Whooping Cough Epidemic... But not in Africa

Drakares

Source

But in California! 3,458 whooping cough cases reported between January 1 and June 10...

This illness is deadly and there has been a vaccination around for years...

Should these parents be charged with child abuse? There has been dozens of studies performed that have proven absolutely no link to autism. Disgusting uneducated people.

caustic 1

You say disgusting uneducated people but I think it is very hard to ascertain what is fact when both side are throwing figures at someone. It is your child you are going to administer injections to and when someone plants a seed of doubt in your head you want to be sure before you do this in order to protect them. I remember when there was an MMR scare years ago saying the same thing about children and I did think twice before going ahead. There is a fear there whether you are doing the right or wrong thing. Does that make me uneducated, perhaps, I'd say careful.

Mr. Incognito

Just a result of overuse of antibiotics and bacteria becoming immune.

Intensive Care Bear

I had Whooping cough about 6 years ago, it was proper nasty, i'd wake up in the middle of the night coughing and then almost pass out because i couldn't breath back in again. It took about 700 euros wasted on doctors trips and various medications before i was diagnosed (by google and then confirmed it via a blood test)

I was vaccinated against it as a child but it didn't stop me catching it.

steddyeddy

Yes without a doubt parents are responsible. Vaccines should be compulsory.

Turtwig

steddyeddy wrote: »

Yes without a doubt parents are responsible. Vaccines should be compulsory.

No they shouldn't! Nothing is more important in society than the freedom to choose. Parents making stupid decisions need to be educated but it must ALWAYS be the individuals, or their legal guardians, choice.

wretcheddomain

It's called Pertussis for the rest of us...

ComputerKing

Turtwig wrote: »

No they shouldn't! Nothing is more important in society than the freedom to choose. Parents making stupid decisions need to be educated but it must ALWAYS be the individuals, or their legal guardians, choice.

Ya but without the 95% vaccination rate we all suffer. No one should be dying form a disease when there is a vaccine available because some people are completely misinformed and refuse to vaccinate their children.

RobertKK

Turtwig wrote: »

No they shouldn't! Nothing is more important in society than the freedom to choose. Parents making stupid decisions need to be educated but it must ALWAYS be the individuals, or their legal guardians, choice.

That argument fails on one count - if not enough people are vaccinated it put everyone included the vaccinated people at risk. So the non vaccinated person is therefore putting someone else's health at risk.

The MMR vaccine for example has saved countless lives, but with the scare it reduced the number of parents getting their children vaccinated and it did lead to measles outbreaks in society.

Last year a 25 year old in Wales got measles and died.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-23135464

He hadn't been vaccinated and the uptake in the area was not enough to offer 'herd immunity'.
So getting vaccinated is more than a choice, you are not just doing it for yourself but for society as a whole.

Wacker The Attacker

open up a can of whooping cough on their ass

Muise...

Turtwig wrote: »

No they shouldn't! Nothing is more important in society than the freedom to choose. Parents making stupid decisions need to be educated but it must ALWAYS be the individuals, or their legal guardians, choice.

Choose what? Choose not to put a seatbelt on your child in a car? Choose not to feed them? Choose to let them stay home from school whenever they want?

Nothing is more important in society than the realisation that it's not all about you.

wretcheddomain

Turtwig wrote: »

No they shouldn't! Nothing is more important in society than the freedom to choose. Parents making stupid decisions need to be educated but it must ALWAYS be the individuals, or their legal guardians, choice.

So people have the freedom to make stupid decisions but you advocate educating them away from making said stupid decisions. In other words, you're admitting they're doing the wrong thing only you advocate giving them the choice to do so.

Wouldn't it be better then, and even safer, to enforce the decision so that the consequences of said stupid decision are not realised; in this case, the death of a child?

Nodin

Drakares wrote: »

Source

But in California! 3,458 whooping cough cases reported between January 1 and June 10...

This illness is deadly and there has been a vaccination around for years...
..............

Is it known that non-up-take of the vaccine is to blame?

