4 ms·

Another problem with not vaccinating your kids is that it can kill other kids. For example if your 10 year old gets the measles it's not a huge deal, but if bec

by jules 16y ago

Another problem with not vaccinating your kids is that it can kill other kids. For example if your 10 year old gets the measles it's not a huge deal, but if because of that the neighbor baby gets the measles, that is a big deal.

OpieCunningham 16y ago
Wouldn't that be the neighbor's fault, having not vaccinated their child? If child X not being vaccinated and getting sick as a result is "not a huge deal", then it should apply that if child Y not being vaccinated and getting sick as a result is also "not a huge deal".
- carbocation 16y ago
  Most vaccines are given several months after birth in order to allow the immune system to develop first. (Neonates have impaired adaptive immune systems. Although people are now experimenting with the concept of giving vaccinations at birth, this is still largely done only in the research context.) Thus, our youngest rely to a certain degree on herd immunity, which is the phenomenon being described by the parent post. In other words, it is a huge deal.
  - OpieCunningham 16y ago
    OK. So the risk is increased from existing (a pre-vaccine baby can catch a disease from another pre-vaccine baby) to existing slightly more (pre-vaccine baby catching disease from unvaccinated child). Before I can agree that is a "huge deal", I'd like to see some numbers on the degree this actually happens vs. the existing non-huge deal of pre-vaccinated baby transmission to pre-vaccinated baby.
    - carbocation 16y ago
      Great! I'd encourage you to make use of resources such as http://www.pubmed.gov/ http://www.pubmed.gov/ to find reliable sources to help you answer your questions.
    - smokey_the_bear 16y ago
      It's happening in California right now with whooping cough - http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19363-whooping-cough-outbreak-could-be-worst-in-50-years.html http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19363-whooping-cough-o...
      - OpieCunningham 16y ago
        Thanks for the link! Definitely is an issue.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- araneae 16y ago
  That would probably be the case of only one child became infected, and that child in infected no one else. However, if there are a sufficiently high number of susceptible people, an epidemic can occur (i.e. an event where an exponentially growing number of people become infected.) That's really what we worry about.
- jonhendry 16y ago
  Keep in mind the existence of immune-compromised people, who are more susceptible due to illness, or as a result of treatment (anti-rejection drugs, chemo, etc).
iterationx 16y ago
More people died from the 1976 flu vaccine than died from the 1976 flu. You seem to imply that the government should be able to dictate what people put in their bodies for the good of all of society, which is the antithesis of freedom as I see it.

by jules 16y ago

OpieCunningham 16y ago

Wouldn't that be the neighbor's fault, having not vaccinated their child? If child X not being vaccinated and getting sick as a result is "not a huge deal", then it should apply that if child Y not being vaccinated and getting sick as a result is also "not a huge deal".

carbocation 16y ago
Most vaccines are given several months after birth in order to allow the immune system to develop first. (Neonates have impaired adaptive immune systems. Although people are now experimenting with the concept of giving vaccinations at birth, this is still largely done only in the research context.) Thus, our youngest rely to a certain degree on herd immunity, which is the phenomenon being described by the parent post. In other words, it is a huge deal.
- OpieCunningham 16y ago
  OK. So the risk is increased from existing (a pre-vaccine baby can catch a disease from another pre-vaccine baby) to existing slightly more (pre-vaccine baby catching disease from unvaccinated child). Before I can agree that is a "huge deal", I'd like to see some numbers on the degree this actually happens vs. the existing non-huge deal of pre-vaccinated baby transmission to pre-vaccinated baby.
  - carbocation 16y ago
    Great! I'd encourage you to make use of resources such as http://www.pubmed.gov/ http://www.pubmed.gov/ to find reliable sources to help you answer your questions.
  - smokey_the_bear 16y ago
    It's happening in California right now with whooping cough - http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19363-whooping-cough-outbreak-could-be-worst-in-50-years.html http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19363-whooping-cough-o...
    - OpieCunningham 16y ago
      Thanks for the link! Definitely is an issue.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
araneae 16y ago
That would probably be the case of only one child became infected, and that child in infected no one else. However, if there are a sufficiently high number of susceptible people, an epidemic can occur (i.e. an event where an exponentially growing number of people become infected.) That's really what we worry about.
jonhendry 16y ago
Keep in mind the existence of immune-compromised people, who are more susceptible due to illness, or as a result of treatment (anti-rejection drugs, chemo, etc).

iterationx 16y ago

More people died from the 1976 flu vaccine than died from the 1976 flu. You seem to imply that the government should be able to dictate what people put in their bodies for the good of all of society, which is the antithesis of freedom as I see it.