<p>“That kid presents a danger to kids/adults who are UNABLE to be vaccinated against a given disease, or those who are vaccinated but have not obtained immunity for various reasons.”
-They will always be in danger, others vaccinated or not. Most likely scenario for them - inability to fight pnemonia. Many cancers are also caused by viruses and there is no vaccination for that. Most of these with immune deficiencies will not expire because of a non-vaccinated kid.<br>
Again, even with this, we are discussing a very small number of people in danger, while ALL of us, absolutely every single person in this country is involved in much more risky behavior that affects pretty much the rest of population, and we will always be involved in these behaviors, non-interrupted and never even think twice.
Again, I am not expressing any cons or pros about non-vaccination. I am just saying that it seems to be activating controling reaction from some people that has very little base, much mush smaller ground than many of our very risky daily behaviors.</p>
<p>As a former cancer patient I need to walk away from this conversation before I say something I’ll regret.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They will be in ADDITIONAL danger due to the refusal of others to vaccinate. In some cases, significant danger due to something which could be entirely prevented. If your child was exposed to whooping cough and died because of exposure to someone who refused to vaccinate, I seriously doubt you would feel better because she was a member of a statistically “insignifcant” risk group.</p>
<p>I’ve said this before, and I don’t think it’s an overstatement: if you refuse to get vaccinated for a non-health-related reason, and you get the disease and give it to a person who can’t get the vaccine (or for whom it didn’t work), and that person dies, you are no better than somebody who drives drunk and kills somebody. It’s that simple. It’s irresponsible and unpatriotic as well.</p>
<p>Miami, sufficient people deciding not to vaccinate becomes a major public health issue, and we all pay, as a society, as well as individuals, if someone we know gets sick or dies, and in the process, passes the disease to others. </p>
<p>Watch recent news regarding Syria and polio, if you want a current day lack of vaccine horror story. </p>
<p>I’m all for many approaches to health, and think naturopaths have something to add to the dialogue. However, my elderly mother is far too much under the sway of a naturopath who is helping her make poor, yet expensive health related choices. The naturopath herself is a lovely person, and well intentioned, yet clueless as to conventional treatments and how to balance the choices for allopathic vs alternative treatments. </p>
<p>My other irritation with the anti vaccine lobby, is the fear mongering regarding what they call ‘Big Pharma.’ There are reasons to look on treatments carefully, yet they are throwing out much of modern medicine and the increase in life expectancy with their condemnation of medical and pharmaceutical research.</p>
<p>Actually, a nonvaccinated person is also a risk to the general vaccinated population too. No vaccine is 100%. The closest we get to protection for everyone is when most/all of the population is vaccinated (herd immunity). If there is no herd immunity, the unvaccinated are at most risk of course, but also those vaccinated but non immune (there are always some) are at risk. That’s why when you hear of an outbreak of x, some of the kids were actually vaccinated against x. Another reason we need to keep our vaxed part of the population at very high numbers to protect everyone. High herd immunity protects the unvaccinated and doubly protects the rest of the herd.</p>
<p>
The odds of a person knowing who they caught the virus from is slim so should all non vaccinated people assume they’re responsible fore every death to those who couldn’t be vaccinated? Now to equate this to driving drunk and killing someone does not make sense. It’s not as if a drunk driver can’t be tied to who they hit. A car does not unexpectedly get hit by a ghost car. </p>
<p>So your comparison, in my opinion, isn’t relatable. </p>
<p>Sure choosing to not get vaccinated is irresponsible and “unpatriotic”, but on a the list of what makes up a bad person, it’s pretty far down there.</p>
<p>@Hunt Why do you think the choice of not getting vaccinated is “unpatriotic”?</p>
<p>But you can actually equate it (not vaccinating for non-health reasons and infecting someone who is immunocompromised and then dies) to drunk driving and leaving the scene with no witnesses or forensic evidence, right?</p>
<p>Well played, artemis95. </p>
<p>Dead is dead, no matter how it happened or who caused it. We vaccinate because in our opinion it is the best thing for our family AND for those we unknowingly interact with who may be immune compromised.</p>
<p>Niquii, so if you can’t get caught or it can’t be traced- it’s not morally or ethically wrong?</p>
<p>There are lots of people that get away with rape, murder, identity theft, etc because it’s untraceable… so they’re ok?</p>
<p>“MiamiDAP:“We, as a culture, do NOT respect people’s right to do what they think is best for their own families if it puts innocent people in danger”
-We are driving. Driving kills many many more very innocent people than other activity / aspect of our lives. We let people to eat themselves to the point that resources dedicated to the deseases caused by obesity drain the total amount that is available for entire health care. This one is huge as most resources dedicated to preventable deseases. It also puts lots and lots at great danger of not receiving proper care because of lack of resources (including amount of research, number of docs and other resources)
This list can go on and on and on.