Drakares

1210m5g wrote: »

I was vaccinated against it as a child but it didn't stop me catching it.

That's because This vaccine needs to be refreshed every 10 years.

Guy:Incognito

Turtwig wrote: »

No they shouldn't! Nothing is more important in society than the freedom to choose. Parents making stupid decisions need to be educated but it must ALWAYS be the individuals, or their legal guardians, choice.

What about others right to choose not to have their kids infected with preventable diseases? Not everyone can be vaccinated or be immune with them. Those people have no choice but to have their lives put in danger by diseases that really should be long since erradicated

Turtwig

RobertKK wrote: »

That argument fails on one count - if not enough people are vaccinated it put everyone included the vaccinated people at risk. So the non vaccinated person is therefore putting someone else's health at risk.

A non vaccinated person is generally an inconsiderate ignoramus but that doesn't mean the argument fails. Vaccination requires injecting a substance into someone else's body. Now, most people abhor the idea of force feeding. Yet, on this thread, some seem ok with injection of substances that may have potentially more adverse effects than most foods do. For example, the most effective polio vaccine will give less than .01% of the vaccinated people polio. For this reason, unless there's an outbreak that vaccine is usually avoided with preference to a less effective but generally safer one. The flu vaccine could be a trigger for nacrolepsy. It makes sense too, the flu itself can cause nacrolepsy so there's nothing to say the vaccine can't. In every case of vaccination the risks of adverse effects are incredibly low and offset by the risks from non vaccination, but adverse events do happen. Just like people win the lottery, people also get very bad side effects from vaccinations and medications. When it comes to practically all forms of surgery and medicine the patient, or their guardians, have to give consent. I don't see why vaccinations should be any different. I'm ok with a system whereby the a parent has to 'opt out' of vaccination. But I'm not ok with a system where any individual has no choice in the matter. What are you going to do? Restrain them?
To use the greater good argument, if you're pro-life you can argue that restraining women who want to commit abortion is the right thing to do. You're saving lives. If you're human, you can point out how barbaric such an action is. Compulsory vaccinations against an individuals expressed wishes is barbaric. Anyone who suggests greater good or otherwise needs to get their empathy checked. I'd rather die from lack of herd immunity than live knowing the only reason I'm alive is because a the herd was inoculated against their wishes.

Society, should wherever possible, restrain from compulsion.

Sheldons Brain

Turtwig wrote: »

No they shouldn't! Nothing is more important in society than the freedom to choose. Parents making stupid decisions need to be educated but it must ALWAYS be the individuals, or their legal guardians, choice.

Freedom to choose? Can parents refuse to educate their children? Can they refuse to allow them out of the house?

Flippyfloppy

It speaks volumes about a parent when they would be willing to risk their child catching a life threatening disease and dying so they won't 'get' autism.

Muise...

Turtwig wrote: »

A non vaccinated person is generally an inconsiderate ignoramus but that doesn't mean the argument fails. Vaccination requires injecting a substance into someone else's body. Now, most people abhor the idea of force feeding. Yet, on this thread, some seem ok with injection of substances that may have potentially more adverse effects than most foods do. For example, the most effective polio vaccine will give less than .01% of the vaccinated people polio. For this reason, unless there's an outbreak that vaccine is usually avoided with preference to a less effective but generally safer one. The flu vaccine could be a trigger for nacrolepsy. It makes sense too, the flu itself can cause nacrolepsy so there's nothing to say the vaccine can't. In every case of vaccination the risks of adverse effects are incredibly low and offset by the risks from non vaccination, but adverse events do happen. Just like people win the lottery, people also get very bad side effects from vaccinations and medications. When it comes to practically all forms of surgery and medicine the patient, or their guardians, have to give consent. I don't see why vaccinations should be any different. I'm ok with a system whereby the a parent has to 'opt out' of vaccination. But I'm not ok with a system where any individual has no choice in the matter. What are you going to do? Restrain them?
To use the greater good argument, if you're pro-life you can argue that restraining women who want to commit abortion is the right thing to do. You're saving lives. If you're human, you can point out how barbaric such an action is. Compulsory vaccinations against an individuals expressed wishes is barbaric. Anyone who suggests greater good or otherwise needs to get their empathy checked. I'd rather die from lack of herd immunity than live knowing the only reason I'm alive is because a the herd was inoculated against their wishes.

