Vaccines: Public Policy or Personal Preference? (split from Election 2016 thread)
He said he thinks parents should make sure their children are vaccinated. He didn't say anything about whether or not that should be the law.
I'm sure his opinion on that, or if parents can choose not to vaccinate their kids, will be out eventually, if it isn't already, but I just liked his answer.
Much better than the idea of having the law requiring food workers to wash their hands after using the bathroom replaced with a law stating that business hand washing policy must be put on a sign.
Quote: Dalex64
He said he thinks parents should make sure their children are vaccinated. He didn't say anything about whether or not that should be the law.
I'm sure his opinion on that, or if parents can choose not to vaccinate their kids, will be out eventually, if it isn't already, but I just liked his answer.
What is scary is that this is considered a radical idea.
Quote: Dalex64He said he thinks parents should make sure their children are vaccinated. He didn't say anything about whether or not that should be the law.
Isn't this the position of every 2016 candidate, except initially Rand Paul, and then he switched it to this position too?
Quote: WizardIsn't this the position of every 2016 candidate, except initially Rand Paul, and then he switched it to this position too?
Yes, and just last night he posted pics on his Facebook of him getting his booster shots.
Quote: WizardIsn't this the position of every 2016 candidate, except initially Rand Paul, and then he switched it to this position too?
I'm not sure about their positions on mandating vaccinations, but according to this webpage 67 percent of republicans favor mandatory vaccinations.
It seems to me that the republican candidates are afraid to support mandatory vaccinations.
Quote: WizardIsn't this the position of every 2016 candidate, except initially Rand Paul, and then he switched it to this position too?
I haven't heard of the rich, ugly old lady saying that. Might upset the anti-vaccine base of her party in places like Santa Barabara, Palo Alto, Beverly Hills and other rich enclaves that will give her the $3 billion to run a kayfabe "tax the rich" campaign.
"Federal health data suggest that anti-vaccine sentiment is more common in progressive areas."
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/story/2011-09-20/gop-democrats-science-evolution-vaccine/50482856/1
Quote: bobsimsI haven't heard of the rich, ugly old lady saying that. Might upset the anti-vaccine base of her party in places like Santa Barabara, Palo Alto, Beverly Hills and other rich enclaves that will give her the $3 billion to run a kayfabe "tax the rich" campaign.
"Federal health data suggest that anti-vaccine sentiment is more common in progressive areas."
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/story/2011-09-20/gop-democrats-science-evolution-vaccine/50482856/1
Well your wrong. Here is what Hilary Clinton said about vaccines
"The science is clear: The earth is round, the sky is blue, and #vaccineswork. Let's protect all our kids. #GrandmothersKnowBest"
Also the opinion that it shouldn't be mandated is utterly idiotic large number of unvaccinated children is a massive public health issue. There are plenty of limits to "freedom" that we have because of public safety like you are not able to randomly fire a gun around a public street.
Oh also antivaccine is largely a bipartisan issue but latest PPP poll found Republicans more likely then Democrats to think vaccines cause autism and they found those very conservative more like then those very liberal to believe the same thing. http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_National_ConspiracyTheories_040213.pdf
Quote: Twirdman
Also the opinion that it shouldn't be mandated is utterly idiotic large number of unvaccinated children is a massive public health issue. There are plenty of limits to "freedom" that we have because of public safety like you are not able to randomly fire a gun around a public street.
Logically if you do not want the "health issue" you can just get vaccinated then no danger to you. IMHO the issue of not getting vaccinated is part of the fundamental right to privacy. Those who want it mandated are just against choice and children's health.
I thought liberals were pro-choice?
Quote: AZDuffmanLogically if you do not want the "health issue" you can just get vaccinated then no danger to you. IMHO the issue of not getting vaccinated is part of the fundamental right to privacy. Those who want it mandated are just against choice and children's health.
I thought liberals were pro-choice?
That is not how vaccinations work. Vaccinations are not 100% effective and also some people because of age or medical reasons cannot get vaccines and for these these reasons we rely on herd immunity to keep everyone safe. So yes there are very real public health issues to not getting everyone who can vaccinated.
This is what distinguishes it from abortion which has no public health issue at stake since abortions are not contagious. That is why it is perfectly logical to be pro choice on one and not the other.
Quote: AZDuffmanLogically if you do not want the "health issue" you can just get vaccinated then no danger to you. IMHO the issue of not getting vaccinated is part of the fundamental right to privacy. Those who want it mandated are just against choice and children's health.
I thought liberals were pro-choice?
This is a tough issue for me as my baby is due March 24th (The Mrs. and I are still taking suggestions on Gaelic names if anyone has a suggestion.)
My child cannot be fully vaccinated right away and is at risk from those who choose not to. The science is very clear and any papers saying otherwise have been thoroughly thrashed and discredited.
I will be vaccinating my child. But I'm also of the opinion that the government has no right what to tell me to put in my body, or what not to put in it.
