Is measles vaccines good for runners?

Gary Oldman wrote:

anti-vaxxer wrote:

I have never missed a day of training due to measles either and I have never been vaccinated. Therefore the conclusion is that the measles vaccine has no bearing on one's ability to train.

So far.

Now expose yourself to measles and see what happens. I have.

We will have to agree to disagree.

anti-vaxxer wrote:

Gary Oldman wrote:

So far.

Now expose yourself to measles and see what happens. I have.

We will have to agree to disagree.

So far.

And then you'll get measles and agree.

Gary Oldman wrote:

anti-vaxxer wrote:

We will have to agree to disagree.

So far.

And then you'll get measles and agree.

Are you laboring under some misguided notion that getting the measles is some death sentence? It is not. I am confident and secure in my decision and do not fear for my health.

anti-vaxxer wrote:

Please explain why you feel that my initial posting represents ignorant thought. I contend that the parent should decide the merit versus risk of the vaccine for their child rather than the authorities of the police state. This should really not affect the vaccinated crowd as they are already vaccinated. I understand that some children may not be able to be vaccinated and may be at elevated risk but why should that govern my actions. My is at an elevated risk (understood that this may be a small risk) by being exposed to the toxins present in the vaccine. Just because the government tells us we need vaccinations does not mean that is the correct course of action.

Please think for yourself and don't just blindly follow the path set forth by our often corrupt government officials.

Don't be a drone!!!

Because the idea that "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" is the basic premise of any society. No matter how free a society is, it has laws. These laws are designed to protect the public. Even in the most free societies, the freedoms of any individual end where they cause harm to another individual or the society as a whole. By not being vaccinated, you are harming other individuals as well as the society as a whole.

If the only person being put at risk was yourself, then nobody would care.

I don't see how that is so hard to understand.

anti-vaxxer wrote:

Gary Oldman wrote:

So far.

And then you'll get measles and agree.

Are you laboring under some misguided notion that getting the measles is some death sentence? It is not. I am confident and secure in my decision and do not fear for my health.

It can be but nobody ever died from not getting measles.

It will also make you miss training days. Not good for a runner.

No Way wrote:

Because the idea that "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" is the basic premise of any society. No matter how free a society is, it has laws. These laws are designed to protect the public. Even in the most free societies, the freedoms of any individual end where they cause harm to another individual or the society as a whole. By not being vaccinated, you are harming other individuals as well as the society as a whole.

If the only person being put at risk was yourself, then nobody would care.

I don't see how that is so hard to understand.

How is my refusal to vaccinate my child putting you at risk? I presume you have followed the direction of your leader and vaccinated yourself. Therefore, my non-vaccinated state will have no bearing on your health. This mandate is a clear case of the government overstepping its bounds. Furthermore, measles is not a fatal condition. Yes, there are a small number of cases that may lead to more severe conditions, but there are also small numbers of those vaccinated that will suffer severe negative reactions. This should be left to the public to decide their personal course of action. I am not, in any manner, trying to legislate away the public's access to the vaccine.

Gary Oldman wrote:

It can be but nobody ever died from not getting measles.

It will also make you miss training days. Not good for a runner.

While it may be true that nobody has ever died from not getting the measles, it is also true that a small minority will die from being vaccinated.

Your refusal to vaccinate your child put many people at various types of risk. First, not everyone is able to get vaccinated. Some people have allergies to the ingredients or have weakened immune systems. By not vaccinating everyone who is able, the likelihood of an outbreak increases, which increases the risk to these people.

Second, depending on when you were vaccinated, the vaccine had different rates of effectiveness. In the 60s, when the vaccine was new (and different than the current one), the efficacy was only about 92%. That means that for our parents/grandparents, 8 out of every 100 people do not have immunity to the measles. Even today, the efficacy is 98-99%, which is incredible, but not perfect. If everyone in your kid's school was vaccinated, and 98% of them had immunity, there would be no outbreak in your school because the virus wouldn't be able to spread. By not vaccinating your kid, you're increasing the number of people who don't have immunity, which increases the likelihood of an outbreak, which increases the risk for those who either could not be vaccinated or are unlucky enough for the vaccine to have not been effective.

