Anti-vaxxers

Jawgap

Orion wrote: »

I don't think that's enough. There are immuno suppressed people who's lives are endangered by these idiots. So I would have no problem with creches and schools being out of bounds for unvaccinated people unless they have a firm medical reason - such as immuno-suppression. That's not making it mandatory by the way - it's enforcing consequences for their actions.

That's a fair point I hadn't considered.

The anti-vaxxers can always home school their brood.

Neyite

Orion wrote: »

I don't think that's enough. There are immuno suppressed people who's lives are endangered by these idiots. So I would have no problem with creches and schools being out of bounds for unvaccinated people unless they have a firm medical reason - such as immuno-suppression. That's not making it mandatory by the way - it's enforcing consequences for their actions.

Private crèche's can (and some do) enforce a vaccination policy. Ours did. And I can see that being popular with the majority of parents if outbreaks are on the rise.

I'm not sure that schools can though given that it's state funded.

One eyed Jack

Jawgap wrote: »

We may diverge in our opinions here.

I think getting your kid vaccinated is one of the few things in life that is an absolute no-brained, but I also think the state's power to compel parents in a particular direction when it comes to bringing up their kids should be limited I wouldn't agree with it being made compulsory.

However, I do think people should be held accountable for their decisions an drew if parents decide to not vaccinate then I don't see any issue with them being made liable for any outbreak where their child is identified as "case 0."

Held accountable? They're already accountable as their child's parents!

I agreed with what you were saying that the States power to compel parents in a particular direction should be limited, and it shouldn't be made compulsory, but they are already accountable for their actions by virtue of the fact that they are their children's parents. How would you suggest they be held either criminally or civilly liable for an act of nature?

They couldn't be.

Orion wrote: »

I don't think that's enough. There are immuno suppressed people who's lives are endangered by these idiots. So I would have no problem with creches and schools being out of bounds for unvaccinated people unless they have a firm medical reason - such as immuno-suppression. That's not making it mandatory by the way - it's enforcing consequences for their actions.

That won't encourage parents to vaccinate their children any more than they weren't going to already. It'll just mean that they will withdraw from availing of public services and provide the resources they feel their children need from amongst themselves. Their children will still be unvaccinated, and the State will have no power to quarantine them either, so they will still mix with the general population.

This does seem to be becoming a political hot-button topic of late though, it might even make a manifesto for the General Election in 2021 -

Labour wants the HPV vaccine to be rolled out to boys sooner rather than later

LABOUR’S ALAN KELLY has said his party will table a motion calling for the HPV vaccine to be extended to boys.
Speaking to Newstalk’s Chris Donohoe at the party’s think-in in Athy in Kildare, Kelly said he has been working with Health Minister Simon Harris on the initiative.

From the years 2014 -2015, there was an 87% uptake in the HPV vaccine – the highest since the programme began in 2010. However, immunisation rates have now fallen below 50%.

The health minister, along with other politicians, have attributed the fall-off in the uptake to misinformation being circulated from anti-vaccine campaigners.
The move to extend the roll-out of the vaccine comes after controversial comments about the vaccine by Minister of State for Disabilities, Finian McGrath.

McGrath has since said he stands over the fact that he raised the concerns of parents, but that he accepts “that such vaccines are a very important part of Government health strategy”.

It was always the intention to roll out the HPV vaccine to boys in Ireland – but due to the slowdown in rates, the timetable has been delayed.

Boys at risk

Although it’s thought that men aren’t affected by the virus because of it’s strong link to cervical cancer, men are at risk and encouraged to get the vaccine.

The HPV vaccine can prevent men from contracting genital warts as well as HPV-associated cancers. The primary forms of cancers caused by HPV are:

• cervical, vaginal, and vulvar cancer in women
• penile cancer in men
• throat and anal cancer in men and women.

For women, the provision of the vaccine to girls in their first year of secondary school has been in place in Ireland since 2010.

When it was then introduced by Minister for Health Mary Harney, the plan was originally to roll the free vaccine out to boys as well – but this has yet to happen.