This is a tough issue for me and it's not one that I've made without scores or research. In fact I'm still on the fence where I stand on government mandation.
It obviously affects newborns and those who are unable to get the shot because of health reasons. But heard immunization has been proven to work.
If we allow this where do we draw the line?
Like I said, it's not an easy side to take up either way.
The science is sound but the moral decision is not.
I will continue to listen to arguments from either side.
The only thing not in debate is whether or not they work or cause Autism.
Quote: TwirdmanThat is not how vaccinations work. Vaccinations are not 100% effective and also some people because of age or medical reasons cannot get vaccines and for these these reasons we rely on herd immunity to keep everyone safe. So yes there are very real public health issues to not getting everyone who can vaccinated.
There is a bigger freedom issue about making it mandatory. Chances of death from Measles is extremely low. The media is currently hyping it as the next Black Death. And as always, liberals are taking the side that you should lose your freedoms "for the public good."
Many people have real concerns about the vaccines. They should be allowed to make a risk/reward decision. If it was my kids and there was a 1 in 1,000 chance of Autism vs a 1 in 5,000 chance of death from measles then it is an obvious choice to skip it. Or I might want to just skip it because I feel intentionally putting a virus into their system for a non-life threatening disease is not worth it. I don't get flu shots because I feel they are not worth the risk for this reason.
If you want the vaccine then take it, problem solved. You will not get sick from measles or whatever. But let me keep my choice as there is always a next step, possibly flu shots. Again "for the public good." I sure do not want to be forced to get those.
Quote: AZDuffmanThere is a bigger freedom issue about making it mandatory. Chances of death from Measles is extremely low. The media is currently hyping it as the next Black Death. And as always, liberals are taking the side that you should lose your freedoms "for the public good."
Many people have real concerns about the vaccines. They should be allowed to make a risk/reward decision. If it was my kids and there was a 1 in 1,000 chance of Autism vs a 1 in 5,000 chance of death from measles then it is an obvious choice to skip it. Or I might want to just skip it because I feel intentionally putting a virus into their system for a non-life threatening disease is not worth it. I don't get flu shots because I feel they are not worth the risk for this reason.
Yes people do decide you lose a little bit of freedom for the public good just like my example of not being allowed to shoot a gun randomly in public.
Also the chance of autism is not 1 in 1000 it is non existent according to all good science available. The only "evidence" on the side of people claiming a link to autism is a retracted study by a doctor who lost his licence after he was found to have falsified data for monetary gain because of the study that claimed there was a link, specifically he was coming out with his own vaccine. Also measles is a life threatening disease thousands die annually from it and the only reason it is not significantly higher is the presence of vaccines. There are also numerous non life threatening but incredibly debilitating side effects like blindness or others.
Also it is one thing to make a decision with your own health quite another to make a decision with your children. This has been bore out in numerous previous court cases for instance no Jehovah's Witnesses has been charged with refusing a blood transfusion and even going farther no Christian Scientist has been charged with foregoing all medical treatment; however Christian Scientist have been charged with not getting their children treatment. You don't get to willingly endanger your children because you have a poor grasp of science or vaccines just don't feel right to you.
Quote: AZDuffmanBut let me keep my choice as there is always a next step, possibly flu shots. Again "for the public good." I sure do not want to be forced to get those.
So, what if someone thinks they got exposed to Ebola? We forced people to do things against their will there. We limited their freedoms to virtual house arrest at the minimum.
Influenza is still killing more people in the US than Ebola. By far.
Quote: rxwine
Influenza is still killing more people in the US than Ebola. By far.
Not that I disagree with this completely, but Influenza in of itself does not have a high death toll. It usually aids in death those who are already debilitated.
But yes, several diseases have contributed to more deaths than Ebola. There was what, 3 or 4 deaths on American soil and 9,000 in Africa?
Rubella actually has a higher infection rate than Ebola.
Quote: BoulderDamItNot that I disagree with this completely, but Influenza in of itself does not have a high death toll. It usually aids in death those who are already debilitated.
I don't know how they calculate the risk factor. Drinking alcohol and driving doesn't kill you either. It's the accident usually, yet they look at the overall risk when one thing is combined with another, including those at high risk in measles or flu.
Quote: rxwineI don't know how they calculate the risk factor. Drinking alcohol and driving doesn't kill you either. It's the accident usually, yet they look at the overall risk when one thing is combined with another, including those at high risk in measles or flu.
That's a very good point and one I hadn't thought of before. Thanks for bringing it up. Obviously it can't be done by population vs. infected persons because different geographic locations are going to have different amounts of those who could possibly be exposed.
So do they maybe do something with mice and have a Patient Zero? Then release into the population in the lab for a set time and then record other infected mice?
I wonder how you set about finding the criteria they use?
Quote: TwirdmanYes people do decide you lose a little bit of freedom for the public good just like my example of not being allowed to shoot a gun randomly in public.
Not really a valid example. Shooting a gun off "randomly" is active and wreckless behavior. Not getting a shot is a personal risk/reward decision. Random shooting of a gun hurts others, not getting a shot only puts yourself at risk.
