Is this woman a dangerous moron?
tjohn said:
"The hepatitis B virus is spread when blood, semen, or other body fluid infected with the hepatitis B virus enters the body of a person who is not infected. ... Birth (spreadfrom an infected mother to her baby during birth) Sex with an infected partner. Sharing needles, syringes, or drug preparation equipment."
If I am on the subway with hep B carriers, I'm not likely to be infected. Can't say the same if I am on a subway full of people with the flu.
My larger point stands - when a vaccine is not needed to prevent outbreaks, then should it be required?
HIV and Hep B are spread the same ways. HIV is one of the worst pandemics in human history. According to the WHO, more than 70 million people have been infected with HIV and approximately 35 million have died. Would you characterize HIV as a virus that we shouldn't worry about since we can't catch it by sitting next to someone on a train?
yahooyahoo said:
tjohn said:HIV and Hep B are spread the same ways. HIV is one of the worst pandemics in human history. According to the WHO, more than 70 million people have been infected with HIV and approximately 35 million have died. Would you characterize HIV as a virus that we shouldn't worry about since we can't catch it by sitting next to someone on a train?
"The hepatitis B virus is spread when blood, semen, or other body fluid infected with the hepatitis B virus enters the body of a person who is not infected. ... Birth (spreadfrom an infected mother to her baby during birth) Sex with an infected partner. Sharing needles, syringes, or drug preparation equipment."
If I am on the subway with hep B carriers, I'm not likely to be infected. Can't say the same if I am on a subway full of people with the flu.
My larger point stands - when a vaccine is not needed to prevent outbreaks, then should it be required?
What I am saying is that at some point the cost-benefit trade-off for a vaccine reaches a point where a vaccine shouldn't be required.
And I absolutely view HIV differently than polio or smallpox of the Spanish Influenza of 1918 although it is obviously a serious health problem.
Would you require the Gardasil vaccine? I would not.
yahooyahoo said:
So, where do you draw the line? Gardasil? Flu shots? Meningitis?
I actually still have enough faith in people that I believe most people would avail themselves of optional vaccines that can prevent great harm. That is the other reason why I wouldn't rush out to require an HIV vaccine.
tjohn said:
"The hepatitis B virus is spread when blood, semen, or other body fluid infected with the hepatitis B virus enters the body of a person who is not infected. ... Birth (spreadfrom an infected mother to her baby during birth) Sex with an infected partner. Sharing needles, syringes, or drug preparation equipment."
If I am on the subway with hep B carriers, I'm not likely to be infected. Can't say the same if I am on a subway full of people with the flu.
My larger point stands - when a vaccine is not needed to prevent outbreaks, then should it be required?
The general answer is the long long established principle that the government can and must protect children even against the neglect of their own parents. Are you seriously suggesting that no matter how serious a disease is and how solid the proof of the effectiveness of a vaccine for it is, the government has no business butting in unless the disease is communicable? I agree that the government should tread very carefully about intruding in family matters and its impossible here to speak to the merits and seriousness of every vaccine but the general principle you seem to be invoking doesn't hold up.
bub said:Are you seriously suggesting that no matter how serious a disease is and how solid the proof of the effectiveness of a vaccine for it is, the government has no business butting in unless the disease is communicable? I agree that the government should tread very carefully about intruding in family matters and its impossible here to speak to the merits and seriousness of every vaccine but the general principle you seem to be invoking doesn't hold up.
What's the cutoff? 1,000 lives per year? 10,000? 100,000. What is the cost?
tjohn said:
bub said:Are you seriously suggesting that no matter how serious a disease is and how solid the proof of the effectiveness of a vaccine for it is, the government has no business butting in unless the disease is communicable? I agree that the government should tread very carefully about intruding in family matters and its impossible here to speak to the merits and seriousness of every vaccine but the general principle you seem to be invoking doesn't hold up.What's the cutoff? 1,000 lives per year? 10,000? 100,000. What is the cost?