Health regulator, Hiqa, is carrying out a review on whether boys should get the vaccine, but the results are not expected until next year, which Labour argues is too late.

A symposium in Dublin earlier this year discussed the rise of HPV in cancers other than cervical cancer, including a significant rise in some head and neck cancers.

Fine Gael Kate O’Connell told TheJournal.ie there has been a “huge rise” in head, neck, anal genital cancers in men.

“Young boys in this country as a result of a campaign are not being vaccinated. There is a sense of inequality there… the boys are not getting what we had planned to give them,” she said.

"There is a sense of inequality there"... because parents don't want it for their daughters, leading to a fall in uptake of the vaccine, she wants to try and force it on young boys instead. Sycophant.

kunst nugget

One eyed Jack wrote: »

"There is a sense of inequality there"... because parents don't want it for their daughters, leading to a fall in uptake of the vaccine, she wants to try and force it on young boys instead. Sycophant.

It makes no sense to me that boys aren't vaccinated against HPV virus as well. I wouldn't think of it as forcing it on boys instead.

One eyed Jack

kunst nugget wrote: »

It makes no sense to me that boys aren't vaccinated against HPV virus as well. I wouldn't think of it as forcing it on boys instead.

It wouldn't be of any real benefit without a high uptake in young girls being vaccinated, as vaccinating boys on their own is economically unjustifiable -

Conclusions

In summary, we have presented a comprehensive analysis of the incremental benefit of vaccinating boys along with girls against oncogenic HPV infection. Authorities should first and foremost strive to vaccinate as many girls as possible. A vaccine coverage of 90% in girls, however, might not be realistic for many countries, including the Netherlands, where uptake among preadolescent girls was fairly constant between 50% and 60% over the past five years. Inclusion of boys into preadolescent HPV vaccination programmes is warranted once the incremental costs of vaccination conform to society’s willingness to pay in comparison with the incremental health effects. This balance will depend on vaccine price and on the coverage that is already achieved among girls. While our analysis shows the size of the indirect benefits that accrue from vaccination of girls, our estimates underscore the continued relevance of HPV prevention efforts for men, specifically those who are disproportionally affected by HPV related disease. The predominance of anal cancer in the burden of HPV related disease at high vaccine coverage of girls emphasises the need for a better understanding of the epidemiology of HPV infection among men who have sex with men in countries where a satisfactory vaccine uptake among preadolescent girls can be attained. Further research should delineate ways to promote prevention of HPV induced diseases in populations that are hard to reach or derive little benefit from a reduced transmission in the general population, including but not limited to men who have sex with men. In any case, protection of women should no longer be the sole public health objective of any HPV vaccination programme.

Source: BMJ - Direct benefit of vaccinating boys along with girls against oncogenic human papillomavirus: bayesian evidence synthesis

Claiming her concern is inequality as a reason to vaccinate boys is just... well, it's not unexpected of a politician as gender equality is another hot-button topic. It just comes off by my reading as "We want to treat boys equally by giving them the vaccine too!", which does nothing to address the low uptake of the vaccine in girls, and without a higher uptake in girls, the vaccine might as well be as effective as homeopathy for boys.

Army_of_One

One eyed Jack wrote: »

"There is a sense of inequality there"... because parents don't want it for their daughters, leading to a fall in uptake of the vaccine, she wants to try and force it on young boys instead. Sycophant.

iirc the IMO have been looking into getting this extended to boys as well ,long before the HPV vaccine hit the headlines this time round.

Jawgap

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Held accountable? They're already accountable as their child's parents!

I agreed with what you were saying that the States power to compel parents in a particular direction should be limited, and it shouldn't be made compulsory, but they are already accountable for their actions by virtue of the fact that they are their children's parents. How would you suggest they be held either criminally or civilly liable for an act of nature?

They couldn't be.
.

Of course they could. If there is an outbreak of an infectious disease and their kid is epidemiologically demonstrated to be "case 0" in the outbreak then civil liability for any and all injury linked to the outbreak should attach to the parents.

In such circumstances their decision not to vaccinate can be identified as a significant cause of the outbreak. If there's an outbreak and their kid isn't case 0, then there's no liability.