Quote:Also the chance of autism is not 1 in 1000 it is non existent according to all good science available. The only "evidence" on the side of people claiming a link to autism is a retracted study by a doctor who lost his licence after he was found to have falsified data for monetary gain because of the study that claimed there was a link, specifically he was coming out with his own vaccine. Also measles is a life threatening disease thousands die annually from it and the only reason it is not significantly higher is the presence of vaccines. There are also numerous non life threatening but incredibly debilitating side effects like blindness or others.
Since we are talking "science," lets use some:
1. Prior to the vaccine, 3-4 million cases of measles occured in the United States each year, of those 3-4 million cases, only about 450 people died each year from it in the years before the vaccine. This gives a death rate of less than 1 in 6,000 or 0.00015.
Life-threatening without a vaccine? Hardly! Consider that your chances of dying by suicide is 1 in 10,000. But the numbers are hard to compare as the 450 deaths are pre-1963 and pre-vaccine, when there were that 3-4 million cases and treatment was not as good as it is today,
2. Currently, around 197,000 people die each year from measles… out of 6 billion. This means of all deaths, measles is responsible for 0.0000328.
3. In 1963, you were more likely to be one of the 9200 people murdered that year than to die of measles! Far more, 9,200 vs. 450!
So, please, no hype about it being "life-threatening."
Now, if we were serious about this we would look at sources of measles. Since it has been mostly stamped out in the USA, a logical source of it coming back is illegal immigration as legal immigrants will have been denied entry if they were sick. I do not see the same liberals who demand we lose our freedoms calling out to secure the border.
This is simply yet more hype from the media who likes a scare and likes it even better if they can paint anyone who prefers freedom as a crazy-type. But enjoy it. By St. Patrick's Day it will be forgotten and we will be on to a new scare. Remember ebola?
Also it is one thing to make a decision with your own health quite another to make a decision with your children. This has been bore out in numerous previous court cases for instance no Jehovah's Witnesses has been charged with refusing a blood transfusion and even going farther no Christian Scientist has been charged with foregoing all medical treatment; however Christian Scientist have been charged with not getting their children treatment. You don't get to willingly endanger your children because you have a poor grasp of science or vaccines just don't feel right to you.
Quote: AZDuffmanNot really a valid example. Shooting a gun off "randomly" is active and wreckless behavior. Not getting a shot is a personal risk/reward decision. Random shooting of a gun hurts others, not getting a shot only puts yourself at risk.
Since we are talking "science," lets use some:
1. Prior to the vaccine, 3-4 million cases of measles occured in the United States each year, of those 3-4 million cases, only about 450 people died each year from it in the years before the vaccine. This gives a death rate of less than 1 in 6,000 or 0.00015.
Life-threatening without a vaccine? Hardly! Consider that your chances of dying by suicide is 1 in 10,000. But the numbers are hard to compare as the 450 deaths are pre-1963 and pre-vaccine, when there were that 3-4 million cases and treatment was not as good as it is today,
2. Currently, around 197,000 people die each year from measles… out of 6 billion. This means of all deaths, measles is responsible for 0.0000328.
3. In 1963, you were more likely to be one of the 9200 people murdered that year than to die of measles! Far more, 9,200 vs. 450!
So, please, no hype about it being "life-threatening."
Now, if we were serious about this we would look at sources of measles. Since it has been mostly stamped out in the USA, a logical source of it coming back is illegal immigration as legal immigrants will have been denied entry if they were sick. I do not see the same liberals who demand we lose our freedoms calling out to secure the border.
This is simply yet more hype from the media who likes a scare and likes it even better if they can paint anyone who prefers freedom as a crazy-type. But enjoy it. By St. Patrick's Day it will be forgotten and we will be on to a new scare. Remember ebola?
Also it is one thing to make a decision with your own health quite another to make a decision with your children. This has been bore out in numerous previous court cases for instance no Jehovah's Witnesses has been charged with refusing a blood transfusion and even going farther no Christian Scientist has been charged with foregoing all medical treatment; however Christian Scientist have been charged with not getting their children treatment. You don't get to willingly endanger your children because you have a poor grasp of science or vaccines just don't feel right to you.
Yes. Those figures are low, but one death is too many.
But the important point is why are they that low? Because most of the civilized world gets inoculated. If 100% of the population stopped, measles deaths would go through the roof. It is extremedy dangerous and contagious, vaccines are what is holding it back.
Yes there are extreme medical examples where vaccines are not advisable. These are extreme examples, that only a tiny portion of the country would fall under, the vast majority could and should be vaccinated.
Quote: Gandler
Yes. Those figures are low, but one death is too many.
People die, that's life.---Archie Bunker, as well as many others.
Sorry, but we cannot stop death. And as much as people hate to realize it, we do have to put a cost/risk/benefit on "stopping" deaths. 450 is a meaningless number of deaths. Not even one per state per week.
