Abstaining from Vaccination should NOT be a right

[Shell B]

You are not connecting cause and effect. Neither do you seem to comprehend that if enough people refuse to vaccinate for a common virus subfamily (or group thereof formed by hybridization), you launch pandemics through increasing the frequency of mixing events in a healthy population.

I am seeing cause and effect. However, I do not see a pandemic as inevitable if you do not force people to be vaccinated.

In short, by giving people the right to decrease herd immunity, you are directly increasing the chances for highly virulent strains to form, spread and kill.

No, that is not necessarily true. Regulations that we already have in place help curb that. People have that very right as we speak. We have flare-ups and no pandemics of the sort you project. What does that tell you?

You keep on living in a microcosm. Of rights, of free will.

I prefer it to a world where people can have you forcefully injected with anything.

Why don't you look at the interaction between viruses and the population?

I have. I'm looking at the U.S. right now and see no evidence of a pandemic outside of AIDS. Again, what does that tell you?

The fact that you feel secure in "when did I specifically state that". That's a rhetorical trick, and a shitty one at that.

Uh-huh. Inflating one's statement to absurd proportions isn't shitty at all.

You never said anything about the right to launch a pandemic, only the right to arbitrarily refuse vaccinations.

Yep.

Just like those people at the Superbowl launched a measles pandemic by exercising their right to refuse vaccines.

What?!?! Do you know what a pandemic is?

Oh, so changing your position based on new information is now something negative?

No, Syn. Your attitude against those who shared the opinion you help only hours before was negative. Tossing around words like "idiot" and "ignorant" whilst saying "I was just angry" was a little uncool. If your opinion is inconsistent, how can you get mad at people who do not share your opinion in the first half of the day and then get mad at those who did share that opinion in the latter half of a day? I'm not saying you can't change your opinion. I'm saying that you shouldn't shit all over everyone else in the process. Here we were, having a friendly debate and the verbal Hulk came in asserting his superiority. I know that you aren't always like this and will be the first to resort back to peaceable debate, so it's not a big deal. It's just unnecessary.

For any reason, eh? Last I checked you were pro-death penalty, which some forms of execution entail needles.

Yes, some forms of execution do involve needles.

What about cases where a patient is flailing in the ER but doesn't want sedatives? Oh wait, they're injected anyways.

These are cases of medical consent. You cannot legally give or withhold consent if you are not in your right mind. I suppose I should have said a "sane" person, but since I already discussed consent and whatnot earlier in the thread, it seemed redundant.

I'm sorry Shell, but your binary position is not only unreal, untenable, but illogical and out of step with reality.

Oh, really? It is reality, Syn. I find it funny that you are calling "unrealistic" on something that is already reality.

Yes. I am "soooo" illogical by understanding the roots and spread of disease....

I know. I'm soooo stupid because I also understand it but disagree with you. You are sooo smart and sooo right.

No. This ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1918_flu_pandemic ) is not treated with antibiotics. In fact, aspirin poisoning may have contributed to the deaths of some of the victims.

Yes, it is and aspirin is not a fucking antibiotic. They didn't have antibiotics in 1918. Most of the victims died of pneumonia, which can be treated with antibiotics.

What you need is a cytokine inhibitor in the 1918's case ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cytokine_storm#Treatment ) to prevent overreaction. However, there were no vaccines existing for that subfamily of influenza.

Much fewer people would have died if there were antibiotics. From your source:

In fast-progressing cases, mortality was primarily from pneumonia, by virus-induced pulmonary consolidation. Slower-progressing cases featured secondary bacterial pneumonias, and there may have been neural involvement that led to mental disorders in some cases. Some deaths resulted from malnourishment and even animal attacks in overwhelmed communities

Hm. Now that I've had to paw through more papers, it's somewhat calmed me down. Still, I find it hard to communicate the implications of virulence theory, which at the most base summation, states that small actions on a system done on repetitive basis can provoke extremely discontinuous changes in the host environment.

Well, maybe it is an emotional topic for you, but I just don't want to take a debate with a pal to that level. I'm not emotionally invested. The laws are already where I want them to be and there is absolutely nothing I can do to either change that or keep it the same, so there is hardly anything invested in this conversation apart from an exchange of ideas.

Then she'll clearly be able to set me straight and present evidence (i.e. papers). I would like to have my knowledge regarding such bettered.

I'm sure she could.

---

She is a misinformed medical professional. Most vaccines are NOT live viruses anymore. That pretty much went out of fashion 20 someodd years ago.

---

Again . . . I said "most" or "a lot." Many dangerous ones are live virus, though, as in smallpox and the chickenpox vaccine.

Not at all Shell. Certain people can't be vaccinated ( such as a child with Leukemia) and they rely on the herd immunity to protect them. When one goes unvaccinated it lessens the entire herd immunity. Also, there are religious and philosophical objections and schools allow entrance.

There are clearly more people vaccinated than not. We manage to keep most of these diseases under control despite people being able to refuse vaccinations. I keep hearing, "If we don't make them, a pandemic will occur and millions will die!" Okay, we already don't make them. Where are the millions dying of diseases for which there are vaccinations?

The reason healthcare workers are advised to get that vaccine is NOT to protect them but to protect all the patients with weakened immunity, and the elderly and children weather they are patients or visitors. Same goes for food service workers but it isn't to protect patients with weakened immunity but their customers. Don't take this the wrong way but if you are not getting the flu vaccination for any reason other than an allergy to eggs, you are to selfish to be in healthcare.

For any reason other than allergy to eggs, huh? Yeah, I'll let her tell you why she doesn't get vaccinated.

Vaccines are not 100% effective Melanbee. There are also some people that can't be vaccinated (as is the case with Leukemia) that depend on others to be vaccinated.

I thought allergy to eggs was the only reason?

[quote]

I'm not doubting your friend got the chickenpox after vaccination. What I will say is that unless the symptoms appeared 14-16 days AFTER the vaccination, he (or she) already had them considering the incubation period is 14-16 days.

Haha, he didn't already have it.