Orion

Neyite wrote: »

Private crèche's can (and some do) enforce a vaccination policy. Ours did. And I can see that being popular with the majority of parents if outbreaks are on the rise.

I'm not sure that schools can though given that it's state funded.

They can if it's DES policy. They could also add it to their enrolment policy.

The way I see it is you can't put your dog in a kennel if it's unvaccinated as it'd be a danger to other dogs. Same applies here with children - keep your unvaccinated child away from mine.

Orion

One eyed Jack wrote: »

"There is a sense of inequality there"... because parents don't want it for their daughters, leading to a fall in uptake of the vaccine, she wants to try and force it on young boys instead. Sycophant.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Kate O'Connell has been very consistent in her support for the vaccination programme. She's a pharmacist herself.

It should be rolled out to boys too - boys and men get cancer from HPV also.

One eyed Jack

Jawgap wrote: »

Of course they could. If there is an outbreak of an infectious disease and their kid is epidemiologically demonstrated to be "case 0" in the outbreak then civil liability for any and all injury linked to the outbreak should attach to the parents.

In such circumstances their decision not to vaccinate can be identified as a significant cause of the outbreak. If there's an outbreak and their kid isn't case 0, then there's no liability.

There could be no liability anyway as you can't say the parents were negligent in not vaccinating their own children. In your opinion they are negligent, but their duty of care is first and foremost to their own children, and if they don't believe that vaccination their children is in their best interests, then they can't legally be considered negligent.

Jawgap

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There could be no liability anyway as you can't say the parents were negligent in not vaccinating their own children. In your opinion they are negligent, but their duty of care is first and foremost to their own children, and if they don't believe that vaccination their children is in their best interests, then they can't legally be considered negligent.

Of course there could. You just bring legislation to make it so. There's plenty of statutory schemes that supplement the common law to impose a duty.

And their duty of care, as in all cases of negligence, is to anyone who may be reasonably affected by their actions. A piece of legislation that says that, in this case, those actions extend beyond conscious committed acts to include omissions or decisions not to act.

I agree that such a case is unlikely to succeed at present, hence my suggestion that the common law would need statutory supplementation, but there is a whole line of cases involving the transmission of STIs - so it's not totally unknown to the law to hold people liable for causing some injury through the onward transmission of a disease.

One eyed Jack

Orion wrote: »

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Kate O'Connell has been very consistent in her support for the vaccination programme. She's a pharmacist herself.

It should be rolled out to boys too - boys and men get cancer from HPV also.

So she would be aware that without a higher take up of the vaccine in girls, vaccinating boys would be useless. I'll see if I can find the study I read before that suggested that screening for the virus in men would be more cost-effective than vaccination in boys (I thought it was a Canadian study but I'm not sure after googling).

I'm aware that boys and men get cancer from HPV, but obviously they would have to contract HPV in the first place, which is why I said earlier in the thread that marketing the vaccine as a vaccine that prevents cancer is simply misleading. It may offer protection against certain strains of HPV which may lead to a person developing certain types of cancers.

It's not quite the scaremongering strapline, but at least if we're going to quibble over what are and aren't facts, then let's at least be honest enough to differentiate between probabilities and inevitabilities. There is nothing 100% guaranteed about the HPV vaccine, and until there is, I wouldn't support the idea of attaching terms and conditions to administering any vaccine to children.

Such measures have been demonstrated quite clearly to have the opposite of the intended effect, because you're denying people the right to choose what is in the best interests of their own children.

Orion

One eyed Jack wrote: »

if they don't believe that vaccination their children is in their best interests, then they can't legally be considered negligent.

Some people believe that beating their children is in their best interests but they are committing a crime if they do so. Believing something is in best interest is not a defence when putting others at risk.

Orion

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There is nothing 100% guaranteed about the HPV vaccine, and until there is, I wouldn't support the idea of attaching terms and conditions to administering any vaccine to children.