Quote:But the important point is why are they that low? Because most of the civilized world gets inoculated. If 100% of the population stopped, measles deaths would go through the roof. It is extremedy dangerous and contagious, vaccines are what is holding it back.
Please re-read more carefully. The 450 was the deaths BEFORE inoculation. So without the shots it was still near impossible to die from measles. Additionally, while it would be impossible to find stats, logic states that at least some of those 450 were already weakened from something else which let measles cause a death. So if someone is already dying from "x" is it really fair to say measles "caused" their death? While that is speculation, it is useful to consider before going off on a panic.
Quote:Yes there are extreme medical examples where vaccines are not advisable. These are extreme examples, that only a tiny portion of the country would fall under, the vast majority could and should be vaccinated.
Then make a case for it in a free society. No need for a law.
Quote: AZDuffmanLogically if you do not want the "health issue" you can just get vaccinated then no danger to you. IMHO the issue of not getting vaccinated is part of the fundamental right to privacy. Those who want it mandated are just against choice and children's health.
I thought liberals were pro-choice?
There are few liberals left. What is left is progressives and the only "choice" they give you is to live exactly like they do, act exactly like they do and speak exactly like they do and make sure you wear your seat belt because it it's your body it's their choice. They are smarter and better than you aned will literally tell you what to feed your own kids.
Quote: TwirdmanWell your wrong. Here is what Hilary Clinton said about vaccines
"The science is clear: The earth is round, the sky is blue, and #vaccineswork. Let's protect all our kids. #GrandmothersKnowBest"
Also the opinion that it shouldn't be mandated is utterly idiotic large number of unvaccinated children is a massive public health issue. There are plenty of limits to "freedom" that we have because of public safety like you are not able to randomly fire a gun around a public street.
Oh also antivaccine is largely a bipartisan issue but latest PPP poll found Republicans more likely then Democrats to think vaccines cause autism and they found those very conservative more like then those very liberal to believe the same thing. http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_National_ConspiracyTheories_040213.pdf
"We don’t know what, if any, kind of link there is between vaccines and autism – but we should find out"
http://dailycaller.com/2015/02/02/hillary-clinton-wanted-to-investigate-link-between-autism-and-vaccinations/
Quote: bobsimsThere are few liberals left. What is left is progressives and the only "choice" they give you is to live exactly like they do, act exactly like they do and speak exactly like they do and make sure you wear your seat belt because it it's your body it's their choice. They are smarter and better than you aned will literally tell you what to feed your own kids.
You are close but not quite correct.
The progressives want you to live as they tell you to, not as they do. There is one set of rules for you and one for them. For example, we are supposed to cut back on fossil fuel use so Algore can fly a private jet and let his security idle large SUVs so they are cool when he gets back in then return to his mansion all so he can tell us not to use fossil fuels.
Quote: AZDuffmanNot really a valid example. Shooting a gun off "randomly" is active and wreckless behavior. Not getting a shot is a personal risk/reward decision. Random shooting of a gun hurts others, not getting a shot only puts yourself at risk.
Since we are talking "science," lets use some:
1. Prior to the vaccine, 3-4 million cases of measles occured in the United States each year, of those 3-4 million cases, only about 450 people died each year from it in the years before the vaccine. This gives a death rate of less than 1 in 6,000 or 0.00015.
Life-threatening without a vaccine? Hardly! Consider that your chances of dying by suicide is 1 in 10,000. But the numbers are hard to compare as the 450 deaths are pre-1963 and pre-vaccine, when there were that 3-4 million cases and treatment was not as good as it is today,
2. Currently, around 197,000 people die each year from measles… out of 6 billion. This means of all deaths, measles is responsible for 0.0000328.
3. In 1963, you were more likely to be one of the 9200 people murdered that year than to die of measles! Far more, 9,200 vs. 450!
So, please, no hype about it being "life-threatening."
Now, if we were serious about this we would look at sources of measles. Since it has been mostly stamped out in the USA, a logical source of it coming back is illegal immigration as legal immigrants will have been denied entry if they were sick. I do not see the same liberals who demand we lose our freedoms calling out to secure the border.
.
Again that is still compared to 0 evidence of vaccines link to any harm in the vast majority of the population. So since some risk even small risk is still more then negligible risk a cost benefit analysis says you take the vaccine.
Also really the only source of measles is illegal immigration? There is no other source people never leave the country for any reason if they are here legally. People never visit family in other countries after they came here legally or heck just go for a vacation in an exotic location?
Specifically for one of the most recent outbreaks it was a number of Filipinos visiting the Philippines and contracting the disease there and coming back to the US, most likely before they showed symptoms. There isn't really much odd about a Filipino contracting it in the Philippines on a visit since there are literally 3.4 million of them in the US. You also have legal immigrants from South America who may visit family there were the disease hasn't been completely spread out. Or Middle Eastern people African people and other Asian people all who can visit family in a country that has measles and come back spreading the disease even though they are legal citizens. This is not counting the plethora of people just going to a vacation in one of these countries because it looks pretty or they want to experience the culture.