Third, there is more than one type of risk. My risk of getting sick might be very low, but your kid's is much higher. If your kid gets sick, they're going to require treatment. Your insurance will cover that treatment, but the insurance company will likely lose money over it. If enough people get the measles and the insurance companies lose money over it, all of our rates are going to increase.

Along the same lines, I think you underestimate the severity of the measles. Like you said, it certainly isn't a death sentence, but complications are fairly common. About 10% of children with measles will have an ear infection that can lead to hearing loss. Just under 10% will experience diarrhea, which when combined with the other measles symptoms can require hospitalization. About 5% will get pnuemonia, which will require hospitalization. 0.1% will suffer encephalitis which will require hospitalization and can cause mental retardation and deafness. And yes, 0.1% will die.

Now, frankly, your child dying doesn't peronally affect me much, but your child being hospitalized certainly might. First, like I said before, hospitalization costs money, which affects all of our insurance rates. Second, a measles outbreak places a burden on a hospital that will affect the resources available to others. Third, many people in a hospital are already sick and have weakened immune systems. Exposing these people to your sick kid puts them at risk for infection.

So yes, your refusal to vaccinate your child puts others at risk.

I find it troubling how you have such an easy time justifying your ability to tell me what is good for me. I also find it troubling how you can take a series of extreme logic leaps to state that my actions have a drastic effect on your money source. As stated previously, you are free to support your vaccination choice and free to support the vaccination of those in your family circle, but respect my ability to choose my own path. Based on your gratuitous logic leaps there MAY be some far reaching cost passed along to other members of my insurance group, but that is why I purchase insurance. Will you next tell me I cannot drive on New Year's eve because there is a higher percentage of accidents on that night? These accidents when pooled together may pass on a cost to you. Stay in your life and I will stay in mine, you cannot micromanage my decisions so please get off your soapbox.

anti-vaxxer wrote:

Gary Oldman wrote:

It can be but nobody ever died from not getting measles.

It will also make you miss training days. Not good for a runner.

While it may be true that nobody has ever died from not getting the measles, it is also true that a small minority will die from being vaccinated.

Now compare those two numbers. Measles deaths versus vaccination deaths.

As I stated, I don't care what is good for you. I care about what is good for society as a whole. The public cost of a measles outbreak isn't small.

Even if you take out the money part, you don't have a response to the actual physical risks that I pointed out.

Yes I do have a response: If you feel that the vaccine is the answer then vaccinate yourself. That is the answer. I am no more responsible for your actions than you are for mine. Can bad things happen to you as a result of my actions/in-actions? Yes, but that will always be the case regardless of my vaccination status. I think it is an overreach for the government to tell me I HAVE to get a vaccine. It is available and I can choose to go that route if I feel it is in my best interests.

Suppose the government, in the interest of doing what is best for society as a whole, passes a limitation to families of only a single baby? After the first child both parents must be sterilized. Would you support this measure for the greater good? It may also be argued that it is in societies best interest that the population save a minimum amount of salary for retirement years. Would you support the enforcement of mandatory savings? I am for personal autonomy regarding personal choices, it appears as though you would like to pass these decisions on to the government.

anti-vaxxer wrote:

Yes I do have a response: If you feel that the vaccine is the answer then vaccinate yourself. That is the answer. I am no more responsible for your actions than you are for mine. Can bad things happen to you as a result of my actions/in-actions? Yes, but that will always be the case regardless of my vaccination status. I think it is an overreach for the government to tell me I HAVE to get a vaccine. It is available and I can choose to go that route if I feel it is in my best interests.

So you've changed your response from, "My actions don't affect you." to "My actions affect you, but I don't care."

It's a start. At least you acknowledge that you're hurting people.