Society, should wherever possible, restrain from compulsion.

A kid I knew died of measles. It was awful. I was a kid at the time too, but if you want an empathy test, my feelings go with his family and not someone who is being a total drama queen about a simple jab that stops other people dying of preventable diseases. Barbaric? Histrionic, I think.

Turtwig

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

Freedom to choose? Can parents refuse to educate their children? Can they refuse to allow them out of the house?

Already explained that wherever possible people should have the freedom to choose. Though obviously it can't be an absolute. For example, calling 'bomb' in a crowded area. Or freedom to choose to stab someone because they're annoying you.

Muise...

Turtwig wrote: »

Already explained that wherever possible people should have the freedom to choose. Though obviously it can't be an absolute. For example, calling 'bomb' in a crowded area. Or freedom to choose to stab someone because they're annoying you.

In this instance, many people think you shouldn't have the freedom to turn your kid into a potential germ-bomb.

Turtwig

Muise... wrote: »

A kid I knew died of measles. It was awful. I was a kid at the time too, but if you want an empathy test, my feelings go with his family and not someone who is being a total drama queen about a simple jab that stops other people dying of preventable diseases. Barbaric? Histrionic, I think.

Very sorry to read that but, why should empathy only go one way? Would you be ok with forcibly vaccinating one of these so called 'drama queens'? Vaccinations, aren't always just a 'simple' jab either. Declaring them so betrays the complexities that can often arise with decisions to vaccinate.

Muise...

Turtwig wrote: »

Very sorry to read that but, why should empathy only go one way? Would you be ok with forcibly vaccinating one of these so called 'drama queens'? Vaccinations, aren't always just a 'simple' jab either. Declaring them so betrays the complexities that can often arise with decisions to vaccinate.

Empathy for the wilfully thick? Empathy for those who think their own delusions are more important than the health of their children and other people's children. No.

What complexities (apart from the well-known common side effects)? Cognitive dissonance? Feeling like you have betrayed all your special snowflake pals?

I would be OK with a system where access to all state services is conditional on vaccination. This would save a lot of unpleasant and unnecessary scuffles in the clinics.

RobertKK

Turtwig wrote: »

A non vaccinated person is generally an inconsiderate ignoramus but that doesn't mean the argument fails. Vaccination requires injecting a substance into someone else's body. Now, most people abhor the idea of force feeding. Yet, on this thread, some seem ok with injection of substances that may have potentially more adverse effects than most foods do. For example, the most effective polio vaccine will give less than .01% of the vaccinated people polio. For this reason, unless there's an outbreak that vaccine is usually avoided with preference to a less effective but generally safer one. The flu vaccine could be a trigger for nacrolepsy. It makes sense too, the flu itself can cause nacrolepsy so there's nothing to say the vaccine can't. In every case of vaccination the risks of adverse effects are incredibly low and offset by the risks from non vaccination, but adverse events do happen. Just like people win the lottery, people also get very bad side effects from vaccinations and medications. When it comes to practically all forms of surgery and medicine the patient, or their guardians, have to give consent. I don't see why vaccinations should be any different. I'm ok with a system whereby the a parent has to 'opt out' of vaccination. But I'm not ok with a system where any individual has no choice in the matter. What are you going to do? Restrain them?
To use the greater good argument, if you're pro-life you can argue that restraining women who want to commit abortion is the right thing to do. You're saving lives. If you're human, you can point out how barbaric such an action is. Compulsory vaccinations against an individuals expressed wishes is barbaric. Anyone who suggests greater good or otherwise needs to get their empathy checked. I'd rather die from lack of herd immunity than live knowing the only reason I'm alive is because a the herd was inoculated against their wishes.

