Major Measels Outbreak Fearred in Washington State (anti-vaxxers)

[Mountaineer]

Deleted

[Maddy]

But, it's not just that there's an overwhelming consensus on the subject- a professional medical consensus that says vaccines are safe AND that the unvaccinated pose a risk to the general population. . . . How many children are going to die of these infectious diseases because their parents feel they are thinking for themselves?

That's a gross overstatement of the case. When it comes to measles and other childhood diseases once thought to be just a normal part of growing up, the question really is not "How many children are going to die?" (very few) but rather "How many immunocompromised or medically fragile people may be harmed?" You will undoubtedly find people at the extremes of the bell curve who, for one reason or another, have very nasty complications from vaccines and/or the adjuvants that invariably accompany them. So really we're talking about two subpopulations at the extremes of the curve, and whether one of them deserves to be protected at the expense of the other.

[stuper1]

But, it's not just that there's an overwhelming consensus on the subject- a professional medical consensus that says vaccines are safe AND that the unvaccinated pose a risk to the general population. . . . How many children are going to die of these infectious diseases because their parents feel they are thinking for themselves?

That's a gross overstatement of the case. When it comes to measles and other childhood diseases once thought to be just a normal part of growing up, the question really is not "How many children are going to die?" (very few) but rather "How many immunocompromised or medically fragile people may be harmed?" You will undoubtedly find people at the extremes of the bell curve who, for one reason or another, have very nasty complications from vaccines and/or the adjuvants that invariably accompany them. So really we're talking about two subpopulations at the extremes of the curve, and whether one of them deserves to be protected at the expense of the other.

Hmmm, I wonder which side of this issue that Big Pharma would come down on?

And, by the way Maddy, that is a very nice summary.

[Maddy]

I don't think that anything will reassure the most suspicious segment of the population that mainstream doctors are open and honest.

I don't see this as a question of the medical profession's ethics. How many doctors have the time to pour through the multitude of peer reviewed studies in each of the fields that might possibly bear upon the advice they give to patients? Isn't that at least part of the reason professional associations and institutions adopt bright-line standards of care? And what about the studies that show how susceptible doctors are to the marketing tactics of the drug reps that hover about their offices? If that kind of marketing did not work, surely the pharmaceutical industry would have figured that out by now.

And then there's the question of bias. If your a family practitioner who sees mostly low-income kids, I'll bet you dollars to donuts your experience has given you a certain "slant" in favor of vaccines. Ask a plumber how emergent your plumbing issue is, and his honest appraisal is likely to be that it should be on the top of your "to do" list. Of course, that's until you call the electrician.

And, finally, even the most intelligent, well-versed doctors often disagree when it comes to risk-to-benefit analyses. Take, for example, the hormone replacement therapy debate. The experts have gone back and forth on that how many times now? Or take our own WiseOne, who's expressed her strong disagreement with the standard of care when it comes to mammograms. Now, if there was an easy way to determine which one of them is wrong, I'm sure we'd all be better off for the knowledge, but I suspect that the disagreement on that subject and many others will continue long into the future.

So for even a highly credentialed person to regard the vaccine issue as "open and shut" tells me only that there's someone who who has a very strong opinion.

[dualstow]

I've always thought that if those decisions are taken out of the parents' hands

Strawman argument: even if refusing these vaccinations is borderline child abuse and akin to Christian Scientists not taking their children to a hospital for medical treatment, it is still very much in your hands.

[Xan]

I've always thought that if those decisions are taken out of the parents' hands

Strawman argument: even if refusing these vaccinations is borderline child abuse and akin to Christian Scientists not taking their children to a hospital for medical treatment, it is still very much in your hands.

Isn't the current debate about whether to remove any ability of parents to decline vaccinations? How is stuper's post a strawman?

[dualstow]

Isn't the current debate about whether to remove any ability of parents to decline vaccinations? How is stuper's post a strawman?

If it is the current debate, I missed when we turned to that. Maybe in the middle pages? I thought it began w/ stuper's own post. Or, are you referring to a national debate and not the forum? The article in the OP mentions lax rules and exemptions at the beginning, but it is basically about the outbreak, the result of the exemptions.

If the exemptions are taken away, I thought the upshot would be that the children would be homeschooled as they would not be welcome in a public school, but not that the parents would be carted off to jail. I don't know. Is my assumption wrong?

EDIT: I just googled my own question in the last line above, and it seems to be the case, i.e. required for public school attendance, but not forced or mandatory.

[Xan]

Isn't the current debate about whether to remove any ability of parents to decline vaccinations? How is stuper's post a strawman?

If it is the current debate, I missed when we turned to that. Maybe in the middle pages? I thought it began w/ stuper's own post. Or, are you referring to a national debate and not the forum? The article in the OP mentions lax rules and exemptions at the beginning, but it is basically about the outbreak, the result of the exemptions.