I mean really are you just fear mongering or are you really foolish enough to believe that people in the US legally cannot contract and spread measles. I mean there are plenty of arguments for tightening the border and better border security, but what you said was simultaneously one of the most asinine and wrong statements I have ever heard.
Quote: Twirdman
Again that is still compared to 0 evidence of vaccines link to any harm in the vast majority of the population. So since some risk even small risk is still more then negligible risk a cost benefit analysis says you take the vaccine.
So then get the vaccine. And if you are over 30 go and get your booster shot. Just don't make is a law. We should not have the threat of violence to get people to take a vaccine.
Quote:Also really the only source of measles is illegal immigration?
Who said that? Did you say that? I didn't say that!
Quote: AZDa logical source of it coming back is illegal immigration
As to your examples, this can easily be handled via travel vaccination requirements or quarantine requirements for people who have visited a hot zone. Meanwhile, I will maintain that illegal immigration is a possible and probably primary source. I realize liberals believe illegal aliens can do no wrong, but logic states otherwise.
Quote: AZDuffmanI realize liberals believe illegal aliens can do no wrong, but logic states otherwise.
Someone (who is feeling very masochistic) should go through all of your posts and see how often you attribute nonsense lies to liberals.
So many of your posts contain some variety of:
"Liberals believe..."
"Liberals say..."
"Liberals think..."
"Liberals do this..."
etc.
And it's usually nonsense, like it is here.
Part of the reason for that is organisms mutate and become resistant. The less opportunities for that to happen, the less risk of vaccine-resistant strains to arise.
Measles in particular have a 7 to 14 day incubation period, during which the victim is infectious and asymptomatic. So there's no practical way to segregate or quarantine anybody until symptoms appear, and by then they've likely infected others in geometric progression.
Still the most likely scenario for total wipeout of the human species. Nuclear war pales in comparison to biological spread of deadly pathogens.
This is really an unequal debate, with religious myth and false liberties on one side and proven science on the other. If 70% of people in the US followed the law and always drove on the right, and 30% said "well, it's a free country, so I'll drive on whichever side I prefer" or "Jesus says I should drive on the left", how long is the populace going to put up with the carnage that would bring? A lot less than we're putting up with this selfish nonsense, I suspect.
Quote: beachbumbabs
This is really an unequal debate, with religious myth and false liberties on one side and proven science on the other. If 70% of people in the US followed the law and always drove on the right, and 30% said "well, it's a free country, so I'll drive on whichever side I prefer" or "Jesus says I should drive on the left", how long is the populace going to put up with the carnage that would bring? A lot less than we're putting up with this selfish nonsense, I suspect.
Not really the same thing. If a person drives on the left they will harm someone else. If they choose not to vaccinate then they only bring harm to themselves as those that are vaccinated have nothing to worry about.
Quote: ams288Someone (who is feeling very masochistic) should go through all of your posts and see how often you attribute nonsense lies to liberals.
So many of your posts contain some variety of:
"Liberals believe..."
"Liberals say..."
"Liberals think..."
"Liberals do this..."
etc.
And it's usually nonsense, like it is here.
I do not see it as nonsense here at all. I said illegal aliens are probably a cause, and a liberal reply was that I said they were the "only" cause. The same reply went on to give a host of other possibilities but not to acknowledge that illegal aliens are most likely to come from an infected area and totally unlikely to have passed customs who would stop a sick person. A total defense of the illegal alien population from blame, IMHO at least.
Heck, liberals don't even think we should use the term "illegal alien" in the first place. That is not even disputable.
Quote: AZDuffmanNot really the same thing. If a person drives on the left they will harm someone else. If they choose not to vaccinate then they only bring harm to themselves as those that are vaccinated have nothing to worry about.
Again people have pointed out to you repeatedly this is false for two reasons one not everyone can get the vaccine some people are simply to young or have health problems preventing them from getting a vaccine two vaccines are not 100% effective. So you are not just harming yourself you are harming other people.
Oh and about "Meanwhile, I will maintain that illegal immigration is a possible and probably primary source. " while that might be what your gut tells you it is not what the CDC tells you. As the 2014 outbreak was traced to people having traveled to the Philippines and returned to the US. Also while most illegal immigrants come from Mexico or South and Central America we have this factoid
"Indigenous measles was declared to have been eliminated in North, Central, and South America; the last endemic case in the region was reported on November 12, 2002, with only northern Argentina and rural Canada, particularly in Ontario, Quebec, and Alberta, having minor endemic status."
But you keep thinking it is those illegal immigrants causing the problem and the rest of us will keep believing in actual facts.
Quote: TwirdmanAgain people have pointed out to you repeatedly this is false for two reasons one not everyone can get the vaccine some people are simply to young or have health problems preventing them from getting a vaccine two vaccines are not 100% effective. So you are not just harming yourself you are harming other people.