Society, should wherever possible, restrain from compulsion.

Sometimes people have to think wider than themselves and what they want.IN terms of vaccinations, freedom for one person in not having it, could be a death sentence for someone else, if enough people decide not to vaccinate.
I am pro-life and I know it will not stop change the opinion of those who want abortion and I can't stop them, but I also know an abortion will not lead to an outbreak of measles, rubella or whatever which affects others. One has to put it into perspective.
People who vaccinate are doing something not just for themselves but for society and we should be thankful to all who do the right thing.
There shouldn't be a freedom that allows disease outbreaks.

Greenmachine

Muise... wrote: »

Empathy for the wilfully thick? Empathy for those who think their own delusions are more important than the health of their children and other people's children. No.

What complexities (apart from the well-known common side effects)? Cognitive dissonance? Feeling like you have betrayed all your special snowflake pals?

I would be OK with a system where access to all state services is conditional on vaccination. This would save a lot of unpleasant and unnecessary scuffles in the clinics.

What a disgusting vulgar proposition. Why not force people on welfare to be sterilized. It would reduce the number of people living in poverty. Sound good on the surface, but it ignore the needs, wants and wishes of individuals. Why not ban the marketing of any foodstuff, chemical or medicine that has the potential to cause an allergy. Pretty sure ever medicine out there has the potential to cause a negative reaction.

Renegade Mechanic

Muise...

Greenmachine wrote: »

What a disgusting vulgar proposition. Why not force people on welfare to be sterilized. It would reduce the number of people living in poverty. Sound good on the surface, but it ignore the needs, wants and wishes of individuals. Why not ban the marketing of any foodstuff, chemical or medicine that has the potential to cause an allergy. Pretty sure ever medicine out there has the potential to cause a negative reaction.

Wow. You just went to 11.

Turtwig

People so far on this thread seem to be dodging the crux of the issue:

Would you be ok with administering someone with a substance against their will? That's what compulsory vaccination entails.

RobertKK wrote: »

.
There shouldn't be a freedom that allows disease outbreaks.

So what freedoms are you willing to restrict to ensure this isn't the case?

Muise...

Turtwig wrote: »

People so far on this thread seem to be dodging the crux of the issue:

Would you be ok with administering someone with a substance against their will? That's what compulsory vaccination entails.

So what freedoms are you willing to restrict to ensure this isn't the case?

I'm ok with it.

Remember that in most vaccinations, the infant/child isn't at all happy about it, so the parents and doctors have to soothe them. If the parent is acting like a baby, treat them like one.

But as I said, I prefer the more carrot approach of access to schools and public services depending on vaccination. This protects all other users of the services too.

MagicMarker

RobertKK wrote: »

There shouldn't be a freedom that allows disease outbreaks.

So sex should be illegal unless performed in a strict controlled environment?

RobertKK

Turtwig wrote: »

People so far on this thread seem to be dodging the crux of the issue:

Would you be ok with administering someone with a substance against their will? That's what compulsory vaccination entails.

So what freedoms are you willing to restrict to ensure this isn't the case?

Yes.

If someone is being unreasonable about vaccinations, the problem isn't the vaccine, it is the person who refuses.

Having outbreaks of measles and people dying in this day and age is ridiculous when totally avoidable.
California has had two young children die of Whooping cough/Pertussis this year.
Now all pregnant women in California are being told to get vaccinated so their unborn can have protection.

Being intentionally irresponsible and putting lives at risk shouldn't be allowed.

wretcheddomain

Turtwig wrote: »

People so far on this thread seem to be dodging the crux of the issue:

Would you be ok with administering someone with a substance against their will? That's what compulsory vaccination entails.

We administer substances against children's will's all the time - foodstuffs for one.

RobertKK

MagicMarker wrote: »

So sex should be illegal unless performed in a strict controlled environment?

That is easily controlled, and if you sleep around you are not going to spread it to someone you have not slept with.
But it is highly irresponsible and totally wrong to knowingly and intentionally infect someone with a disease - sexual or non sexual disease.

