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

[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/

[Xan]

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?

Brilliant points, Moda.

[dualstow]

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?

Not really. It's recommended for the very young and very old, but so far it seems like a kind of an arbitrary thing. Let's reconvene if the flu wipes out a ton of people some winter.

Lots of good points being made on this page. Edit: oops, Previous Page.

[Maddy]

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?

All true--and let's take it one step further: No matter how "vulnerable" you are, there is always going to be somebody more vulnerable than you. So wouldn't the prevailing logic argue in favor of requiring even "vulnerable" populations to submit to mandatory vaccination--adverse consequences be damned?

[moda0306]

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?

All true--and let's take it one step further: No matter how "vulnerable" you are, there is always going to be somebody more vulnerable than you. So wouldn't the prevailing logic argue in favor of requiring even "vulnerable" populations to submit to mandatory vaccination--adverse consequences be damned?

I think some of the "statistical swordplay" involves the math around herd immunity, which is about (I believe) the non-linear relationship between the % of the society that is vaccinated and how "safe" the society is generally. I think the graph looks something like a much higher protection rate as you go from 50%-90% vaccinated, and low marginal herd immunity benefits on the 0-50% tail or that last 90%-100%. So it's not about always getting that next marginal person 100% protected, but making sure that you get to that ideal herd immunity number without killing "vulnerable" populations for little marginal herd immunity benefit.

IDK how to verbalize this stuff cuz I barely understand it myself.

[dualstow]

...l 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.

I mean the sound of crickets. Darn. Really gotta fix that ipad.

[dualstow]

Unvaccinated French boy brings measles back to Costa Rica
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/wor ... 973582002/

[dualstow]

Facebook is the next company to crack down on antivaccine posts.

[stuper1]

Facebook is the next company to crack down on antivaccine posts.

That's wonderful. He said sarcastically. Private thought police.

It seems fine until they decide to shut down discussion of something important because they don't like the direction it's headed.

As a maybe silly example, in terms of the HBPP, what if they decide that people who advocate holding physical gold are dangerous to a "fiat-currency-based free-market economy", and anybody who talks about it must be squelched?

[dualstow]

Facebook is the next company to crack down on antivaccine posts.

...

It seems fine until they decide to shut down discussion of something important because they don't like the direction it's headed.

As a maybe silly example, in terms of the HBPP, what if they decide that people who advocate holding physical gold are dangerous to a "fiat-currency-based free-market economy", and anybody who talks about it must be squelched?

I think there is no right or wrong answer here. While the squelching of information is usually a bad thing, in this case it is warranted in my opinion. The important thing is the transparency: facebook is publicly acknowledging what they are doing instead of secretly filtering.

There have been testimonials from people who had relatives that picked up the pseudo-scientific info (my own term, not the article's) from Facebook.

[stuper1]

Facebook is a private company. They can do whatever they want. They are just shooting themselves in the foot in my opinion. People don't need or want grandma looking over their shoulder and warning them about which info isn't legit. Once enough people realize that Facebook is "censoring" information, they'll find an alternative and Facebook will go down the tubes. Remember Myspace?

[dualstow]

Well, that’s your opinion. Which I respect, but it’s still an opinion. No one is forced to use Facebook, and I doubt their legalese guarantees free speech.

[dualstow]

Twitter is notorious for censoring views that don't kowtow to the Liberal mantra. Gab was created as a censor-free alternative. But Twitter still rules the roost, by a huge margin.

Hmm, I can't imagine why.

[Maddy]

The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons has just weighed in on the issue of mandatory vaccination and has voiced strong opposition to it. Interestingly, its letter to the relevant congressional committee is based, in large part, upon the Association's view that vaccinations entail a risk significant enough to outweigh whatever public health objectives mandatory vaccination may serve.

Some excerpts:

A public health threat is the rationale for the policy on mandatory vaccines. But how much of a threat is required to justify forcing people to accept government-imposed risks? Regulators may intervene to protect the public against a one-in-one million risk of a threat such as cancer from an involuntary exposure to a toxin, or-one-in 100,000 risk from a voluntary (e.g. occupational) exposure. What is the risk of death, cancer, or crippling complication from a vaccine? There are no rigorous safety studies of sufficient power to rule out a much higher risk of complications, even one in 10,000, for vaccines. Such studies would require an adequate number of subjects, a long duration (years, not days), an unvaccinated control group (“placebo” must be truly inactive such as saline, not the adjuvant or everything-but-the-intended-antigen), and consideration of all adverse health events (including neurodevelopment disorders).

Vaccines are necessarily risky, as recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court and by Congress. The Vaccine Injury Compensation Program has paid some $4 billion in damages, and high hurdles must be surmounted to collect compensation. The damage may be so devastating that most people would prefer restored function to a multimillion-dollar damage award.

Measles is the much-publicized threat used to push for mandates, and is probably the worst threat among the vaccine-preventable illnesses because it is so highly contagious. There are occasional outbreaks, generally starting with an infected individual coming from somewhere outside the U.S. The majority, but by no means all the people who catch the measles have not been vaccinated. Almost all make a full recovery, with robust, life-long immunity. The last measles death in the U.S. occurred in 2015, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Are potential measles complications including death in persons who cannot be vaccinated due to immune deficiency a justification for revoking the rights of all Americans and establishing a precedent for still greater restrictions on our right to give—or withhold—consent to medical interventions? Clearly not.

Many serious complications have followed MMR vaccination, and are listed in the manufacturers’ package insert, though a causal relationship may not have been proved. According to a 2012 report by the Cochrane Collaboration, “The design and reporting of safety outcomes in MMR vaccine studies, both pre- and post-marketing, are largely inadequate” (cited by the National Vaccine Information Center).

There are many theoretical mechanisms for adverse effects from vaccines, especially in children with developing brains and immune systems. Note the devastating effects of Zika or rubella virus on developing humans, even though adults may have mild or asymptomatic infections. Many vaccines contain live viruses intended to cause a mild infection. Children’s brains are developing rapidly—any interference with the complex developmental symphony could be ruinous.

Vaccines are neither 100% safe nor 100% effective. Nor are they the only available means to control the spread of disease.

https://aapsonline.org/measles-outbreak ... e-mandates

[WiseOne]

I'd never heard of the AAPS nor its associated journal, so I did a little digging. It's a legit organization, but it is not (as its title implies) representative of "American physicians and surgeons". It's a bit like the National Enquirer for medicine. Like, what's in that quoted article. Even just in the excerpts that Maddy posted, there are several blatantly untrue statements.

BTW Maddy remember when you stepped on a nail or whatever it was, and decided not to get a tetanus shot? Check out this news item:

https://www.npr.org/2019/03/08/70155392 ... th-tetanus

This was the first tetanus case in Oregon "for decades", which given the non-vaccinated population in the state suggests that the risk of your getting tetanus is vanishingly low. Just be sure you know what symptoms to look for so you can get to an ER quickly...although to be honest, your chances of surviving a prolonged period on a vent will be low simply because of your age. On the other hand, getting the DPT shot every 10 years isn't a bad option either :-).

[dualstow]

Ha. I saw that Tetanus story, too.

I think Xan’s right: I have a very small definition of’mandatory’. The government forcing people to get shots would be scary. At the same time, allowing unvaccinated kids to attend school en masse is scarier.