For the record, I'm all for non-governmental response to those who aren't vaccinated. Maybe insurers will stop covering those who aren't vaccinated. That seems fair, right? No one is forcing you to do anything, and we let capitalism take its course.

No Way wrote:

So you've changed your response from, "My actions don't affect you." to "My actions affect you, but I don't care."

It's a start. At least you acknowledge that you're hurting people.

A small clarification here in that my actions MAY affect you in some small manner but that is a fact of life. I am in no way acknowledging that I am hurting people. You are free to live your life without my direction just as I should be free to live without your intrusive direction. It is a scary world for you and I am sorry for that, but you can not control everybody's decisions and you have to realize that.

No Way wrote:

For the record, I'm all for non-governmental response to those who aren't vaccinated. Maybe insurers will stop covering those who aren't vaccinated. That seems fair, right? No one is forcing you to do anything, and we let capitalism take its course.

I have no problem with insurance limitations being imposed based on my decision, that is the way our society should operate (in my opinion). It is nice to know that we can meet in common ground.

The thing is, you can't prove that my lack of personal vaccination would be of harm to you, like you can't prove that me owning a gun would be of harm to you. Might it? Sure. Prove it? Certainly not. We as Americans should not be so comfortable having our liberties taken away because of a "might", regardless of what some feel is for the good of the herd.

Guess what, if you don't have a kid you don't get a tax refund either. Taxes are not fees.If you want a libertarian utopia where people protect their pursuit of happiness through civil law then you would end up have people suing each other every time they caught a preventable disease from each other.

tax refund? wrote:

dingle wrote:

No one is forcing anyone to be vaccinated. Two states have laws that require vaccinations in order to attend public school with no exceptions. Many states have religious exemptions and many have philosophical exemptions. If you don't agree with that then go to a private school (many of which require vaccinations) or home school.

If this is the case and my child is excluded from public schooling I should be refunded a percentage of my taxes. To do otherwise is to, in effect, steal my money (I am being charged for services I am prohibited from using).

This sounds ever more like the basis of a police state.

anti-vaxxer wrote:

No Way wrote:

So you've changed your response from, "My actions don't affect you." to "My actions affect you, but I don't care."

It's a start. At least you acknowledge that you're hurting people.

A small clarification here in that my actions MAY affect you in some small manner but that is a fact of life. I am in no way acknowledging that I am hurting people. You are free to live your life without my direction just as I should be free to live without your intrusive direction. It is a scary world for you and I am sorry for that, but you can not control everybody's decisions and you have to realize that.

Sure, you're right of course. I didn't mean to put words in your mouth.

Let's go back to your earlier example about New Year's Eve and drunk drivers. It was a good analogy, you just had it a little bit wrong.

Drunk drivers are people who make a choice that puts themselves and others at risk. Of course we don't stop sober, responsible drivers from driving. We instead punish those who make the choice to put others at risk. Does every drunk driver hurt or kill someone? Of course not. A very small percentage of them do though. To protect the public from these people, we make drunk driving illegal and punish those who do it.

Those who choose not to vaccinate are people who make a choice that puts themselves and others at risk. Of course we don't stop responsible people who have been vaccinated from going out in public. Does every un-vaccinated person infect others? Of course not. A very small percentage of them do though.

You could make this argument for just about anything, and I acknowledge that. There's no such thing as being completely safe.

What you're talking about though is similar to the drunk driving. You're making a choice knowing full well that it could kill or maim someone or to cause someone financial hardship.

I'm not saying that the government should mandate that every single person be vaccinated, because there are plenty of people who cannot be vaccinated. However, making the choice to put others at risk shouldn't be a "freedom" that you enjoy and encourage others to do. It should be something that you acknowledge is irresponsible and accept whatever treatment society gives you.

Your actions irk me, but the reason I joined this discussion isn't just because of the choice you made. The reason I joined the discussion is because you feel that taking an action that is detrimental to others is something that you should be proud of, and that makes me sick.