Abstaining from Vaccination should NOT be a right

[Shell B]

You are gravely misinformed, willfully ignorant, or plain stupid.

Nice. She is actually a medical professional. She does not vaccinate them because the vaccine is always for the previous year's virus and provides only minimal protection. It is only advised for the very young or very old of which her children are neither.

Influenza is not something to be ignored. I could list several flu pandemics, but part of me thinks you're too deluded to change your stupid beliefs despite the risks you are exposing your children to. Influenza is quite mutable and has similar tendencies to the common cold in hybridizing with other flues.

You just flew off the fucking handle for absolutely no reason. There are flu pandemics. The reason people fucking died of the flu was old age, young age, compromised immune systems or pneumonia, which is now treatable. The very fucking reason she says she does not vaccinate them is because it is so fucking mutable. Durf.

You're indulging in a form of naturalistic fallacy, that our bodies will "take care of themselves" in creating antibodies.

No she isn't. She just explained how vaccines work. She said people do not realize that a lot of vaccines are live viruses and our bodies have to create antibodies to fight it off. She wasn't saying your body does this without vaccines, which it actually can and does in many cases.

[Autumnlicious]

Also, I really fucking hate how ShellB is basically arguing for the right to launch a polio, flu, or measles pandemic.

It's fucking odious.

You and your fucking ideology.

[Shell B]

Dude, take a fucking chill pill. The right to launch a polio fucking pandemic? Are you capable of not becoming completely fucking emotionally involved in an argument and losing your shit? I'm sorry, but seriously, Syn. Where the fuck did I say, hey, we should just let people launch pandemics? Oh, I didn't say that. I said people should not be injected with anything if they are unwilling.

Fuck your ideology. The last time we disagreed, you geeked the fuck out about someone getting hit by a car saying the person who hit them should get the death penalty, flip-flopped and then geeked on those who agreed with you. Now, you're angry about another situation and are again flipping the fuck out on those who disagree with you. I don't give a fuck if you hate my opinion. I'm not a big fan of yours, but I didn't throw a bitch fit about it. I find it repulsive that anyone would force a needle into another human being for any reason. I find it inconsistent with your pro-choice stance and find the "logic" behind it often involves some sort of blown out of proportion version of the spread of disease. The last pandemic of a disease with a very high mortality rate that was not AIDS was nearly a hundred fucking years ago and can be treated now with antibiotic. Refuckinglax.

That last interpretation of my opinion was all drama. I'm all set with drama.

Sorry if I'm being touchy. You're obviously one of my favorites, but geez, dude. Debate, don't freak out on me.

[Autumnlicious]

Nice. She is actually a medical professional. She does not vaccinate them because the vaccine is always for the previous year's virus and provides only minimal protection. It is only advised for the very young or very old of which her children are neither.

Wrong. Influenza species vary by time, but the collection of proteins on the capsid usually contain a common element. In other words, 'minimally effective' versus nothing. Yep, that's a great weighing of it.

You just flew off the fucking handle for absolutely no reason. There are flu pandemics. The reason people fucking died of the flu was old age, young age, compromised immune systems or pneumonia, which is now treatable. The very fucking reason she says she does not vaccinate them is because it is so fucking mutable. Durf.

No you dumbass, why don't you fucking read the pages? Hell, I'll fucking give you the Navy's write up:
http://www.history.navy.mil/library/onli...a_main.htm

The victims of purple death in 1918 were not just 'old age, young age, compromised immune systems or pneumonia'. It included healthy adults. Adults who no doubt experienced their regional flu variant for years before hand.

But that's immaterial to someone who can't seem to join the relationship between FLU and FLU PANDEMIC.

Hint, you need one to have the other. Derp yourself.

No she isn't. She just explained how vaccines work. She said people do not realize that a lot of vaccines are live viruses and our bodies have to create antibodies to fight it off. She wasn't saying your body does this without vaccines, which it actually can and does in many cases.

'A lot'? Really? Really fucking really?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Live_attenu...za_vaccine

Let's look at that for example. LAIV (the OMGWTFBBQ-ITS-A-LIVE-VIRUS) is given intranasally, while the killed inactive form (old style) are administered through a intramuscular shot.

Let's look at the CDC for some statistics ( http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hestat/flus...uspray.htm ).
" however, the intranasal influenza vaccine was not approved for use until June 2003..."

Oops. Guess Melanbee is either stuck in the moment or presenting false information. Clearly attenuated virus vaccine production for one of the worlds most commonest viruses (of which inactivated virus vaccine production was well in place decades before).

Let's look at actual usage of LAIV versus LAIV+Inactivated:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hestat/flus...bles.pdf#1

Table 2 clearly shows that using LAIV alone is a rarity, and instead is used more often in conjunction with inactivated influenza.