No, I am not harming anyone else. There will always be people at a higher risk of everything. Just because Person B is at a higher risk does not men Person A needs to take a risk they do not want to take. I have already shown that the death rate from Measles is nearly zero.
Quote:
But you keep thinking it is those illegal immigrants causing the problem and the rest of us will keep believing in actual facts.
I am going to keep believing that people who have come in illegally and thus not cleared with a clean bill of health are a possible problem. In the meantime, have you gotten your booster shot? If you have not then *you* are putting people at risk!
Quote: AZDuffmanNo, I am not harming anyone else. There will always be people at a higher risk of everything. Just because Person B is at a higher risk does not men Person A needs to take a risk they do not want to take. I have already shown that the death rate from Measles is nearly zero.
I am going to keep believing that people who have come in illegally and thus not cleared with a clean bill of health are a possible problem. In the meantime, have you gotten your booster shot? If you have not then *you* are putting people at risk!
How are you not harming them. If everyone who could get vaccinated got vaccinated the chance of those people becoming sick would basically become zero and theoretically given time the disease would be eradicated like smallpox was. Since certain people like you refuse to get vaccinated it becomes nearly impossible to fully eradicate the disease or prevent its spread in the US.
Also again most illegal immigrants are traditionally from countries where the disease is no longer endemic so no they while not given a clean bill of health are very unlikely to spread measles. Also yes I am fully vaccinated with all boosters that are recommended no where near old enough to need a booster for measles but yes I do keep up to date on all my vaccines.
Quote: TwirdmanHow are you not harming them. If everyone who could get vaccinated got vaccinated the chance of those people becoming sick would basically become zero and theoretically given time the disease would be eradicated like smallpox was. Since certain people like you refuse to get vaccinated it becomes nearly impossible to fully eradicate the disease or prevent its spread in the US.
The number of people getting sick has basically been zero until a few outbreaks. Smallpox was intentionally eradicated because it did have a very real possibility of death, with measles death is very, very unlikely. And again, sorry, but if they want to be vaccinated then they are free to do so.
Quote:Also again most illegal immigrants are traditionally from countries where the disease is no longer endemic so no they while not given a clean bill of health are very unlikely to spread measles. Also yes I am fully vaccinated with all boosters that are recommended no where near old enough to need a booster for measles but yes I do keep up to date on all my vaccines.
We have an outbreak here in the USA where it is not endemic, so why would we assume Mexico is measles-free? But thank you so much for proving my point about defending illegal aliens to the bitter end. Heaven forbid we even consider the possibility.
Quote: AZDuffmanThe number of people getting sick has basically been zero until a few outbreaks. Smallpox was intentionally eradicated because it did have a very real possibility of death, with measles death is very, very unlikely. And again, sorry, but if they want to be vaccinated then they are free to do so.
We have an outbreak here in the USA where it is not endemic, so why would we assume Mexico is measles-free? But thank you so much for proving my point about defending illegal aliens to the bitter end. Heaven forbid we even consider the possibility.
You do realize smallpox was intentionally eradicated because it was deadly and we were able to eradicate it successfully because of high prevalence of vaccines. We are trying to eradicate both polio and measles and are doing fairly well except for people who refuse to get vaccinated. And again no they cannot just get vaccinated stop ignoring what people have said about people physically not being able to be vaccinated. Certain disorders especially immunodeficiency prevent vaccination. Them not getting vaccinated because there is a real legitimate possibility of complications is much more meaningful then your fear mongering about things science has debunked.
Also the spread of measles in the US has been traced to sources outside of the US specifically for the 2014 example it was the Philippines. Measles is not endemic to Mexico so for it to travel from Mexico to the US it would have to travel from country X to Mexico and then from Mexico to the US and while that is possible that is not what happened with the most recent cases. Saying it could happen does not mean it is likely to happen. It could happen that space aliens will deliver measles to the US and while less likely then it being delivered from Mexico they both still need more then the random musings to say they are happening. Considering the possibility is a lot different then you claiming
". Meanwhile, I will maintain that illegal immigration is a possible and probably primary source. "
Is illegal immigration a possible cause sure was it the probable primary cause of the latest outbreaks no.
Quote: TwirdmanYou do realize smallpox was intentionally eradicated because it was deadly and we were able to eradicate it successfully because of high prevalence of vaccines. We are trying to eradicate both polio and measles and are doing fairly well except for people who refuse to get vaccinated. And again no they cannot just get vaccinated stop ignoring what people have said about people physically not being able to be vaccinated. Certain disorders especially immunodeficiency prevent vaccination. Them not getting vaccinated because there is a real legitimate possibility of complications is much more meaningful then your fear mongering about things science has debunked.
Smallpox was deadly. Polio is deadly. Measles is not. It is not a person's "duty" to get vaccinated simply because they may come in contact with someone who cannot get vaccinated. I could add another example of liberal hypocrisy here involving public health but not sure it is worth the bother.