Instead of raising up a straw man, look it up. This might help:
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/programs/vfc/pubs/methods/index.html
This article outlines most of the same logic in text form:
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/01/a-cost-benefit-analysis-of-vaccines/251565/
And this one outlines benefits that tend not to be in most analyses, such as lost cognitive ability when children experience disease. This is specifically about Hib, but the same logic could be applied to other diseases:
https://www.who.int/immunization/diseases/hib/Macroeconomic_evaluation_Hib_vaccines.pdf
And here is one specifically about hepatitis B vaccination in children. This is from data in Ireland but it should be valid here as well:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18160389
The bottom line is that the cost-benefit ratio is overwhelmingly in favor of vaccination for every disease for which there is a vaccine. The differences range between "overwhelmingly in favor" to "amazingly, outstandingly, OMG" in favor.
I may be naive but I actually do trust the CDC and WHO to come up with guidelines that are not capricious and that make sound economic and public health sense.
As to whether there should be religious exemptions - overall I get it, but we don't allow people to beat their kids just because God said they should. Protecting children from disease - and by extension protecting the overall community from disease - is an area where I don't buy a religious exemption.
HatsOff said:
tjohn said:Instead of raising up a straw man, look it up. This might help:
bub said:Are you seriously suggesting that no matter how serious a disease is and how solid the proof of the effectiveness of a vaccine for it is, the government has no business butting in unless the disease is communicable? I agree that the government should tread very carefully about intruding in family matters and its impossible here to speak to the merits and seriousness of every vaccine but the general principle you seem to be invoking doesn't hold up.What's the cutoff? 1,000 lives per year? 10,000? 100,000. What is the cost?
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/programs/vfc/pubs/methods/index.html
This article outlines most of the same logic in text form:
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/01/a-cost-benefit-analysis-of-vaccines/251565/
And this one outlines benefits that tend not to be in most analyses, such as lost cognitive ability when children experience disease. This is specifically about Hib, but the same logic could be applied to other diseases:
https://www.who.int/immunization/diseases/hib/Macroeconomic_evaluation_Hib_vaccines.pdf
And here is one specifically about hepatitis B vaccination in children. This is from data in Ireland but it should be valid here as well:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18160389
The bottom line is that the cost-benefit ratio is overwhelmingly in favor of vaccination for every disease for which there is a vaccine. The differences range between "overwhelmingly in favor" to "amazingly, outstandingly, OMG" in favor.
I may be naive but I actually do trust the CDC and WHO to come up with guidelines that are not capricious and that make sound economic and public health sense.
As to whether there should be religious exemptions - overall I get it, but we don't allow people to beat their kids just because God said they should. Protecting children from disease - and by extension protecting the overall community from disease - is an area where I don't buy a religious exemption.
Good response.
tjohn said:
bub said:Are you seriously suggesting that no matter how serious a disease is and how solid the proof of the effectiveness of a vaccine for it is, the government has no business butting in unless the disease is communicable? I agree that the government should tread very carefully about intruding in family matters and its impossible here to speak to the merits and seriousness of every vaccine but the general principle you seem to be invoking doesn't hold up.What's the cutoff? 1,000 lives per year? 10,000? 100,000. What is the cost?
You're switching gears here from your point as well as from the alleged moron's point that started this discussion. I believe every public issue we discuss requires a cost benefit analysis, including the cost of intrusion into our liberty and autonomy, which I care about. I wouldn't be in support of coerced vaccination for a shot that has a 1 in 100 chance of preventing the common cold.
bub said:
tjohn said:You're switching gears here from your point as well as from the alleged moron's point that started this discussion. I believe every public issue we discuss requires a cost benefit analysis, including the cost of intrusion into our liberty and autonomy, which I care about. I wouldn't be in support of coerced vaccination for a shot that has a 1 in 100 chance of preventing the common cold.
bub said:Are you seriously suggesting that no matter how serious a disease is and how solid the proof of the effectiveness of a vaccine for it is, the government has no business butting in unless the disease is communicable? I agree that the government should tread very carefully about intruding in family matters and its impossible here to speak to the merits and seriousness of every vaccine but the general principle you seem to be invoking doesn't hold up.What's the cutoff? 1,000 lives per year? 10,000? 100,000. What is the cost?