If the exemptions are taken away, I thought the upshot would be that the children would be homeschooled as they would not be welcome in a public school, but not that the parents would be carted off to jail. I don't know. Is my assumption wrong?

EDIT: I just googled my own question in the last line above, and it seems to be the case, i.e. required for public school attendance, but not forced or mandatory.

The California law, and others modeled after it, are absolute requirements for both public and private schools. (With exceptions for medical reasons, which... I don't know why that's any different from a philosophical reason, really...)

If you're not calling that "mandatory" then you have a pretty small definition of what "mandatory" actually means.

[dualstow]

You say small, I say specific.
Parents are not forced to have their kids vaccinated, period. But they do not have the additional right to mix their measly children in with the vaccinated ones, apparently. Seems fair.

[drumminj]

But they do not have the additional right to mix their measly children in with the vaccinated ones, apparently. Seems fair.

Yet it's mandatory for children to be schooled up to a certain age, either via the public/private school system, or a parent is mandated (can "choose"?) to home school, with certain requirements. Which ultimately makes immunizations compulsory in a large number of circumstances, no?

I don't have children, so don't know all the details, but this is my high-level understanding of schooling requirements.

If public schooling wasn't a requirement I think you'd have a fair point, dualstow, but given it is, I feel the nature of the situation is a bit different, no?

[dualstow]

Ah, you’re right! If/where homeschooling is not a choice, I concede.

I guess it's the "or private school" part that clinches it. With public schools, do the same parents who don't trust the gov't and its vaccinations want their kids to be schooled by the government? Maybe there should be the option for an all anti-vaxxers private school. Still...those kids are going to cause an outbreak. It'll be the movie theater instead of the classroom?

By the way, I was supposed to type “measles-laden” above. I’ll blame the ipad for outputting “measly.”

[Kriegsspiel]

I thought 'measly' was the best word in that post.

[dualstow]

I thought 'measly' was the best word in that post.

ha

@Maddy, your well-written post deserves a response:

How many doctors have the time to pour through the multitude of peer reviewed studies in each of the fields that might possibly bear upon the advice they give to patients?

Fair enough. I guess they put their trust in institutions like the CDC, and bodies of researchers, not practicing physicians. But if that deflates my "overwhelming consensus", I understand.

And, finally, even the most intelligent, well-versed doctors often disagree when it comes to risk-to-benefit analyses. Take, for example, the hormone replacement therapy debate. The experts have gone back and forth on that how many times now?

All of science is replacing wrong with right as best we can. Luckily, children's health does not depend on how old a certain species of human is, or when it arrived in a particular location. (An example of something that changes every few years).

Bottom line is what MangoMan said. Public health. No matter what reservations or misgivings one may have about doctors, human limitations, imperfections, what we do know is that outbreaks like this happen when a critical mass goes unprotected. We hear from JacksonM, Xan, Stuper essentially the same chorus, I'm wary of this and that, but my kids are vaccinated because... Maybe there's someone out there I missed who doesn't vaccinate or is hesitant to say so.

Let's say this has been a debate about whether or not parents should be free to exempt their kids from vaccination and still send them to public school. Let's now say there are nationwide exemptions for everyone who wants, no questions asked. How many of you will opt out?

[stuper1]

All I'm saying is that I want the final decision to be in the parents' hands, not the government's. If they make it otherwise, then that's the last straw and I'm moving to Canada.

[dualstow]

All I'm saying is that I want the final decision to be in the parents' hands, not the government's. If they make it otherwise, then that's the last straw and I'm moving to Canada.

Understood, but if you could opt out freely and even anonymously, would you?

[stuper1]

I would have to do a bunch of research and make an educated decision based on all of the information that I could get. Would I do that? Probably not. I'm very lazy. My children are both teenagers and have had all their shots as have I.

[dualstow]

I would have to do a bunch of research and make an educated decision based on all of the information that I could get. Would I do that? Probably not. I'm very lazy. My children are both teenagers and have had all their shots as have I.

Well, it's clear that you were not lazy when it counted. I think you instinctually did the right thing, and not just because of outside pressure.

Aside from you, all I'm hearing is the sound of rickets, so I believe there would not be too many takers (on opting out) if any. It's almost like the converse of the Prisoner's Dilemma.

[Maddy]

Let's now say there are nationwide exemptions for everyone who wants, no questions asked. How many of you will opt out?

If posed as an all-or-nothing question, there probably won't be many takers.

A better question would be whether any one of us would selectively opt out of one or more of the 40-something shots that are being pushed on kids today.

[dualstow]

Let's now say there are nationwide exemptions for everyone who wants, no questions asked. How many of you will opt out?

If posed as an all-or-nothing question, there probably won't be many takers.