Quote:It could happen that space aliens will deliver measles to the US and while less likely then it being delivered from Mexico they both still need more then the random musings to say they are happening.
Space aliens if they existed would not be human and thus not be carriers of the virus.
Quote: BoulderDamItThis is a tough issue for me as my baby is due March 24th.
I will continue to listen to arguments from either side.
The only thing not in debate is whether or not they work or cause Autism.
I had my kid right as the whole autism = vaccine B.S. was flaring up. There hadn't been the studies to refute it, as the claims had just started becoming rampant. I feel your concern.
As you said, you can stuff the autism. Penn and Teller did their typical smartass response to this claim, which is worth a watch if you haven't already. Basically, even if it did cause autism, you're better off getting them than not.
Having gone through this, here is my somewhat educated advice (I use "educated" liberally =p)...
Obviously don't get any if your kid is having any other health issues. Part of this is not wanting to stress an already stressed system. If s/he is underdeveloped or even just has a cold, then you wait. 10-20 days wait isn't going to make a difference. Take the safe route. You don't want to confuse a reaction to illness with a reaction to the vaccine. This is important, and needs to be clear for future use.
Find a ped that isn't a jackass. They work for you. Some have the "I know what I'm doing, get out of my way attitude." Well, you're slamming poison into my kid, so excuse me for asking questions. If you have a ped like that, bundle your kid up and tell him to $%^& off. Find another, there are many who will work for you. You know, like they're supposed to.
Spread them out. All vax are different, and it's common to bang a bunch in at once. But if there's a reaction, if yours is one of the minority that can't handle a part of the solution, which one is it? Dunno if you bang em in all at once. Again, find a ped that will work with you.
If you end up choosing not to, then good luck. Being a gambling forum, I think you can see the numbers stack against your choice, but if that's your educated decision, then so be it. I do know someone that went full hippie and also refused. Shouted from the rooftop how special she was standing up to big pharm (and big farms, and any other cause-du-jour popular with hipsters). Those shouts quieted quick when the kid spent the whole winter sick and a full month in the hospital due to easily prevented disease.
As for the rest of the thread, whatever. Idiot anti-vaxxers, and by idiot I mean the ones who gain their knowledge from some unverified news blurb on Facebook, risk my own kids health and safety, and I'd like to punch them in the face. But I won't, nor would I support giving the gov the power to slam poison into them. As for me, same thing. I ain't had my tetanus or my flu, and I ain't gonna. Deal with it. I do.
Sorry if my post was ambiguous, but I fully plan on vaccinating my child. Barring some disorder that prevents me from doing so, there is no doubt in my mind that it's going to be done.
The science is sound and not up for debate.
Where my mind is not made up is government mandation. I take issue with having a government that tells me what I can or cannot put in my body, as well as forces me to put any substance in my body.
Drugs, Sugar, Caffeine, Vaccines, whatever the case may be.
That's the issue I'm having a hard time with.
I choose to be an educated parent and get my child vaccinated. I have a tough time with liberties being stripped from the common man.
Again, it's not a political position I'm 100% on yet though. I still look at both sides with an open mind.
But my choice and the science is not up for debate.
Quote: BoulderDamItFace,
Sorry if my post was ambiguous, but I fully plan on vaccinating my child.
Only mildly. Mostly your post gave me an in to springboard into the conversation. So I used it ;)
If casual readers are expected to attribute any credibility to such an assertion, the least that could be provided is some sort of statistical validation,. Most especially in regard to the tens of thousands unchecked youngsters who flooded the country last year.Quote: TwirdmanAs the 2014 outbreak was traced to people having traveled to the Philippines and returned to the US. Also while most illegal immigrants come from Mexico or South and Central America we have this factoid "Indigenous measles was declared to have been eliminated in North, Central, and South America; the last endemic case in the region was reported on November 12, 2002, with only northern Argentina and rural Canada, particularly in Ontario, Quebec, and Alberta, having minor endemic status."
But you keep thinking it is those illegal immigrants causing the problem and the rest of us will keep believing in actual facts.
That's great that YOU choose to be an educated parent. What about dumb parents who believe in any rumor they hear? Do they have the right to put their children in harms way? If the science shows it better to get vacations for everyone then it shouldn't be a choice if it affects others or someone thats to young to make the choice themselves. If you're of age and want to refuse whats best for everybody then fine as long as you go live in seclusion, that should be your choice.Quote: BoulderDamItFace,
Sorry if my post was ambiguous, but I fully plan on vaccinating my child. Barring some disorder that prevents me from doing so, there is no doubt in my mind that it's going to be done.
The science is sound and not up for debate.
Where my mind is not made up is government mandation. I take issue with having a government that tells me what I can or cannot put in my body, as well as forces me to put any substance in my body.
Drugs, Sugar, Caffeine, Vaccines, whatever the case may be.
That's the issue I'm having a hard time with.
I choose to be an educated parent and get my child vaccinated. I have a tough time with liberties being stripped from the common man.
Again, it's not a political position I'm 100% on yet though. I still look at both sides with an open mind.
