Whooping Cough Epidemic... But not in Africa

Muise...

suicide_circus wrote: »

Funny the way people are selectively "pro choice".

How is it funny when no two choices are alike?

suicide_circus

JRant

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...

There is no vaccine for HIV or a lot of othe sti's. So it is not comparing like with like.

We are now vaccinating young girls against HPV. However the current best methods for tackling sti's are educating people on the risks and how to reduce any possible exposure.

With measles of whooping cough we are at the mercy of which way the wind is blowing. There are very limited ways to reduce exposure outside of vaccination programs.

Vaccines carry a certain level of risk (nothing is ever risk free). However this risk is weighed up on a balance of probabilties. Much like seat-belts in cars. They are compulsary for all yet they can in themselves cause significant injuries in a small number of cases.

The greater good outweighs people's choices all the time and vaccination programs certainly fall into this category and should not be at the whim of well meaning but ultimately poorly informed decision making by certain parents.

Donnielighto

wretcheddomain wrote: »

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.

Because lack of food guarantees death for the child while missing out on the whooping cough vacine (or others) is only a possible death sentence for the child and those around them.

While the value of a life can be measured (compared) to the enjoyment of life and all that entails. I think that turtwig is devaluing it here by brushing aside the impact that a individual has on the whole of society and society's duty and obligation to maintain reasonable standards amongst it's members. TBH for people who refuse to buy into those societal norms in cases that they are impacting those other than the decision makes in a negative manner there should be some form of personal cost (doesnt have to be monetary, probably shouldnt be)

I'm sure there is a fairly simple basic formula for what the likleyhood of a decision adversely affecting another member of the community, this obligation is much higher than people like to think as we are all so intradependent nowadays.


FYI there is no such thing as human rights naturally, they are all part of the social contract and are decided on, administered and changed when society feels enough to do so.

rozeboosje

Nobody complains that their freedoms are affected when, in order to get from A to B, they are obliged to drive on the left hand side of the road. This "restriction" is imposed on us because the right of the wider public to safely use the road outweighs your right to drive wherever you like. You can drive wherever you like (on public roads) but you must drive on the left.

The wider public also has the right to have its weakest members protected by herd immunity. Vaccines should be mandatory.

Donnielighto

suicide_circus wrote: »

Funny the way people are selectively "pro choice".

Leave it out, it's not the same situation due to negative impact to other dependent on viewpoint. This will just derail the thread.

wretcheddomain

suicide_circus wrote: »

Funny the way people are selectively "pro choice".

Since when did having an abortion lead to a deleterious effect on other children?



Have you ever heard of this?

rozeboosje

wretcheddomain wrote: »

Since when did having an abortion lead to a deleterious effect on other children?

Even more a propos: Since when did having an abortion lead to a deleterious effect to ANY children?

Muise...

.

suicide_circus

Muise... wrote: »

Ah ffs, the one time I find myself in agreement with RobertKK, and you throw this bollocks-grenade into the thread.

Yep I have deleted my post cause it'll just drag the thread off topic. Please disregard my nonsense.

steddyeddy

Why is abortion even brought into this thread

suicide_circus

I'm trying to row back on it but youre not helping

caustic 1

RobertKK wrote: »

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

Yes we know that now, at the time it was very real and very scary wondering if you were making the right choices.

Overheal

wretcheddomain wrote: »

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.

At the same time it is neglect when a parent "force feeds" a child. And I don't mean 'sit here until you eat your lima beans' I mean take an article of food and shove it down their throat. Normal parenting is putting food on their plate or in the mouth of very young ones but they are the one that swallows it.

steddyeddy

Deliberately putting the child at risk is neglect.

Greenmachine

steddyeddy wrote: »

Deliberately putting the child at risk is neglect.

Define risk. Letting them walk to school, cross the road, play soccer or GAA. Risk is inevitable, dying because you don't have a vaccine is not. I had my share of childhood illnesses none of them killed me.

Muise...

Greenmachine wrote: »

Define risk. Letting them walk to school, cross the road, play soccer or GAA. Risk is inevitable, dying because you don't have a vaccine is not. I had my share of childhood illnesses none of them killed me.

Well good for you! They didn't kill me either, but they killed a childhood friend and watching that kid waste away damn near killed his parents. Will you be passing on your good luck to the next generation in the secure form of a vaccine, or sending your little biohazards out into the world to potentially infect others? Because while dying because you don't have a vaccine is not inevitable, passing a virus you catch on to those who cannot be vaccinated for decent reasons is inevitable, and the hallmark of the truly selfish.

