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

[dualstow]

I guess that’s actually clever of them, the sneaky bastards.

[Mountaineer]

I guess that’s actually clever of them, the sneaky bastards.

Everyone needs a boogy man to cast blame upon and thus avoid personal responsibility for ones actions. Who wants to admit they are flawed, wrong, inept, a few bricks short?

[dualstow]

I guess that’s actually clever of them, the sneaky bastards.

Everyone needs a boogy man to cast blame upon and thus avoid personal responsibility for ones actions. Who wants to admit they are flawed, wrong, inept, a few bricks short?

I don’t mind blaming Russians forstoking fears and duping people but the antivaxxers don’t blame them because they still think they’re right. They still think vaccines can cause autism or disease.

[WiseOne]

You can't make this up. Hold on to your hat.

It's being reported that a major driver behind the anti-vaccination movement is Russian disinformation.
https://www.rferl.org/a/are-russian-tro ... 68471.html

Oh that is hilarious!!!!!

So are Americans really so intellectually disabled that it's impossible to believe that they can actually think of things on their own, without foreign intervention or instruction from the mass media?

[dualstow]

Canadians
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british- ... -1.5022891

[dualstow]

In the WSJ this morning:

Big Tech Takes On Antivaccination Content in War on Misinformation

Pinterest has stopped returning search results for terms relating to vaccinations, a drastic step aimed at curbing the spread of misinformation but one that also reflects the challenge facing social-media companies in monitoring hot-button health issues.

[Maddy]

And this is supposed to assure us that the pro-vaccine people are being open and honest, and that the science is on their side?

[dualstow]

And this is supposed to assure us that the pro-vaccine people are being open and honest, and that the science is on their side?

Before I answer that, is your stance, Maddy, that (1) pro-vaccine people are dishonest, and have a secret agenda; (2) science is not on their side? (3) Vaccines are harmful. They cause autism or the very malady that they are supposed to cure?
Any of the above?

[Maddy]

And this is supposed to assure us that the pro-vaccine people are being open and honest, and that the science is on their side?

Before I answer that, is your stance, Maddy, that (1) pro-vaccine people are dishonest, and have a secret agenda; (2) science is not on their side? (3) Vaccines are harmful. They cause autism or the very malady that they are supposed to cure?
Any of the above?

Not necessarily any of the above, but neither am I ruling those possibilities out.

In general, I think it's prudent to avoid unnecessary exposures--especially those designed to provoke an immune response. Go take a look at the cutting-edge research regarding the link between the immune system and most chronic, degenerative disease.

As with so many politically-charged topics these days where enormous private profits are at stake, you can't take any statement of fact at face value. The best you can do is to read everything available and decide what course of action makes sense to you (which may include taking a conservative course of action when there is any room for doubt). In large part this means assessing the credibility of the proponents of one side or another. And when a spokesperson for the pro-vaccine movement comes right out and embraces the use of censorship as a means of making sure that the public hears only one unopposed view, his credibility is shot.

[stuper1]

I'm with you Maddy. I'm not an anti-vaxxer (yet), but my faith in big government and big business is less than solid.

[dualstow]

And this is supposed to assure us that the pro-vaccine people are being open and honest, and that the science is on their side?

Before I answer that, is your stance, Maddy, that (1) pro-vaccine people are dishonest, and have a secret agenda; (2) science is not on their side? (3) Vaccines are harmful. They cause autism or the very malady that they are supposed to cure?
Any of the above?

Not necessarily any of the above, but neither am I ruling those possibilities out.

In general, I think it's prudent to avoid unnecessary exposures--especially those designed to provoke an immune response. Go take a look at the cutting-edge research regarding the link between the immune system and most chronic, degenerative disease.

As with so many politically-charged topics these days where enormous private profits are at stake, you can't take any statement of fact at face value. The best you can do is to read everything available and decide what course of action makes sense to you (which may include taking a conservative course of action when there is any room for doubt). In large part this means assessing the credibility of the proponents of one side or another. And when a spokesperson for the pro-vaccine movement comes right out and embraces the use of censorship as a means of making sure that the public hears only one unopposed view, his credibility is shot.

Ok. I don't think that anything will reassure the most suspicious segment of the population that mainstream doctors are open and honest. Does that mean I'm a sucker for everything that comes out of their mouths? I don't believe so.

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. There is also the outbreak that spawned this thread. What are Pinterest and Youtube going to tell us next? That someone perpetrated the measles outbreak so that they could get those meddlesome skeptics into the clinic for their vaccinations?

How many children are going to die of these infectious diseases because their parents feel they are thinking for themselves?

[stuper1]

I guess that's part of the beauty of being a parent: you get to make decisions on what you think is best for you and your family. I've always thought that if those decisions are taken out of the parents' hands, then we might as well just hand our kids over to a government orphanage at birth, so they can be raised by the government and turned into productive citizens in whatever way that Big Brother decides. Maybe BB will let me come visit them once in a while at least.

[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?