But my choice and the science is not up for debate.
Quote: AxelWolfThat's great that YOU choose to be an educated parent. What about dumb parents who believe in any rumor they hear? Do they have the right to put their children in harms way? If the science shows it better to get vacations for everyone then it shouldn't be a choice if it affects others or someone thats to young to make the choice themselves. If you're of age and want to refuse whats best for everybody then fine as long as you go live in seclusion, that should be your choice.
I think there's completely different issues at play. Obviously, there are, and always will be, a lot of dumb people who are willing to forgo vaccinations. So the question is it OK to force people to pay for them? Does it save money to give out less vaccinations, since unvaccinated people are unlikely to contract or spread diseases that are all but wiped out? If I am vaccinated and someone else is not, how likely is it I will get sick? Just look at vaccinations. All childhood ones are free. Some adult ones are free. But some you have to pay for...seems to me the agenda of the movement is to make people pay for more, since the whole thing centers on the unimportance, ineffectiveness, and high risk of government subsidized vaccinations. These things are blatantly false to anyone with any sense, but it's clear what the target is. Unlike the moral issue of subsidized birth control, with vaccinations, can't really say "hey, do you really want the government giving babies FREE life saving medicine?" Dumb anti-vaxxers aren't aware of it, they're just the political capital.
Quote: AxelWolfIf the science shows it better to get vacations for everyone then it shouldn't be a choice if it affects others or someone thats to young to make the choice themselves. If you're of age and want to refuse whats best for everybody then fine as long as you go live in seclusion, that should be your choice.
So you are saying you are fine with giving up your personal freedom because the government knows better? Because that is what you are saying here.
I am guessing you are a person who chooses a HOA to live in?
Sorry, but "what's best for everybody" is a road to tyranny.
It would be dependent on how strict the HOA is. Who wants to live next to people with 5 barking dogs, 3 basketball hoops, 40 wind chimes, 2 junked out cars or whatever eyesores they can drag in? If you live on an Indian reservation that's fine.Quote: AZDuffmanSo you are saying you are fine with giving up your personal freedom because the government knows better? Because that is what you are saying here.
I am guessing you are a person who chooses a HOA to live in?
Sorry, but "what's best for everybody" is a road to tyranny.
I'm hypocritical, I don't want the government telling ME what to do, just everybody else. I would rather the government make decisions than most of the general population or crackpot conspiracy theorists.
Have you ever visited the betting systems thread? Seriously, you think them guys should be left with making their own decisions that could affect everybody?
Quote: AxelWolfIt would be dependent on how strict the HOA is. Who wants to live next to people with 5 barking dogs, 3 basketball hoops, 40 wind chimes, 2 junked out cars or whatever eyesores they can drag in? If you live on an Indian reservation that's fine.
The wind chimes and barking dogs are covered by nuisance statutes. The basketball hoops do not harm anyone else nor do the cars. I would rather take the chance on the cars and hoops as I want to do what I want with my own property without a busybody saying I cannot keep my planed beehive this year, for example. Most people behave rationally.
Quote:I would rather the government make decisions than most of the general population or crackpot conspiracy theorists.
*facepalm*
Quote:Have you ever visited the betting systems thread? Seriously, you think them guys should be left with making their own decisions that could affect everybody?
Their decisions do not affect me much less everybody.
Call the police or the HOA for barking dogs or wind chimes and see who gets better results.Quote: AZDuffmanThe wind chimes and barking dogs are covered by nuisance statutes. The basketball hoops do not harm anyone else nor do the cars. I would rather take the chance on the cars and hoops as I want to do what I want with my own property without a busybody saying I cannot keep my planed beehive this year, for example. Most people behave rationally.
*facepalm*
Their decisions do not affect me much less everybody.
Apparently you never lived by a someone with all the neighborhood kids playing basketball at 7am on sunday morning.
Their gambling systems don't affect us, however the general nonsense beliefs they hold, where all the logical and mathematical evidence points to the opposite, is scary to think they are making decisions that can affect everybody's health.
Quote: AxelWolfCall the police or the HOA for barking dogs or wind chimes and see who gets better results.
I will take the chance on the barking dogs in return for the freedom to paint my house and landscape my yard the way I choose. Why people give up so much freedom to live in an HOA amazes me. It is as if one tells the state, "I don't have enough laws governing my behavior, can I have some more, please?"
Quote:Apparently you never lived by a someone with all the neighborhood kids playing basketball at 7am on sunday morning.
I grew up next to the neighborhood cat lady. Annoying, but my sister was allowed her basketball hoop. (Full Disclosure: I hate playing basketball)
Quote:Their gambling systems don't affect us, however the general nonsense beliefs they hold, where all the logical and mathematical evidence points to the opposite, is scary to think they are making decisions that can affect everybody's health.
But it does not affect "everyone's health," only their own. My retort is simple, if the vaccine is so great then why does the government have to use the threat of violence to enforce people getting it?
