaccinating is because you live in a world where herd immunity and medical advances make this possible.
Even if you make the assumption that vaccinating your kid currently carries a risk of 5% and unvaccinating them is 0.1%, that number will grow as people continue to preach this anti-vaccine talk. So by choosing not to vaccinate your kid you are not only putting him or her in danger due to the diseases, but actually spreading a belief that increases the risk to your child.
That is one piece of logic I just don't understand with the anti-vaccine movement. The only way this works is either you have herd immunity or you end up with a lot more disease (and ugly diseases). So while you discount vaccines and are opposed to giving them to your children, these vaccines are actually what, indirectly, keep your kids safe.
Also, using examples of knowing a few people who are or are not vaccinated as your proof isnt particularly good. It is important to see the entire set of data and knowing just how contagious these diseases are. It is important to understand that, because the fewer people that get vaccinated the higher chance you have to running into the disease and that is where the high contagious rates really make this look bad.
get used to it says
"It is the health of my child, and you CANNOT prove causation with my child being unvaccinated to yours being sick."
Yes we can.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/02/02/us/measles-facts.html?_r=0
Smallpox is eradicated. It's gone. Because modern society worked fervently for over two centuries to vaccinate EVERYONE in the entire world. Eventually enough people were vaccinated that there was no unvaccinated population left for the virus to survive in. By 1978 it was eradicated worldwide and the human race was spared an awful debilitating disease. And the US hasn't actually vaccinated for smallpox for over 40 years because it extinct, its gone.
The US almost did the same thing with measles in the early 2000s but right after the CDC declared domestic borne measles eradicated the anti-vax movement took off and unvaccinated populations in California and Colorado sprung up where foreign borne cases of measles could take root and spread.
Still, I'm not telling you to vaccinate your child. You believe that it poses an unacceptable risk and that's fine, don't vaccinate your kid.
I am politely, humbly, graciously asking you to keep your child out of publicly funded schools pre-schools and daycare to minimize the spread of unwanted and wholly preventable diseases. Actually I'm not asking you, I'm asking the publicly funded facilities to keep your unvaccinated kid out.
Unvaccinated infected individuals can and do spread measles virus bodies for the 4 days before symptoms and the 4 days after showing symptoms. Measles can be briefly carried by vaccinated individuals on their clothes and skin for the several hours the measles virus can survive outside the human body. This means that measles can and does spread from an unvaccinated and infected 6 year old to the clothes of my vaccinated 6 year old who goes home and plays with his 6 month old baby brother who isn't vaccinated because he is too young.
This is not an idle hypothetical. This happened in the previous California Orange County outbreak and the more recent Disney outbreak and an outbreak in Chicago. Unvaccinated school and pre-school age children got measles , most likely from foreign travel, and then spread the virus to not just other unvaccinated school age kids but to unvaccinated infants through inadvertent contact, pediatricians offices and day to day life. Yes most of these infants will survive but a few won't and measles is not something to scoff at.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/chi-measles-palatine-20150205-story.html#page=1
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-santa-monica-baby-measles-20150202-story.html
Barring unvaccinated kids from public schools won't totally eliminate the potential for spread to at risk infant populations but it will help.
And like you say, I'm not willing to take any medical risks with my children I don't have to or want to. Neither should you, but home schooling or attending a totally independent private school isn't a medical risk so get used to it.
So that's all I want. I want public schools to get rid of the religious/ philosophical exemption. Personally, there is no way I would send my baby boy to day care unless I was certain the day care required MMR immunization.
I really do have six month old baby boy and I don't want him to get measles. I'm not paranoid. I simply don't think its unreasonable for me to expect the public facilities I pay for with tax dollars to be free from infectious diseases. That's all.
" I don't want you at my public health offices, clinics, or hospitals. I don't want you at my public schools. I don't want to support your children who get sick with treatment - so no coverage in healthcare for these diseases, unless vaccination attempts are shown or proof of inability is shown. Send them to private schools, send them to private healthcare offices, don't take them to public events, don't let them play at city or state or national parks. Do you get the idea?"
Can I stop paying taxes?
Your people, the vaccinated, now surly suffer from immune disorders, hypothalamic dysfunction, and sheepheaditis. We might be able to work something out...