[Shell B]

To be clear, I said "a lot." I was paraphrasing. Either way, my point that you should probably chill stands. She's most certainly not an idiot and absolutely knows more about medicine than you do, unless you have a degree in medicine of which I am unaware.

[Autumnlicious]

Where the fuck did I say, hey, we should just let people launch pandemics? Oh, I didn't say that. I said people should not be injected with anything if they are unwilling.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

Cause meet effect.

The last time we disagreed, you geeked the fuck out about someone getting hit by a car saying the person who hit them should get the death penalty, flip-flopped and then geeked on those who agreed with you.

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

I find it repulsive that anyone would force a needle into another human being for any reason.

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

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

What about cases where the parents prevent their child from getting cancer treatment? They stuck needles into the damn kid regardless of his parents or his own objection.

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

I find it inconsistent with your pro-choice stance and find the "logic" behind it often involves some sort of blown out of proportion version of the spread of disease.

ಠ_ಠ

Because these epidemics started out not in areas of high vaccination? Because these epidemics are the end result of giving the influenza virus time to mix in the population and their livestock?


Because not reducing the virulence of a disease helps it attain optimal virulence after enough time has passed?


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

The last pandemic of a disease with a very high mortality rate that was not AIDS was nearly a hundred fucking years ago and can be treated now with antibiotic. Refuckinglax.

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.

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.

Sorry if I'm being touchy. You're obviously one of my favorites, but geez, dude. Debate, don't freak out on me.

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.

To be clear, I said "a lot." I was paraphrasing. Either way, my point that you should probably chill stands. She's most certainly not an idiot and absolutely knows more about medicine than you do, unless you have a degree in medicine of which I am unaware.

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.

[KichigaiNeko]

I'm with Moros on the issue of Vaccination. You do yourself an injustice NOT vaccinating your children and yourself.

I haven't even gotten to the point of what you will fully do to your community if you don't vaccinate your child. Mine have have ALL their vaccinations and should they have offspring I would be there insisting that the do the same for their children.

Influenza?? Tough call...but for me it is a non-issue now that I have (thanks to Influenza) acquired asthma and must take the shot...age doesn't help either

---

What ever happened to barrier nursing?

[Welsh cake]

Moros you've lost the plot before you started because you're concerned with fucking with people's rights as opposed to caring about our health.

Look, you may have a point, providing you give us the choice to have the vaccinations for the pathogens ***separately*** and not all lumped together to save fucking money like the MMR vaccine does, a vaccine so safe even Tony Blair thought his son should best be immunized against measles, mumps, and rubella separately abroad, since the shot causes adverse reactions and other issues (the whole controversy about autism not withstanding).

To put our worries at ease the pharmaceutical giants have brought out a new MMRV vaccine. Great, now its four-in-fucking-one!

I was ill for several weeks after receiving the Polio five-in-one jab and lost a lot of time from school just before my exams. Did the doctors or government care? Fuck no!

What you're proposing to is give our Governments more powers at our expense. I know for a fact the idiots who run this country that licensed Thalidomide back in the late 1950s certainly don't deserve the power to legislate such laws. Not when they tried to abstain from the inherent responsibility that comes with power and evading compensation for their inevitable fuck-ups as they screw over a generation to birth defects.

[Tiberius]

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

Hell, apparently changing your position (even ever so slightly) over the course of two years here is considered "flip-flopping" and is something negative.

[The Grand Nudger]

And that is my point. Just as sex education is proven more effective than abstinence, vaccination education may prove more effective than attempting to force compliance. With that in mind, most people do get vaccinated, so it may eventually happen, as it has with other diseases, that no one gets the disease, vaccinated or not. Giving people an option is not going to inevitably lead to the medical thriller doom you present.

Giving these people (anti-vaxxers) an option is the only thing that is required for "medical thriller doom". Our entire history is "medical thriller doom". Downplay it if you like but these little nasties have been killing us since before we care to remember. We can do something about it, but apparently it's unthinkable. Vaccine education is worthless without actually taking the vaccine.

Huh?

They don't have to take precautions and you should not be able to make them.

Seat belt laws, drivers licensing tests, building codes, food safety regulations. They do have to take precautions, and we do force this (or enact fines/imprisonment).

Bullshit, though they do have a point. It is their right to refuse. I'm not anti-vaccination. I'm anti-forced medicine of any kind.

As am I, but that doesn't mean that the law is against forcing medications (it isn't) or that our shared distaste for involuntary or forced medical procedures is a universally applicable ideology (it isn't).

That is very, very unlikely. Pandemics have never been that deadly. Even the 1918 endemic and the plague were only deadly because of pneumonia, which can now be treated with antibiotics.

You and I have different metrics for determining how deadly pandemics have been. It seems to me from your posts that you view them as sort of function of this rock that is inescapable and, apparently, not that deadly. The dead disagree on the latter, the developers of vaccines disagree on the former.