My personal leaning is to trust science. I just wanted to have a discussion that was slightly better than "you can't trust doctors".
tjohn said:
bub said:My personal leaning is to trust science. I just wanted to have a discussion that was slightly better than "you can't trust doctors".
tjohn said:You're switching gears here from your point as well as from the alleged moron's point that started this discussion. I believe every public issue we discuss requires a cost benefit analysis, including the cost of intrusion into our liberty and autonomy, which I care about. I wouldn't be in support of coerced vaccination for a shot that has a 1 in 100 chance of preventing the common cold.
bub said:Are you seriously suggesting that no matter how serious a disease is and how solid the proof of the effectiveness of a vaccine for it is, the government has no business butting in unless the disease is communicable? I agree that the government should tread very carefully about intruding in family matters and its impossible here to speak to the merits and seriousness of every vaccine but the general principle you seem to be invoking doesn't hold up.What's the cutoff? 1,000 lives per year? 10,000? 100,000. What is the cost?
I'm with you. We should never abandon critical thinking and skepticism but we live in a world of specialization and we have to rely on specialists to some extent. Anti-vaccers here, tossing broadsides against the medical profession and big pharma, would go ape s**t if anyone dared express an ounce of doubt about the science of global warming.
I was tagged earlier in the discussion because I'm a known entity when it comes to discussions on vaccines on the facebook - but it seems many here have more than adequately responded in favor of vaccines.
Two points I will add:
1 - unless you have an advanced medical degree in the science of immunology, saying that a baby's immune system can't possible handle the number of vaccines in such a short amount of time... an observation: every single moment of every single day that kid is being exposed to sooo much crap, that a vaccine is somehow going to do grave damage is nonsense. Yes, there are those that do have reactions, and a do truly ache for those. However, we live in a society where the greater good and the survival of that society, wins over the individual. And it truly sucks when it's someone you love.
2 - The poster that mentioned that doc are 80% wrong. I am so very sorry you have had such a bad series of experiences. In no way is what I'm about to say make light of that.
One person's experiences is just that one person's and in the grand scheme of things, statistically irrelevant. I have had nothing but great docs. So we cancel each other out.
And for those of you still with me -
Requiring vaccines is communist. We seem to be in a race to the bottom.
Amid a surging measles outbreak in the United States that has grown to about 160 cases in 10 states, Arizona’s legislature recently passed bills allowing for a religious exemption for required vaccination shots — a move that public health advocates warn could lead to fewer immunizations. Republican Gov. Doug Ducey, who describes himself as “pro-vaccination” and “anti-measles,” suggested Wednesday he would strike down those proposals.
[Anti-vaxxers face backlash as measles cases surge]
But one state lawmaker begged to differ with the governor. Republican State Rep. Kelly Townsend, a five-term state representative who is no stranger to making controversial and befuddling statements on social media, took to Facebook on Thursday to bemoan that Arizona was “prepared to give up our liberty, the very sovereignty of our body, because of measles.”
Why? Because doing so would be “Communist.”
The magical religious exemption. To be allowed to put children at risk because of God.
Religious excemption ---
Mark Twain: "Mary Baker Eddy proves God has a sense of humor."
You probably don't need a smallpox vaccine. Everything else? Probably yes.
Income taxes are against my religion. I'm claiming a 100% exemption.
Many people mistakenly think that vaccines and "childhood" illnesses are only a children't issue. Many of these diseases are known as "childhood" illnesses because in the past most adults already caught them when they were kids and were then immune for life. This is no longer the case.
