Immunisation is about preventing outbreaks, not individual cases. So this whole argument that parents are putting their own children at greater risk is not correct - they are putting the community at greater risk - but only if a significant number of others in the community also doesn't get their children immunised. You guys seriously don't even seem to understand that in this thread - and that I think is what gets a lot of people confused in the first place. They don't see an individual benefit for their child, because there isn't one, and therefore they question whether they really need it - which they don't if the community has a 95% immunisation rate.

(September 7, 2015 at 11:36 am)Aractus Wrote: 1. YOU CAN'T BLAME CHILDREN.

I think it's been made clear already that the parents are to blame.

(September 7, 2015 at 11:36 am)Aractus Wrote: 2. No they don't, they just don't participate in herd protection.

Yes, they do, by providing a reservoir in which microbes may evolve resistance.

(September 7, 2015 at 11:36 am)Aractus Wrote: 4. The so-called harm that people don't vaccinate their children is only a "potential".

Not every drunk driver has an auto accident, yet we still see fit to outlaw the practice due to the potential of injury or death.

If folks don't want to vaccinate their own children, that's fine. It's thoughtless of them, and may well have far-reaching repercussions.

You didn't even address any of my more important points. Particularly that you shouldn't victim-blame people who have distrust in health services. We know without any question at all that distrust causes people not to access essential health services. Furthermore, forced medical intervention, passing judgement on "non-compliant" patients (victim-blaming), and expecting patients to blindly agree to treatments without any consultation all leads to people becoming disengaged with the healthcare system. It causes distrust, division, it allows the fears people have to take root and to grow exponentially.

I'll give an example. The 1998 Wakefield et al. paper (since retracted for containing clear falsifications) investigated the hypothesis that the MMR vaccine could potentially trigger autism in at-risk people. The paper concluded that there was a statistically significant association in their data and that further investigation is required. Since that time however, almost all the scientific evidence has supported the conclusion that the MMR vaccine does not trigger autism in at-risk people.

Many people from the anti-vaccine camp have read this paper and understood it. It was a perfectly reasonable hypothesis. At the time it appeared to have some evidence requiring further investigation. Overtime though, people in the anti-vaccination camp heard the misinformed public at large saying "they think vaccines cause autism" - clearly not what the paper was suggesting in the first place. You think they're going to trust people who don't even know what the 1998 paper says and clearly misquotes it? Do these people also deny that Type-1 diabetes is an autoimmune disease? Do they also deny the possible link between Autism and autoimmune disease?

Wu et al. August 2015. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews. Family history of autoimmune diseases is associated with an increased risk of autism in children: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

"An overall increased risk of autism in children with family history of ADs was identified. More mechanistic studies are needed to further explain the association between family history of ADs and increased risk of autism in children."

Now I'll bet you a dollar that if you go out and survey the public about whether they think that Autism is caused by an autoimmune disease that you will get a loot of strong opinions saying "No". Maybe you'll get a lot of strong opinions from people saying "Yes". But what I really doubt is you will get people giving a balanced response which would be "I don't know" or "You'd have to ask the experts" or "Maybe". And I'll bet if you repeated your little experiment, but this time the first question you asked was "do you think vaccines cause autism" and then you asked the question pertaining to autoimmune disease that even more people would respond "No" to there being a link to autoimmune disease.

So what does this tell you? I'll tell you what it tells me. It tells me that your argument that people who get their children immunised are more informed than those that don't is both an unfounded stereotypical view, and ignorant of what concerns that those parents may actually have. I guarantee you that most people who don't get their children immunised do not do it because "they think it will harm their child". They do it for one of the reasons I listed above - they have reason to distrust the healthcare system, they have become disengaged from the healthcare system, or they fear healthcare services.

Hell I even personally know someone who in the late 1980's was advised by her doctor not to vaccinate her children. Is she some misinformed loony as well? Yes that's very old information now - but that's the story she'll be telling her children about why she didn't have them immunised. They all got measles of course, and they were all fine. Of course her information is now nearly 30-years old, and that doctor more likely than not (if he's still practising) would be advising his patients to get vaccinated. Her doctor said to her that if her children get the measles (which they did) then in fighting off the antibodies it will build a stronger immune system than a vaccination provides for the future.

Most people don't have any goddamn clue to begin with about what medical services they need and that's why they need healthcare workers - doctors, pharmacists, nurses, etc. to inform them.

I addressed the points that jumped out at me. I don't think of these antivax parents as "victims" for the most part unless they're a victim of misinformation -- and that's a state they can rectify without hazarding the health of others, especially since the main support for their view was discredited ao long ago.

I note that you completely ignored my main point, as well. Do you intend to answer it, or will you leave it standing unchallenged?

Besides the phrase victim-blaming I didn't describe parents as victims, I described them as patients.

As I mentioned before you're the one who's labelling people. If someone doesn't want to do something you label them as "anti-". If you can't see the problem with that then you really are lost.

Yes there are a few nut-cases who are extreme in their views and are wilfully ignorant. But the vast majority of people who don't get their children immunised cannot be accurately described as belonging to that group.