It has reduced cervical cancer by up to 90% in vaccinated people. It's proven to protect against the strains of HPV that cause over 70% of cervical cancers. So I think I'll say with 100% certainty that it is reducing the incidence of cancer therefore it is a vaccine that prevents cancer.

kunst nugget

Orion wrote: »

Some people believe that beating their children is in their best interests but they are committing a crime if they do so. Believing something is in best interest is not a defence when putting others at risk.

I believe that locking my children into closets is in their best interests. I do leave a bucket in their for toilet purposes and a bucket filled with water in case their thirsty. It's gas when they get the buckets mixed up when they need a drink but it's doing a great job toughening them up.

Orion

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I wouldn't support the idea of attaching terms and conditions to administering any vaccine to children.

Just as a matter of interest would you include the MMR in this? A vaccine which nearly eradicated measles, for example, until Wakefield published his lies.

One eyed Jack

Orion wrote: »

Just as a matter of interest would you include the MMR in this? A vaccine which nearly eradicated measles, for example, until Wakefield published his lies.

I would tbh, but I don't think Wakefield was solely responsible for the increase in the numbers of parents who choose not to vaccinate their children, I believe the study came out of a current of non-vaccination that was already gaining momentum. Wakefield was only the catalyst that led to the explosion in the numbers of parents choosing not to vaccinate.

As for the ridiculing of the best interests principle, it's a standard in common law, and because parents aren't forced by law to vaccinate their children in this country at least, I couldn't see how a court could force the parents to have their children vaccinated, or hold them liable for not doing so.

ebbsy

Id sooner take medical advice off Michael Jackson's doctor than Finian McGrath.

pitifulgod

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There could be no liability anyway as you can't say the parents were negligent in not vaccinating their own children. In your opinion they are negligent, but their duty of care is first and foremost to their own children, and if they don't believe that vaccination their children is in their best interests, then they can't legally be considered negligent.

A parent could be considered negligent for not allowing their child to have a blood transfusion for religious reasons. Believing something does not make it correct.

One eyed Jack

pitifulgod wrote: »

A parent could be considered negligent for not allowing their child to have a blood transfusion for religious reasons. Believing something does not make it correct.

While I'm all for different interpretations of the law, you're using a completely different set of circumstances to make your argument. In such a case where the child is likely to die without a blood transfusion, then the State does retain the right to intervene. The State also has a right to intervene if it can be demonstrated that the child is at risk in the family home, and there's a standard that has to be met there too, but because vaccination isn't mandatory in this country, and the children aren't in at any immediate risk to either their health, welfare or well-being, I'd like to see you make an argument that the parents should be forced to vaccinate their children as a matter of public health.

That's sure to go down well with people who don't appreciate their parental authority being undermined by the State.

pitifulgod

One eyed Jack wrote: »

While I'm all for different interpretations of the law, you're using a completely different set of circumstances to make your argument. In such a case where the child is likely to die without a blood transfusion, then the State does retain the right to intervene. The State also has a right to intervene if it can be demonstrated that the child is at risk in the family home, and there's a standard that has to be met there too, but because vaccination isn't mandatory in this country, and the children aren't in at any immediate risk to either their health, welfare or well-being, I'd like to see you make an argument that the parents should be forced to vaccinate their children as a matter of public health.

That's sure to go down well with people who don't appreciate their parental authority being undermined by the State.

A person with a low immune system is at incredible risk when another person decides to not vaccinate their children. This is a fact. So a parent not vaccinating based on conspiracy theories is endangering both their children and others.

One eyed Jack

pitifulgod wrote: »

A person with a low immune system is at incredible risk when another person decides to not vaccinate their children. This is a fact. So a parent not vaccinating based on conspiracy theories is endangering both their children and others.

Believing something neither makes it correct, nor does it make it a fact, nor does it make anything close to a convincing argument.

Jawgap

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Believing something neither makes it correct, nor does it make it a fact, nor does it make anything close to a convincing argument.

What a pity REGRET does not share your view.

One eyed Jack

Jawgap wrote: »

What a pity REGRET does not share your view.