I've seen a doctor almost every year of my adult life for an annual check up, but I wasn't informed of needing any vaccines for a long time. When I got pregnant in my mid 30's I only then found out that I was out of date on my MMR and the titer showed it was needed. I was also out of date on the Tdap. The Tdap vaccine you can, and should, get while pregnant, so that was no problem. The MMR vaccine you can't, so I had to wait until after the baby was born. My primary care physician, who I had been seeing regularly for years, had the audacity to scold me for being out of date. I had seen his stupid *** YEARLY and he had NEVER ONCE recommended it or asked me about my vaccine status. I now have a new doctor, by the way, and my new doctor actually keeps track of what vaccines I am due for.
I've also met adults, pro-vaccine adults, who mistakenly believe that adults don't need vaccines like children do since they "had them all as a child." Those vaccines wear off. Some do last longer than others. My doctor won't give a polio vaccine without first doing a titer. But others, like the Tdap or the Td, he'll do based on the date of the last vaccine. I can't find the numbers, but I do know that the percentage of US adults who are up to date on all their vaccines is very low. This isn't due to anti-vax sentiment, but through ignorance on the part of adults and lack of follow up by medical care givers. Though not as prevalent as in children, adults can and do catch and transmit these same diseases.
Also, even though the whooping cough vaccine wears off rather quickly (5 years I think) for some stupid reason the CDC recommends adults get the Td vaccine regularly but only recommends the Tdap if you haven't had ONE as an adult. Basically, if you had the Tdap at age 20, and you're now 50, the CDC thinks that's just fine and dandy. This makes no sense, whooping cough is on the rise among adults, yet adults aren't being told to be vaccinated against this unless they're the direct caregiver of an infant. It is not surprising that adult caregivers is the #1 source for infants contracting whooping cough.
jmitw said:
for example, how do you explain the science behind forcing hep b vaccine on 4-5 year olds who should never be exposed to it?
Exposed to what? The Hep B vaccine is a recombinant vaccine. There's no live virus or anything to be "exposed" to. It is made in yeast cells.
Vaccine schedule decisions are made for public health reasons. Infectious, communicable disease is a public health problem.
nan said:
I got all of my shots and so did my son, and these disease breakouts are scary, but I don't think we should be forcing people to get vaccinations. That's really a personal decision, related to our bodies. We can try to use logic and reason to convince them, but I don't think it benefits any of us to force inoculations. It sets a bad precedent.
...
Anyway, I understand the problems with these disease breakouts, but I'm still uncomfortable with forcing people to get vaccinations.
Public health. Communicable disease is a public health issue. The idea behind vaccination is to reduce or eliminate the amount of infectious organism circulating in the community so that EVERYONE is protected. Keeping YOU and the rest of the population from dying or becoming disabled from communicable diseases depends on a critical number of people getting vaccinated more than it depends on you personally getting vaccinated. If you are "uncomfortable" with vaccine requirements (although nobody is forced), then you put yourself in danger. You can't rest on your laurels just because you personally have been vaccinated.
The two most successful public health measures in history are vaccination and public sanitation. Do you ever hear people saying that they don't want indoor plumbing because of the big plumbing and big sanitation industries?
It's like global warming. Every individual has to do his/her part to keep all individuals healthy. Or like traffic rules. Saying that individuals should have individual choice when it comes to vaccines is like saying we should have individual choice to drive 80 mph down Valley St.
nan said:
We should be skeptical about anything from for-profit drug companies. It is not inconceivable that some time in the future they could come up with an unsafe vaccination and force us all to give it to our kids or selves by law, making us all the guinea pigs. With increased deregulation, who knows what situations might develop. It might seem like a good idea now when there is a chicken pox breakout, but not so great in 5 years if they decide they have something for colds and we all have to take it based on the same law.
Actually, the federal government forced drug companies to continue making vaccines about 30 years ago. They were going to stop because it is so unprofitable.