Yes, I absolutely am. I am arguing that the intelligent use of vaccinations by most of the population will suffice. Quarantining sick individuals prevents spread of infection when it happens and the list goes on.

Now who's expecting too much? Intelligence, as a group..from us.....

Yes, I don't see why you have any expectations of people you don't even know.

It's called civil law, and public health policy. We all have many, many expectations of people we don't know, yourself included.

Wanting them to is not unreasonable. Insisting that they do is overstepping.

Why? We want and insist in many areas of public health and human interaction..codify it by law, and merrily go about our business. Just because you have personal convictions in this specific case does not mean that you and I and every swinging Richard aren't engaged in insisting this or that from others all day, every day, in law.

If you prefer me change that to "you are trying to control everyone," I would be more than happy to do that.

Almost there, getting closer. I'm actually suggesting that we attempt to control the spread of infectious disease, but however you want to interpret that is your own business.

Because whilst making that argument you are imposing your will on others, which is the precise argument I am sure you make against pro-lifers. It's fucking hypocritical. And, yes, if it has been harmful for even one person, it can be argued to be harmful. Why the fuck do you think sick people shouldn't take vaccinations? They certainly aren't fucking candy. It has to be an informed decision.

I don't make any such argument. I've said time and time again that my own will is decidedly pro-life, but that my vote would be pro-choice. My will, and what I would impose on others are not tied at the hip. I don't always have good ideas (I'd go so far as to say that my bad ideas outnumber my good ones exponentially). This just isn't one of those "bad idea" moments. I absolutely would (and do) impose my will on others. We all do, so this objections seems more like grandstanding than serious discussion. The issue is whether or not what happens to be "my will" is a good idea or not. That's how law is decided. So, we're arguing that if it could be harmful for even one person then it is harmful? Circle back around to that one person infected by an otherwise toothless disease. Anti-vaxxing is harmful if one single person suffers from an illness. Checks google. My, my, I guess it's already harmed more than one person.

Why would I? I have absolutely no desire to impose population control on people. Care to cherry pick what risks to humans you care to regulate by forced medical procedures? Hey, forced sterilizations of people with genetic disorders would eradicate those disorders! Let's do that!! Fuck, yeah. World police!

Sure, np. Infectious disease, for starters. World police my ass. Successful and beneficial public health policy, more like. I'm trying to have a discussion about infectious disease and public health policy and you're invoking the shadowy spectre of the "world police"? Should I go get my tinfoil hat..how far are we going to take this?

So . . . those "fuck-ups" are acceptable as long as it is for the greater good? Haha, fuck your right to life and health if it has the slight potential to hurt my right to life and health.

Acceptable? I wouldn't say that, unavoidable, at present, yes. It would be nice if no eggs were broken when baking a cake, but that's not how it pans out. In any case, you don't have an inch of ground here (or anywhere you suggest the dangers inherent in vaccination as an argument against vaccination) because those dangers are well known, and statistically irrelevant (little to no possibility means little to no possibility) and that's -before- we compare them to what they are designed to prevent.

Yeah, if you want to eat something that can kill you, that is your fucking choice. I am also okay with suicide and don't consider it murdering yourself. Sure, it was successful. Is it necessary to force everyone? No.

The issue, again, wasn't just that it killed you, but that you also ended up catching shit you could give to others. That's the crux of the thing here. There are decisions that you can make that may never harm you, but may directly or indirectly lead to harming someone else (or an entire group of someone else's) instead. If we understand these risks, and the associated mechanisms, and do nothing, it is negligence, in the very least, and possibly something much, much worse. It was necessary in that case Shell. People kept ending up sick (and or dying, it's kind of counter-intuitive but milk was unfit for human consumption for most of our history even though we have entire swaths of the planet that we call "cattle cultures"), we imposed legislation from every angle all at once, people stopped getting sick. The entire world clapped their hands . The policy became almost universally adopted in developed countries. Good was done. All from an evil mandate sent down by the Fed on what people could or could not do with not only their own private property, but also their own bodies.

Yep, I do. I wouldn't do it and I certainly wouldn't give it to my children. Do I think people should have a choice what they want to do to themselves . . . yup.

So do I, until their choices put others at risk, which they did, hence legislation. Which is exactly what I'm talking about with vaccinations.

To make a very long story short. Infectious disease doesn't give a shit about your rights. You have none as far as it is concerned (unless you count your right to be a host). Your rights do not protect you from infectious disease (unless we legislate vaccination policy..and then they would..fancy that), and you cannot make an ideological case that would compel infectious disease to pass you over. Vaccination can do this, but not in the long term, unless we all get vaccinated. I'm all for people getting up in arms over their rights, but I don't think that this is very fertile ground for that particular objection.