Turtwig

RobertKK wrote: »

Yes.

If someone is being unreasonable about vaccinations, the problem isn't the vaccine, it is the person who refuses.

Having outbreaks of measles and people dying in this day and age is ridiculous when totally avoidable.
California has had two young children die of Whooping cough/Pertussis this year.
Now all pregnant women in California are being told to get vaccinated so their unborn can have protection.

Being intentionally irresponsible and putting lives at risk shouldn't be allowed.

So what freedoms are you willing to restrict?

wretcheddomain wrote: »

We administer substances against children's will's all the time - foodstuffs for one.

Dodging the issue. The point I was responding to was compulsory vaccination. Not parenting tribulations which are an inevitability. When that child is 25, would you forcibily administer foodstuffs to it against it's will? Especially if the individual at hand was at low risk of dying.

MagicMarker

RobertKK wrote: »

That is easily controlled, and if you sleep around you are not going to spread it to someone you have not slept with.
But it is highly irresponsible and totally wrong to knowingly and intentionally infect someone with a disease - sexual or non sexual disease.

If it's easily controlled then STD/I's wouldn't be so widespread. So do you not think we should take those freedoms away from people when so many are affected? That is what you said, isn't it?

bb1234567

What I find disgusting is that these parents would rather see their child die of some illness than become autistic. As if autism is the most awful possible thing that could happen to their child.

Jezek

Turtwig wrote: »

People so far on this thread seem to be dodging the crux of the issue:

Would you be ok with administering someone with a substance against their will? That's what compulsory vaccination entails.

So what freedoms are you willing to restrict to ensure this isn't the case?

We're talking about infants here. They don't have a will when it comes to medical decisions. They can't understand the procedure, remember the procedure,process the pros and cons, or communicate their decisions to us. And therefore it falls to someone else to make decisions for them. In this case, I think vaccines are demonstrably beneficial to individuals and communities. On that basis, you could say that parents WITHHOLD vaccines from children when they refuse to vaccinate them

And there is a community benefit argument as well. These parents are endagering other people . So why should they participate in our communities ? If you are a loon who WITHHOLDS disease prevention from your children and places other children, including immunocompromised children, at risk, then you should not join our society (schools etc).

So don't talk about forcing kids to be vaccinated ( we "force" kids to undergo medical procedures all the time), this is about expecting parents to not withhold the best medical treatment and disease prevention from their children.


edit : when it comes to adults, I would never force an adult to be vaccinated, however, this is a barrier to certain jobs etc, with good reason.

Muise...

MagicMarker wrote: »

If it's easily controlled then STD/I's wouldn't be so widespread. So do you not think we should take those freedoms away from people when so many are affected? That is what you said, isn't it?

Apples and Oranges - we can revisit this argument when HIV and gonorrhea and other sexy delights become airborne.

Tardful Slakerly II

Turtwig wrote: »

No they shouldn't! Nothing is more important in society than the freedom to choose. Parents making stupid decisions need to be educated but it must ALWAYS be the individuals, or their legal guardians, choice.

I agree with this argument when applied to many things but not to vaccinations, not when they're proven safe. Liberty is a grand thing but there is a kind of social contract that is equally important to adhere to with regard to the health of others, and from the other side there is ideally an obligation for society to not allow the mistreatment of others (even by parents), and not vaccinating is leaving a child open to illness and death too in some cases.

It can be argued both ways, but for the benefit of the child's health and the health of others and with no adverse effects it really is a one sided argument that should not need airing in the first place.

Jezek

Tardful Slakerly II wrote: »

I agree with this argument when applied to many things but not to vaccinations, not when they're proven safe. Liberty is a grand thing but there is a kind of social contract that is equally important to adhere to with regard to the health of others, and from the other side there is ideally an obligation for society to not allow the mistreatment of others (even by parents), and not vaccinating is leaving a child open to illness and death too in some cases.

It can be argued both ways, but for the benefit of the child's health and the health of others and with no adverse effects it really is a one sided argument that should not need airing in the first place.