Flippyfloppy

Greenmachine wrote: »

Define risk. Letting them walk to school, cross the road, play soccer or GAA. Risk is inevitable, dying because you don't have a vaccine is not. I had my share of childhood illnesses none of them killed me.

What?! Please do tell why?

Adamantium

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJBKyTfCjCc

Greenmachine

Flippyfloppy wrote: »

What?! Please do tell why?

I have had croup, measles, scarlet fever following a strep infection, and I have had whooping cough. I did have my share of vaccines as kid just none of the above. Not sure when the MMR became available or when the scare occurred. Not sure how to answer the why.

JRant

Greenmachine wrote: »

Define risk. Letting them walk to school, cross the road, play soccer or GAA. Risk is inevitable, dying because you don't have a vaccine is not. I had my share of childhood illnesses none of them killed me.

When talking about vaccines it's pointless looking at individual cases but rather should be discussed in terms of the whole of society.

Yes some people still get sick but because we have vaccination programs in place then resources can be far better utilised. For instance imagine how stretched our hospitals would be if we had 100'S OR 1000's of patients presenting with measles every week?

Greenmachine

JRant wrote: »

When talking about vaccines it's pointless looking at individual cases but rather should be discussed in terms of the whole of society.

Yes some people still get sick but because we have vaccination programs in place then resources can be far better utilised. For instance imagine how stretched our hospitals would be if we had 100'S OR 1000's of patients presenting with measles every week?

I can think of plenty of way that society could be a better place for all involving some unpleasant decisions. I would consider compulsary vaccinations amongst them.

JRant

Greenmachine wrote: »

I can think of plenty of way that society could be a better place for all involving some unpleasant decisions. I would consider compulsary vaccinations amongst them.

Absolutely and I'd start by neutering people who stand it doorways if I'm being honest.

There should be continual assesment on any vaccine program and it should be held up for clinical evalution periodically. What should not be allowed to happen is ejits armed with google coming along and risking the greater good because they believe any aul drivel that makes it on to the interweb.

Capt'n Midnight

Turtwig wrote: »

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.

If it wasn't for the CIA and fundamentalist nutjobs we'd have eradicated Polio FOREVER by now and none of the future generations would ever have to risk a polio vaccine.


Care to provide a link for that 0.01% ?

Maybe what you meant to say was that the ORAL vaccine which is primarily used in areas where polio is endemic has a rate of 0.000 037 %

In "developed" countries injections are used which are inherently safe.


So your attempt to cause Fear , Uncertainty and Doubt by suggesting that one in ten thousand polio vaccines will cause the disease is just that isn't it ???


The only reason the polio vaccine exists is because of the ignorance and selfishness of a few. Don't blame the war in Syria , places like Sudan and Somalia have had vaccination campaigns during civil wars.

If people like you were all vaccinated fully then no one ever need take the Polio vaccine ever again.

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?

I agree too.
Provided they get insurance to cover any and all costs related with non-vaccination, I'd also like to see prosecutions for manslaughter for the deaths of immuno compromised people

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.

Interesting, because we don't need to inoculate everyone , we could just have a cull the un-vaccinated whenever there is an epidemic.

Society, should wherever possible, restrain from compulsion.

There's a balance between freedoms and rights vs. duties.

we don't allow people to drink in public
we don't allow people to smoke in public
we don't allow people to use guns in public
we don't allow people without driving licenses drive on public roads


should we allow unvaccinated people out in public , knowing that they pose a real risk to people with poorer immune systems then theirs ??

maybe we could just quarantine all the un-vaccinated whenever there is a notification of preventable diseases ?
Of course there would be no compensation for earnings lost and they'd have to pay for the cost too.



Seriously the real costs aren't financial

I grew up in a world with Smallpox.
I had measles when I was young, it wasn't fun, and that's an understatement.
I know two people who've are completely deaf in one ear because of diseases preventable by vaccines.

For me vaccines aren't "it'll never happen", they are very much "I've dodged a couple of bullets and I know it."

Raging_Ninja

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.

MMR DOES NOT CAUSE AUTISM

Muise...

Raging_Ninja wrote: »

MMR DOES NOT CAUSE AUTISM

I think bb knows that. But just in case, here's a handy website:

http://howdovaccinescauseautism.com/

Fratton Fred

caustic 1 wrote: »

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.

I had a child vaccinated when the mmr controversy was in full swing. In the end, I concluded the following:

For vaccination - extensive research and studies by health agencies world wide, including the WHO. plus 500,000,000 already administered doses.

Against vaccination - some bloke on the internet.