I am not advocating one way or another at all. I am simply saying that statement “We, as a culture, do NOT respect people’s right to do what they think is best for their own families if it puts innocent people in danger” is absolutely NOT correct.”</p>
<p>I can add many items to your list. You are right. This is absolutely NOT true or correct.</p>
<p>Anybody who is forcing others to vaccinate their kids and (why not by the same token), forcing senior to vaccinate agains shingles and pnemonia are putting weight of the great responsibilities on their shoulders going against wishes of those who STRONGLY believe that vaccination presents a very great (even grave) danger to their kids (and seniors, but the same token). I am not ready to accept this responsibility. There are case of kids/people parish because of vaccination.<br>
As I said, I am not for or against. All of us are vaccinated. But I had to think very very hard every time, and thank goodness nothing has happened so far. I perfectly understand those who are strongly against it and I cannot make myself to force them think otherwise…it may make me regret it for the rest of my life. I do not understand how others can so lightheartedly force people to follow their wishes without any respect.</p>
<p>Oh good grief. No one is forcing seniors to get shingles vaccines or pneumonia vaccines.</p>
<p>^Then why kids? Shinges are contagious and 30% of seniors are affected. Pnemonia is even much more contagious. In addition, seniors are definitely much more in contact with the large group that has suppressed immune system - other seniors.
Post #433 does not make any sense whatsoever in a contest of forcing parents to vaccinate their kids. Then we should think even harder about forcing seniors to vaccinate, the sick ones are definitely affecting much larger and much more prone to deseases group.</p>
<p>^For the same reason we have laws requiring parents to put their young children in car seats, enroll them in school and keep them out of the work force. Because we care about children and they’re too young to make these decisions for themselves.</p>
<p>In addition, because we require that children attend school we need to protect all the children in those schools, and has been pointed out, herd immunity among the school population is one way to do that.</p>
<p>“Because we care about children and they’re too young to make these decisions for themselves.”
-Exactly. And some parents strongly believe that vaccination will affect their children in a very negative way. There are precendences. You want this responsibilites? Thank goodness, some parents standing up for what they believe and DO NOT sent their kids to school. Manyof them who do not attend also will grow up very successfull academically.
-From the above, it sounds like we do NOT care at all about seniors. …nice to hear after life of caring for others!!!</p>
<p>We assume seniors can weigh these issues for themselves. If they are incapable we assign them a guardian who can make medical decisions for them.</p>
<p>Parents are free to think what they want and assume the consequences. If that means not being able to enroll their kids in public school, so be it.</p>
<p>In the end, people believe all sorts of things. The problem comes when what they believe impacts the health of others.</p>
<p>I know people who think they’re safe to drive after a bottle of wine. Doesn’t mean I want to be on the road with them.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Seniors are NOT forced to get shingles vaccines. They are encouraged to get a shingles vaccine if they have already had chicken pox because they are at risk of getting shingles, not because being around other people with shingles will give them shingles (it will NOT). A senior who has had chicken pox is not at risk of getting shingles from another person-it is not contagious in that sense. Your posts yet again reveal that you absolutely do not understand disease processes, treatments, and prevention. </p>
<p>Secondly, no one is FORCING children to get vaccines. They are being strongly encouraged to do so. Some schools require them for entry to that school. But parents always have the option to refuse. There are waivers one can sign in order to be excused from the requirement.</p>
<p>No one on this thread has advocated “forcing” anyone to have a vaccine. They are saying that just because you can refuse doesn’t mean that you should. If the current trend of refusing vaccines continues, this will in fact create a public health problem. Millions of people died routinely of infectious disease before the advent of vaccines. The cost of these illnesses is far greater to society at large than the cost of vaccines in terms of adverse effects. Ignorance about the relative risk of vaccines vs. benefit is no excuse for contributing to a public health crisis.</p>
<p>As far as I am concerned, any children unvaccinated from the required vaccines for school should not be permitted in any group situations. They pose a risk of getting some nasty things that they can give those who are unable to be vaccinated or for whom the vaccines don’t work. Children are germ pits in that they do tend to put their fingers in nose and mouth more and can spread these things more. </p>
<p>However, the law only hits the schools and a few other places, so there isn’t anything that restricts access to unvaccinated kids So you keep your kids away from those places if you don’t vaccinate. If I know you don’t vaccinate, I would keep my kids away from yours, if I can. </p>
<p>The mumps hit the pediatric oncology ward at Memorial Sloane Kettering when a bunch of kids from an orthodox community who does not tend to vaccinate their kids, got the disease. For whatever reason, that community also has a higher risk of cancers, in general. Some of those kids undergoing chemo and other treatment, yes, got the mumps, and then were at high risk for giving to other kids undergoing cancer treatment at MSK. You can say this is rare, but when you are in this rare group, which I was with my son, a child fighting cancer, it happens more often than one would think. Yes, it endangers those the most fragile when you make these kind of decisions. </p>
<p>There is a risk to most things, and if you believe your child is at high risk for negative effects from vaccines that outweight the positive ones, including going to school, and protecting those who are truly on the edge of maybe living out the year, then you can decline the vaccine. You keep your kid out of those places that require the vaccine because unless you can get exemption, and if you have any kind of decency, you keep away from those who are in fragile health. The rules regarding vaccines and exemptions do try to protect as many people as possible. My kid was one who needed the protection.</p>
<p>
Yes, I think that condition is more fitting. Someone who is unable to get vaccinated getting infected unknowingly is the equivalent to them getting into a hit and run. </p>
<p>
I’m not debating the morality or ethics of vaccination. I was simply commenting on how Hunt’s analogy was an inadequate one.</p>