I don't share regrets view either if I'm honest. I think one side is just as bad as the other for engaging in scaremongering, fearmongering, propaganda and emotional blackmail. I just wouldn't trust anyone on either side, I'll simply make decisions that I believe are in my child's best interests overall, as opposed to single issues.

pitifulgod's argument regarding blood transfusions and peoples religious beliefs did remind me though of a case in Australia a few years back where a pregnant woman refused a number of life-saving treatments because of her religious beliefs. It raises a number of ethical questions and I wouldn't care to speculate how such a case would go in this country -


http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/pregnant-jehovahs-witness-decision-to-refuse-treatment-harrowing-for-hospital-staff-after-mother-and-baby-die-20150406-1mf570.html

Jawgap

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don't share regrets view either if I'm honest. I think one side is just as bad as the other for engaging in scaremongering, fearmongering, propaganda and emotional blackmail. I just wouldn't trust anyone on either side, I'll simply make decisions that I believe are in my child's best interests overall, as opposed to single issues.

pitifulgod's argument regarding blood transfusions and peoples religious beliefs did remind me though of a case in Australia a few years back where a pregnant woman refused a number of life-saving treatments because of her religious beliefs. It raises a number of ethical questions and I wouldn't care to speculate how such a case would go in this country -


http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/pregnant-jehovahs-witness-decision-to-refuse-treatment-harrowing-for-hospital-staff-after-mother-and-baby-die-20150406-1mf570.html

there's no moral equivalence here.......one side has an argument based on rationality, science and evidence and has as it's objective the saving of lives and the elimination of preventable diseases.

The other side.......let's just be kind and say they are mis-guided.

Hopefully in this country the courts would see fit to allow the miracle of blood transfusing to go ahead so the person can live to sue to vindicate her rights. Life is precious it shouldn't be wasted, and certainly not in the expectation that some magical being might save you.......

......but even if someone is religious, maybe they should consider that God gave us such wonderful intellectual gifts and instead of waiting for the 'big' miracle they should take advantage of all the little miracles He has laid before us......

......bit like the story of the guy in the flood and the fire brigade knock on his door to rescue him. He refuses, saying God will save him. Later, when the water is up to the first floor a guy in a boat happens by and says to climb aboard. He refuses, saying God will save him. Later again, the water has almost reached the roof and a helicopter comes to rescue him......he refuses, saying God will save him.....he drowns, gets to heaven and asks God why he didn't save him? God says "What do you mean......I sent the fire brigade, a boat and a helicopter!"

.......here endeth the lesson.......

Orion

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Believing something neither makes it correct, nor does it make it a fact, nor does it make anything close to a convincing argument.

It actually is a fact. Whether you believe it or not.

Orion

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I would tbh, but I don't think Wakefield was solely responsible for the increase in the numbers of parents who choose not to vaccinate their children, I believe the study came out of a current of non-vaccination that was already gaining momentum. Wakefield was only the catalyst that led to the explosion in the numbers of parents choosing not to vaccinate.

Really? In the 6 years after Wakefield published his fraudulent "study" vaccination rates dropped from around 94% to under 80% - this was a direct result of his lies.

Orion

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'd like to see you make an argument that the parents should be forced to vaccinate their children as a matter of public health

Nobody is saying they should despite your spin. What we have said - and I strongly believe should be enforced - is that if you decide not to vaccinate your child for nonsensical reasons then fine - that's your choice. But there should be consequences and one of them is that you lose access to public interaction in schools and creches. You can make an unscientific decision all you like but that does not give you the right to put others at risk.

Ashbourne hoop

Jawgap wrote: »

there's no moral equivalence here.......one side has an argument based on rationality, science and evidence and has as it's objective the saving of lives and the elimination of preventable diseases.

The other side.......let's just be kind and say they are mis-guided.

That's it in a nutshell. There is no "other side" or a need for balance. This nonsense that you have to give every side a voice does my head in to be honest.

B0jangles

Claiming that you have the right to not vaccinate but rejecting the rights of others not to want to be exposed to the unvaccinated is like defending your right to set your head on fire but rejecting my right to keep you out of my house.

Burn away, just don't expect anyone to want you to come visiting