7 ms·

So if you knew someone who never washed their hands after using the restroom, would you let them in your home? Out and about socially with you? In my opinion,

by gte910h 16y ago

So if you knew someone who never washed their hands after using the restroom, would you let them in your home? Out and about socially with you? In my opinion, anti-vaccine people should be tossed out of everyone's homes, circles of friends, and businesses. This is for people who them OR their children aren't properly vaccinated. Even IF autism or any of the plethora of things were caused by vaccines, the diseases themselves which are prevented by them are much worse, all causing death or maiming. Vaccinations aren't 100% effective, usually more like 70-85% effective. This means EVERYONE needs to be vaccinated for the disease to not continue to find hosts to pass along to. We should safeguard the people who are willing to get stuck by ostracizing those who are foolish enough to not vaccinate.

GrandMasterBirt 16y ago
This is ridiculous. There have been less "alleged" cases with vaccine caused autism than there are deaths by swimming pool accidents in kids. The greater good must be served, EVEN IF IT DID CAUSE AUTISM in a super ultra rare instance. Vaccinations are important. End of story.
kabuks 16y ago
I totally agree with you. That is, until my son was born, and people started sharing horror stories for both sides of the argument. As a father, some other part of me kicked in that wasn't very logical. This is much harder decision than it seems. My mother in law shared with me her first-hand experience of 'watching-the-lights-go-out' in a healthy 3-year old minutes after she was vaccinated. It's not autism, and it's anecdotal evidence, but it made me dig deeper, and doubt any certainty on either sides. Studies are NOT conclusive. Dozens of studies where done defending the use of mercury in amalgam fillings for example, and just now the dentist community is coming around to admitting that it does negatively impact patients' health. Years after many people were saying that, and were called naysayers. I didn't vaccinate my son. It wasn't an easy decision. And I'm not certain of it. He will receive a shorter list of vaccines, on a longer less-stressful schedule than the one recommended by the govt. Anybody who assumes certainty for either side of this argument hasn't given this enough thought imho
mattmaroon 16y ago
Unfortunately many vaccines (TB for instance) are only effective in children, and children don't exactly get to make enlightened decisions about whether or not they get a vaccine. By the time they're old enough to decide for themselves it's too late. It wouldn't be right to ostracize people simply because their parents can't tell the difference between a stripper and a doctor and took medical advice from Jenny McCarthy.
- gte910h 16y ago
  The point isn't to absolutely protect against every disease. Vaccinations don't do that. The point is protect against walking disease vectors. Once they get all the vaccinations they can, they're much like you or I: fully vaccinated.
- isleyaardvark 16y ago
  It would be even more unfair to increase the risk of exposure to other children. I think there is a role for public shaming and peer pressure with respect to vaccination.
  - mattmaroon 16y ago
    There is no law requiring vaccinations. Perhaps there should be, but you really can't shame people for exercising their right to control what goes into their body, no matter how dickish it may be. And you REALLY can't shame them for their parents being idiots.
    - gte910h 16y ago
      You most certainly can shame them, and as long as they get the vaccinations they can, even the ones unlikely to be effective, they've done enough in my eyes to be let in areas I can control attendance to. And missing one vaccine because their parents are idiots isn't the point. Its the walking infection vectors who are the people who have absolutely no vaccines in them in are the issues.
    - ugh 16y ago
CWuestefeld 16y ago
This means EVERYONE needs to be vaccinated for the disease to not continue to find hosts to pass along to. This is not correct. In an extreme case, if there is only 1 left unvaccinated, the disease won't spread. If there are two left unvaccinated, the chances of one having the disease and the other being initially uninfected and then subsequently infected by the one possible vector is astonishingly small. In reality, for a vaccine to be effective, the portion of the population that needs to receive that vaccination is significantly less than 100%. Moreover, vaccines based on attenuated vaccines (e.g., the polio vaccine) actually infect the recipient with an impotent version of the virus. This virus will be transmitted to others in the community through normal contact, thus conferring immunity to many that did not receive the vaccination directly. (this isn't intended to be an endorsement of those who refuse to get vaccinated)
- gte910h 16y ago
  "In an extreme case, if there is only 1 left unvaccinated, the disease won't spread." Vaccines don't necessarily grant immunity. They give you a 70%-85% chance to gain immunity. So even if 0 are left unvaccinated, 30% of the population has no immunity. It is unlikely to infect a large portion of the population, but especially for vaccines which are only 70% effective, it's highly likely 1 or 2 others will get infected who were vaccinated but it didn't take. In addition to the 30% of people who do not have immunity, immunocompromised people often time can lose immunity to certain viruses based on their condition. They are the 1 or 2 people our society has chosen to be effectively infectable in spite of vaccination. That's why its very important everyone else gets vaccinated. The likelihood of a huge outbreak is still relatively small, but you're wrong on the statistics of the small infection, as you'd see from a friend coming by or out to dinner with you or going to day care. Roughly 15% to 30% will get many of the diseases when "intensely exposed". The chance of a small outbreak is moderately large with 70% vaccines and even moderate lack of vaccinations. Your argument, in addition to be attempted technical nitpicking which is wrong, is very dangerous as other posters have made. The effect of one additional unvac on a given population is extremely noticeable on small populations, such as groups of friends and daycares and businesses, aka the very places I suggested ostracizing people from.
- trunnell 16y ago
carlrice 16y ago
How about those who can't afford it? It's also truly a personal and private choice. I don't judge you because you are insane about getting shot up, thats your choice. Mine is to question face value headlines, see what's happening and make an educated choice. Furthermore vaccinating the most of the world is not going to happen until they are made strictly for all people and not for profit. Patenting medicine and vaccines and distributing it to only those who are "deserving" sound a bit off no?
- gte910h 16y ago
  >How about those who can't afford it? I honestly feel as a matter of public health it should be free. If it was someone I saw every day who alleged this reason, I'd take them to the doctor right then for the shots, paying for it.
- frossie 16y ago
  Childhood immunization uptake exceeds 95% in many countries. So vaccinating "most of the world" is clearly do-able. In the situation where uptake is low, the issues revolve around supply, access and parental ignorance, and not the cost of the vaccine. Eg. http://www.scielosp.org/scielo.php?pid=S0042-96862008000600003&script=sci_arttext http://www.scielosp.org/scielo.php?pid=S0042-968620080006000...
- _delirium 16y ago
  I'm sympathetic to poor people not paying for expensive vaccines, and if that were the only problem, it'd be at least partly the fault of our public policy for not doing something about it (a lot of the benefit of vaccination goes to society as a whole rather than solely to the person being vaccinated, making it a fairly classic case for public subsidy). And that probably is a pretty big part of the story in the developing world. In the U.S., though, we do actually have quite a lot of free vaccination clinics, and many people have health insurance that covers vaccinations. It's possible there aren't enough free clinics, and if studies show that a large % of people not being vaccinated are skipping it due to the expense, then that's something we should work on. But I don't believe that's currently the case--- a large proportion of the people skipping vaccinations could have had them completely paid for, either by their health-insurance plan, or via free vaccination clinics, but deliberately chose not to get them. edit: Actually, are there good studies on the primary causes of non-vaccination? It'd be interesting to see estimates of the numbers of people who fall into categories like: 1) fear of autism/etc.; 2) fear of allergic reactions; 3) religious objections; 4) too expensive; 5) too inconvenient / never got around to it.