I agree with you completely. However I'll just say there are adverse health effects to vaccines. We know about them , we have weighed them against the disease, and we have found that they pale in comparison to the disease and its complications.

MagicMarker

Muise... wrote: »

Apples and Oranges - we can revisit this argument when HIV and gonorrhea and other sexy delights become airborne.

People are freely having sex, diseases are being spread as a result. I'm responding to someone who says that people shouldn't have a freedom if it results in the spread of disease. Hardly apples and oranges really now is it? It's a perfectly valid question, but there's no answer forthcoming... I wonder...

Tardful Slakerly II

Jezek wrote: »

I agree with you completely. However I'll just say there are adverse health effects to vaccines. We know about them , we have weighed them against the disease, and we have found that they pale in comparison to the disease and its complications.

I didn't mean to speak in absolutes, I would rather have said negligible.

RobertKK

Turtwig wrote: »

So what freedoms are you willing to restrict?

There is a balance between freedom and what is right for society.

Vaccinations need a high uptake to make them work for all, it is better for all to do the right thing than counting on others to do it while not doing it yourself.

The responsibility of having freedoms is you have to also think of others. We all (more or less) self impose limits on our freedoms, we know there are things we can do but are not good, so we choose to not do it.

As for your question I don't want to derail this thread.

RobertKK

bb1234567 wrote: »

What I find disgusting is that these parents would rather see their child die of some illness than become autistic. As if autism is the most awful possible thing that could happen to their child.

The link between the MMR and autism was made up. It has no basis.

Muise...

MagicMarker wrote: »

People are freely having sex, diseases are being spread as a result. I'm responding to someone who says that people shouldn't have a freedom if it results in the spread of disease. Hardly apples and oranges really now is it? It's a perfectly valid question, but there's no answer forthcoming... I wonder...

Not convinced by the analogy at all. People decide to have sex, and how to have sex, and with whom. The risk is only to them- not to others they merely sit beside on the bus, for example.

shopaholic01

MagicMarker wrote: »

People are freely having sex, diseases are being spread as a result. I'm responding to someone who says that people shouldn't have a freedom if it results in the spread of disease. Hardly apples and oranges really now is it? It's a perfectly valid question, but there's no answer forthcoming... I wonder...

Participants can choose to use a condom, and can educate themselves of the risks involved, even with a condom.


A child of vaccination age can't. Parents need to educate themselves to protect the health of their children.

cloud493

Hearing about Whooping cough makes me think of the Enid Blyton Books or Jennings or something :pac:

Alun

cloud493 wrote: »

Hearing about Whooping cough makes me think of the Enid Blyton Books or Jennings or something :pac:

Which is part of the problem. People today have no idea of the seriousness of some of these diseases, and think that it's always just a case of having a few spots and feeling 'poorly' for a day or two and that's it. For some, many indeed, that's indeed the case but sadly for some it can mean much worse.

wretcheddomain

Turtwig wrote: »

Dodging the issue. The point I was responding to was compulsory vaccination. Not parenting tribulations which are an inevitability. When that child is 25, would you forcibily administer foodstuffs to it against it's will? Especially if the individual at hand was at low risk of dying.

It's very much the issue.

You are complaining about the lack of autonomy parents will suffer should compulsory vaccination be brought forth.

But we administer food to a child for the same purposes we give a vaccination - both are "substances" or "chemicals" and both aim to prevent disease at large. If we had parents that refused to give said food to a child, we'd rightfully accuse the parents of neglect, so why shouldn't we charge them with the same thing when they refuse to administer a vaccination that helps to ward off a disease? It's neglect for the child and society at large.

steddyeddy

Turtwig wrote: »

No they shouldn't! Nothing is more important in society than the freedom to choose. Parents making stupid decisions need to be educated but it must ALWAYS be the individuals, or their legal guardians, choice.

But by that extension people should be able to choose not to feed their children. The problem is that you're also making a choice for the child and for all the children who can't be vaccinated.

suicide_circus

Funny the way people are selectively "pro choice".