Furthermore as I repeatedly pointed out to you we do not need 100% immunisation, we only need 95%. Any more than that has no net communal benefit. So there's absolutely no truth to the statement that parents who don't immunise their children "provide a reservoir in which microbes may evolve resistance". Once you get to 95% it doesn't matter about the other 5%. As I clearly mentioned we are almost at 95% here in Australia so there's only a small improvement that needs to be made, once that's done the few remaining people who don't get their children immunised for whatever reasons won't matter at all - but what will matter are the reasons behind why they don't do it.

Stop blaming the patients. If you want to blame anyone blame doctors, nurses, and pharmacists for not communicating the need to their patients effectively. Medical treatment is not something that should be self-diagnosed. So the very idea that you have that people should recognise this themselves is disingenuous.

Schools provide education, not healthcare. So it is not at all surprising that some parents don't want a school to administer vaccines to their children. They slip through the net often because they don't follow it up by getting advice from their GPs, and their GPs don't bother to actively engage their clients to get their children immunised.

As I've clearly explained now, several times, parents are not to blame; and it doesn't matter if some of them choose not to immunise their children. There's no need to call it selfish, as long as 95% are immunised it doesn't matter whether the last 5% are or aren't. Individual cases do not matter, and labelling and blaming individual parents is wrong. One single individual family not immunising their children provides no statistically relevant increased risk of an outbreak.

Look this is my field of study, and I can tell you unequivocally that the healthcare sector is working very hard to stamp out the outdated views that you're supporting.

It's no different to the view that the poor are to blame for their poor health - we now know that overcrowding, social isolation, unemployment, poor access to facilities, poor access to nutritious food, and a range of other factors that are well outside of their control are what determines their poor health.

The fact that not enough people are accessing a particular health service is NOT an indication that there is something wrong with healthcare patients. It's not an indication that they're stupid, or that they're ignorant, or anything that puts the blame on the patient. Is an indication that there's something wrong with healthcare delivery.

But if a virus or bacteria infects that five per cent, what mechanism do you propose would stop it from evolving more virulent strains?

Simply calling it "nonsense" is not an answer

And the idea that some anti-vaxxers are not willful in their denial isn't borne out by either my personal experiences or perusing the fringe media.

Also, please quit imputing to me views I don't hold. It's a dick move and should be beneath you.

(September 5, 2015 at 2:07 am)Redbeard The Pink Wrote: I'd love to read how this story would have gone if this woman's kid had gotten mumps, or if this dude had decided he wanted another baby and didn't want that baby around an older sibling who is a plague-bearer. Love and empathy is great and all, but legislation would be better. These people are dangerous to their children and others. We don't really have time to Care Bears our way out of this one.

lol you certainly know how to turn a phrase, Redbeard.

(September 8, 2015 at 12:16 am)MTL Wrote: lol you certainly know how to turn a phrase, Redbeard.

Lol thanks bro

(September 7, 2015 at 11:06 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: But if a virus or bacteria infects that five per cent, what mechanism do you propose would stop it from evolving more virulent strains?

Okay, first off everyone is still at risk of infection. Not 5%. 100% are still at risk (unless they have previously had the virus itself). Vaccinating a significant proportion of the population is enough to protect against an outbreak of a communicable disease. Vaccinating 95% or more of the total population provides the maximum possible protection. In other words, if you have 95% of the population vaccinated against a communicable disease (for example measles) then statistically speaking there is a greater chance of someone who is vaccinated being the one to contract the disease and spreading it compared with non-vaccinated population.

Secondly how do you suppose anyone is going to contract the disease when no one has it? From the environment somewhere? It's not going to evolve from just one person. Either the disease has been spreading and evolving in other life-forms - or it's been living, spreading, and evolving in other humans.

Quote:And the idea that some anti-vaxxers are not willful in their denial isn't borne out by either my personal experiences or perusing the fringe media.

Also, please quit imputing to me views I don't hold. It's a dick move and should be beneath you.

I'm tell you that it's morally wrong to blame patients for the failings of healthcare delivery. Your labelling of people as "anti-vaxxers" is not helpful. You're simply looking to the extremes. I already explained to you there is not just one reason why a person doesn't vaccinate their child. Put it this way - let's say you open a business and you sell a product that you think the public wants. And potential consumers come to you, and some of them are put off because you are mean, arrogant, forceful and disrespectful. From your point of view it's "their fault" that they don't want your service, but from their point of view you didn't earn their trust, and because of their experience they don't want to buy products from your company.

This idea that patients are to blame for not seeking and receiving the medical advice and services that they need is WRONG. It's backwards. If there's a problem it is not on their end - end of story. It's on the side of healthcare services - they're the ones who need to ensure they're offering products and services that don't push their customers out the door never to return.

Even in your extremist argument - "well some people say they are against vaccination". Yes. Some - a small minority compared to the total number of people who don't vaccinate. However, for many of those people it will not be because they are "intellectually objected" that will be a secondary reason and you will find that in the majority of cases, even where people say they object, the primary reason is something else. Their doctor was rude or inconsiderate to them once. They had some other negative experience with healthcare at some time. They have legitimate concerns that haven't been listened to or addressed. There are many reasons why people who should access a health service that you think is important fail to do so. It's not at all limited to vaccination, and if you want to address it you have to fix the services not fix the patients.