by gte910h 16y ago

GrandMasterBirt 16y ago

This is ridiculous. There have been less "alleged" cases with vaccine caused autism than there are deaths by swimming pool accidents in kids. The greater good must be served, EVEN IF IT DID CAUSE AUTISM in a super ultra rare instance. Vaccinations are important. End of story.

kabuks 16y ago

I totally agree with you. That is, until my son was born, and people started sharing horror stories for both sides of the argument. As a father, some other part of me kicked in that wasn't very logical. This is much harder decision than it seems. My mother in law shared with me her first-hand experience of 'watching-the-lights-go-out' in a healthy 3-year old minutes after she was vaccinated. It's not autism, and it's anecdotal evidence, but it made me dig deeper, and doubt any certainty on either sides. Studies are NOT conclusive. Dozens of studies where done defending the use of mercury in amalgam fillings for example, and just now the dentist community is coming around to admitting that it does negatively impact patients' health. Years after many people were saying that, and were called naysayers. I didn't vaccinate my son. It wasn't an easy decision. And I'm not certain of it. He will receive a shorter list of vaccines, on a longer less-stressful schedule than the one recommended by the govt. Anybody who assumes certainty for either side of this argument hasn't given this enough thought imho

mattmaroon 16y ago

Unfortunately many vaccines (TB for instance) are only effective in children, and children don't exactly get to make enlightened decisions about whether or not they get a vaccine. By the time they're old enough to decide for themselves it's too late. It wouldn't be right to ostracize people simply because their parents can't tell the difference between a stripper and a doctor and took medical advice from Jenny McCarthy.