A better question would be whether any one of us would selectively opt out of one or more of the 40-something shots that are being pushed on kids today.

Would anyone here selectively opt out of one or more of the 40-something shots that are being pushed on kids today?

[stuper1]

All I'm saying is that I want the final decision to be in the parents' hands, not the government's. If they make it otherwise, then that's the last straw and I'm moving to Canada.

Last I checked, Canada is worse on that spectrum. Not sure where to go anymore.

Haha, I was making a joke. Or so I thought, but then I decided to check. Turns out Canada is just like the US and doesn't require vaccination explicitly, but school requirements make it common, although homeschooling is allowed (unlike say Germany).

[stuper1]

Let's now say there are nationwide exemptions for everyone who wants, no questions asked. How many of you will opt out?

If posed as an all-or-nothing question, there probably won't be many takers.

A better question would be whether any one of us would selectively opt out of one or more of the 40-something shots that are being pushed on kids today.

Would anyone here selectively opt out of one or more of the 40-something shots that are being pushed on kids today?

Me, my wife, and kids have never had a flu shot. Does that count?

[WiseOne]

This is a complicated situation, because there are ethical issues that make it not just about rights of the individual.

1. Parents are making decisions that could affect the health of minor children. There is legal precedent for limiting parental autonomy in such cases. Example: Jehovah Witnesses can't bar their children from receiving blood transfusions in a life-threatening situation.

2. There are broader public health concerns, i.e. the parental decisions impact the heath of vulnerable individuals outside of their personal sphere. This is not so straightforward, but I expect if it comes down to a court battle, the same logic as #1 will apply. Consider the example of drunk driving, where the main issue isn't the drunk hurting himself/herself, but also passengers, other drivers & pedestrians.

So while I do try to understand parents' concerns, in the end I'm really not terribly sympathetic.

[stuper1]

This is a complicated situation, because there are ethical issues that make it not just about rights of the individual.

1. Parents are making decisions that could affect the health of minor children. There is legal precedent for limiting parental autonomy in such cases. Example: Jehovah Witnesses can't bar their children from receiving blood transfusions in a life-threatening situation.

2. There are broader public health concerns, i.e. the parental decisions impact the heath of vulnerable individuals outside of their personal sphere. This is not so straightforward, but I expect if it comes down to a court battle, the same logic as #1 will apply. Consider the example of drunk driving, where the main issue isn't the drunk hurting himself/herself, but also passengers, other drivers & pedestrians.

So while I do try to understand parents' concerns, in the end I'm really not terribly sympathetic.

Parent make decisions all the time that affect the health of their minor children, e.g., what to eat, how fast to drive, etc. Is Big Government going to micromanage every decision for me? Like I said, if that's the case, then just take them from me at birth and let me visit once in a while. If I do my research and believe that vaccinations are bad for my kids, then I want to have the right to make that decision. If I don't get that right, then I'm moving to some rural county in Montana (probably right next to Maddy) where the laws won't get enforced anyway and homeschooling them. Then, we'll all be happy, because my measly kids won't be infecting you.

[moda0306]

This is a complicated situation, because there are ethical issues that make it not just about rights of the individual.

1. Parents are making decisions that could affect the health of minor children. There is legal precedent for limiting parental autonomy in such cases. Example: Jehovah Witnesses can't bar their children from receiving blood transfusions in a life-threatening situation.

2. There are broader public health concerns, i.e. the parental decisions impact the heath of vulnerable individuals outside of their personal sphere. This is not so straightforward, but I expect if it comes down to a court battle, the same logic as #1 will apply. Consider the example of drunk driving, where the main issue isn't the drunk hurting himself/herself, but also passengers, other drivers & pedestrians.

So while I do try to understand parents' concerns, in the end I'm really not terribly sympathetic.

But if someone is vulnerable because they "can't" have the vaccine, and these are the people at risk, how are they any different than those who think they, too, are vulnerable and choose not to?

Not that I'd ever want to be the parent of a child with a weak immune system, but it's a bit rich for me to think MY child is special and shouldn't have to immunize, but that someone else who doesn't immunize is "the risk" to my kid.

What statistical threshold does one need to meet risk wise to legitimately object to vaccines? Who gets to draw that line, and why do we grant some "vulnerable" populations a pass while ridiculing others?? I'd imagine this is a statistical measure based on exposure type and severity and probability, but why aren't we talking about where these statistical lines are and whether to move them one direction or the other, especially if we're going to start putting a gun to people's heads?

[jacksonM]

If you think vaccinating against measles is controversial wait until this catches on....

According to this article, the gene-editing experiment conducted on a pair of twins in China was for the purpose of making them immune to the HIV virus. If they can do it for HIV, then you would think they could also do it for other diseases....

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/6129 ... s-altered/