And there is no law that makes anyone get vaccines. Truly, anyone can choose not to be vaccinated. They just can't go to public school (although in some/most states you can get an exemption) and they can't work in a healthcare setting. At some colleges, you can't live in a dorm. Other than that, feel free not to vaccinate. Nobody's going to put you in jail.
shoshannah said:
The two most successful public health measures in history are vaccination and public sanitation. Do you ever hear people saying that they don't want indoor plumbing because of the big plumbing and big sanitation industries?
Please don't give the libertarians any ideas. They might start complaining that sewer fees are "theft" and it's an infringement on freedom to require them to hook up their plumbing to the public sewer system. They'll decide that they're oppressed because they are being coerced into paying a sewer fee when they should be free to just route the output of their toilets into their yards.
shoshannah said:
nan said:Public health. Communicable disease is a public health issue. The idea behind vaccination is to reduce or eliminate the amount of infectious organism circulating in the community so that EVERYONE is protected. Keeping YOU and the rest of the population from dying or becoming disabled from communicable diseases depends on a critical number of people getting vaccinated more than it depends on you personally getting vaccinated. If you are "uncomfortable" with vaccine requirements (although nobody is forced), then you put yourself in danger. You can't rest on your laurels just because you personally have been vaccinated.
I got all of my shots and so did my son, and these disease breakouts are scary, but I don't think we should be forcing people to get vaccinations. That's really a personal decision, related to our bodies. We can try to use logic and reason to convince them, but I don't think it benefits any of us to force inoculations. It sets a bad precedent.
...
Anyway, I understand the problems with these disease breakouts, but I'm still uncomfortable with forcing people to get vaccinations.
The two most successful public health measures in history are vaccination and public sanitation. Do you ever hear people saying that they don't want indoor plumbing because of the big plumbing and big sanitation industries?
It's like global warming. Every individual has to do his/her part to keep all individuals healthy. Or like traffic rules. Saying that individuals should have individual choice when it comes to vaccines is like saying we should have individual choice to drive 80 mph down Valley St.
You are not responding to what I said. I understand why we need vaccinations and I get them and think everyone should. I'm fine with having them as a requirement. What I worry about is passing laws requiring people to get them with no opting out available. As you say, no one is forced, but that could change. Some people are pushing for that and I worry about the consequences of over-enforcement.
shoshannah said:nan said:Actually, the federal government forced drug companies to continue making vaccines about 30 years ago. They were going to stop because it is so unprofitable.
We should be skeptical about anything from for-profit drug companies. It is not inconceivable that some time in the future they could come up with an unsafe vaccination and force us all to give it to our kids or selves by law, making us all the guinea pigs. With increased deregulation, who knows what situations might develop. It might seem like a good idea now when there is a chicken pox breakout, but not so great in 5 years if they decide they have something for colds and we all have to take it based on the same law.
And there is no law that makes anyone get vaccines. Truly, anyone can choose not to be vaccinated. They just can't go to public school (although in some/most states you can get an exemption) and they can't work in a healthcare setting. At some colleges, you can't live in a dorm. Other than that, feel free not to vaccinate. Nobody's going to put you in jail.
Once again, you are not responding to what I said. I was talking about a possible future problem. I have seen people advocating for forcing people to get inoculated by law and I'm against that. As long as we both agree that no one should be forced to get a shot, we are in agreement.
nan said:
shoshannah said:You are not responding to what I said. I understand why we need vaccinations and I get them and think everyone should. I'm fine with having them as a requirement. What I worry about is passing laws requiring people to get them with no opting out available. As you say, no one is forced, but that could change. Some people are pushing for that and I worry about the consequences of over-enforcement.
nan said:Public health. Communicable disease is a public health issue. The idea behind vaccination is to reduce or eliminate the amount of infectious organism circulating in the community so that EVERYONE is protected. Keeping YOU and the rest of the population from dying or becoming disabled from communicable diseases depends on a critical number of people getting vaccinated more than it depends on you personally getting vaccinated. If you are "uncomfortable" with vaccine requirements (although nobody is forced), then you put yourself in danger. You can't rest on your laurels just because you personally have been vaccinated.