gte910h 16y ago
The point isn't to absolutely protect against every disease. Vaccinations don't do that. The point is protect against walking disease vectors. Once they get all the vaccinations they can, they're much like you or I: fully vaccinated.
isleyaardvark 16y ago
It would be even more unfair to increase the risk of exposure to other children. I think there is a role for public shaming and peer pressure with respect to vaccination.
- mattmaroon 16y ago
  There is no law requiring vaccinations. Perhaps there should be, but you really can't shame people for exercising their right to control what goes into their body, no matter how dickish it may be. And you REALLY can't shame them for their parents being idiots.
  - gte910h 16y ago
    You most certainly can shame them, and as long as they get the vaccinations they can, even the ones unlikely to be effective, they've done enough in my eyes to be let in areas I can control attendance to. And missing one vaccine because their parents are idiots isn't the point. Its the walking infection vectors who are the people who have absolutely no vaccines in them in are the issues.
  - ugh 16y ago

CWuestefeld 16y ago

This means EVERYONE needs to be vaccinated for the disease to not continue to find hosts to pass along to. This is not correct. In an extreme case, if there is only 1 left unvaccinated, the disease won't spread. If there are two left unvaccinated, the chances of one having the disease and the other being initially uninfected and then subsequently infected by the one possible vector is astonishingly small. In reality, for a vaccine to be effective, the portion of the population that needs to receive that vaccination is significantly less than 100%. Moreover, vaccines based on attenuated vaccines (e.g., the polio vaccine) actually infect the recipient with an impotent version of the virus. This virus will be transmitted to others in the community through normal contact, thus conferring immunity to many that did not receive the vaccination directly. (this isn't intended to be an endorsement of those who refuse to get vaccinated)

gte910h 16y ago
"In an extreme case, if there is only 1 left unvaccinated, the disease won't spread." Vaccines don't necessarily grant immunity. They give you a 70%-85% chance to gain immunity. So even if 0 are left unvaccinated, 30% of the population has no immunity. It is unlikely to infect a large portion of the population, but especially for vaccines which are only 70% effective, it's highly likely 1 or 2 others will get infected who were vaccinated but it didn't take. In addition to the 30% of people who do not have immunity, immunocompromised people often time can lose immunity to certain viruses based on their condition. They are the 1 or 2 people our society has chosen to be effectively infectable in spite of vaccination. That's why its very important everyone else gets vaccinated. The likelihood of a huge outbreak is still relatively small, but you're wrong on the statistics of the small infection, as you'd see from a friend coming by or out to dinner with you or going to day care. Roughly 15% to 30% will get many of the diseases when "intensely exposed". The chance of a small outbreak is moderately large with 70% vaccines and even moderate lack of vaccinations. Your argument, in addition to be attempted technical nitpicking which is wrong, is very dangerous as other posters have made. The effect of one additional unvac on a given population is extremely noticeable on small populations, such as groups of friends and daycares and businesses, aka the very places I suggested ostracizing people from.
trunnell 16y ago

carlrice 16y ago

How about those who can't afford it? It's also truly a personal and private choice. I don't judge you because you are insane about getting shot up, thats your choice. Mine is to question face value headlines, see what's happening and make an educated choice. Furthermore vaccinating the most of the world is not going to happen until they are made strictly for all people and not for profit. Patenting medicine and vaccines and distributing it to only those who are "deserving" sound a bit off no?

gte910h 16y ago
>How about those who can't afford it? I honestly feel as a matter of public health it should be free. If it was someone I saw every day who alleged this reason, I'd take them to the doctor right then for the shots, paying for it.
frossie 16y ago
Childhood immunization uptake exceeds 95% in many countries. So vaccinating "most of the world" is clearly do-able. In the situation where uptake is low, the issues revolve around supply, access and parental ignorance, and not the cost of the vaccine. Eg. http://www.scielosp.org/scielo.php?pid=S0042-96862008000600003&script=sci_arttext http://www.scielosp.org/scielo.php?pid=S0042-968620080006000...
_delirium 16y ago
I'm sympathetic to poor people not paying for expensive vaccines, and if that were the only problem, it'd be at least partly the fault of our public policy for not doing something about it (a lot of the benefit of vaccination goes to society as a whole rather than solely to the person being vaccinated, making it a fairly classic case for public subsidy). And that probably is a pretty big part of the story in the developing world. In the U.S., though, we do actually have quite a lot of free vaccination clinics, and many people have health insurance that covers vaccinations. It's possible there aren't enough free clinics, and if studies show that a large % of people not being vaccinated are skipping it due to the expense, then that's something we should work on. But I don't believe that's currently the case--- a large proportion of the people skipping vaccinations could have had them completely paid for, either by their health-insurance plan, or via free vaccination clinics, but deliberately chose not to get them. edit: Actually, are there good studies on the primary causes of non-vaccination? It'd be interesting to see estimates of the numbers of people who fall into categories like: 1) fear of autism/etc.; 2) fear of allergic reactions; 3) religious objections; 4) too expensive; 5) too inconvenient / never got around to it.