I got all of my shots and so did my son, and these disease breakouts are scary, but I don't think we should be forcing people to get vaccinations. That's really a personal decision, related to our bodies. We can try to use logic and reason to convince them, but I don't think it benefits any of us to force inoculations. It sets a bad precedent.
...
Anyway, I understand the problems with these disease breakouts, but I'm still uncomfortable with forcing people to get vaccinations.
The two most successful public health measures in history are vaccination and public sanitation. Do you ever hear people saying that they don't want indoor plumbing because of the big plumbing and big sanitation industries?
It's like global warming. Every individual has to do his/her part to keep all individuals healthy. Or like traffic rules. Saying that individuals should have individual choice when it comes to vaccines is like saying we should have individual choice to drive 80 mph down Valley St.
the consequence of over-enforcement is likely to be the eradication of diseases.
nan said: I have seen people advocating for forcing people to get inoculated by law
Where have you seen this?
tjohn said:
So, where do you draw the line? Gardasil?
What is the objection to saving women from dying of cervical cancer?
j_r said:
nan said: I have seen people advocating for forcing people to get inoculated by lawWhere have you seen this?
tjohn said:
So, where do you draw the line? Gardasil?
What is the objection to saving women from dying of cervical cancer?
This is not an issue I spend a lot of time on, but I have seen articles with people advocating for eliminating exceptions. I also have a conspiracy nut friend who sends me at least one email a week claiming people will be or are forced to get shots against their will. I almost never read these emails, so I have no idea if they from planet earth, but I think there are many people who are afraid that might happen.
Despite getting all my inoculations and believing in science, I don't trust for profit Pharma and for that reason, I would not like to see any kind of legislation were people were forced to get inoculations. I just think it's good to have an out, just in case.
I've been thinking about the title of this thread. If 2016 taught us anything it should be that there is no such thing as a safe moron.
nan said:
j_r said:This is not an issue I spend a lot of time on, but I have seen articles with people advocating for eliminating exceptions. I also have a conspiracy nut friend who sends me at least one email a week claiming people will be or are forced to get shots against their will. I almost never read these emails, so I have no idea if they from planet earth, but I think there are many people who are afraid that might happen.
nan said: I have seen people advocating for forcing people to get inoculated by lawWhere have you seen this?
tjohn said:
So, where do you draw the line? Gardasil?
What is the objection to saving women from dying of cervical cancer?
Despite getting all my inoculations and believing in science, I don't trust for profit Pharma and for that reason, I would not like to see any kind of legislation were people were forced to get inoculations. I just think it's good to have an out, just in case.
no one is being forced to be immunized. Or will ever be forced to do so. Parents are required to have their kids immunized if they are going to attend public school. People who truly don't want their kids to have vaccinations can home school their kids, or find other like minded parents and start a no-vaccines private school.
ml1 said:
shoshannah said:Please don't give the libertarians any ideas. They might start complaining that sewer fees are "theft" and it's an infringement on freedom to require them to hook up their plumbing to the public sewer system. They'll decide that they're oppressed because they are being coerced into paying a sewer fee when they should be free to just route the output of their toilets into their yards.
The two most successful public health measures in history are vaccination and public sanitation. Do you ever hear people saying that they don't want indoor plumbing because of the big plumbing and big sanitation industries?
"The hepatitis B virus is spread when blood, semen, or other body fluid infected with the hepatitis B virus enters the body of a person who is not infected. ... Birth (spreadfrom an infected mother to her baby during birth) Sex with an infected partner. Sharing needles, syringes, or drug preparation equipment."
If I am on the subway with hep B carriers, I'm not likely to be infected. Can't say the same if I am on a subway full of people with the flu.
My larger point stands - when a vaccine is not needed to prevent outbreaks, then should it be required?