Abstaining from Vaccination should NOT be a right

[Phil]

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.

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

---

Ahhh! Oh, gandalf, no. Making people wear badges?

If you're vaccinated and your children are vaccinated, no problem. Yes, I realize more virulent strains can form. However, that becomes unlikely if children who enter schools must be vaccinated. In a roundabout way, it ensures that everyone who isn't homeschooled is vaccinated.

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.

---

Right, but now your telling me I have to wash my hands after I fuck my cow? Who are you to tell me what to do with my body? It's not like I'm going to catch anything from the cow, and whatever I could catch isn't likely to become a big deal for everyone. Where do you get off?n programs attempt to prevent. Let's imagine the worst, we have

Read about the discovery of the smallpox vaccine back in 1796. You might be quite surprised.

---

Oh this is such a hot topic for me and close to home. I elected this year to not vaccinate myself nor my children against influenza. However, I am vaccinated on almost everything out there. I work in an environment where it's not always possible to avoid germs. Actually, it's highly unlikely that no matter what precautions I would take I would be exposed to all sorts of germs. I work in the health care industry and therefore am exposed to all sorts of things at a higher exposure level than the average Joe. So I vaccinate against most things as I previously stated. I will not vaccinate against Influenza. That vaccination is based on LAST years virus. There are thousands of strains of influenza out there. I believe our elderly and our at risk population should be vaccinated. But how can you mandate something in one country that might not be a problem in another country? So when you say that the government should mandate it...which government are you referring to?
I don't believe the government has a right to step in and tell who they think should be vaccinated at this point. However, if there is an outbreak of something then perhaps I would change my mind. If you are pro vaccinations, then you will get your vaccine and be safe from those that do not get vaccinated. So what difference does it make to you?

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. The flu vaccine is so important in a healthcare setting, some hospitals require it for employees. One gives you a 30 day lay off if you refuse, if you refuse when you return, you become unemployed.

---

Sit still how?I am perfectly aware of how diseases/viruses and bacteria's are transmitted. If you're saying people should be vaccinated to prevent transmission of the disease, then by default if you're vaccinated you prevented transmission. Correct? So why does it matter to you if someone who is not vaccinated exposes themselves to a disease? I am just curious as to what your rationale is.

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.

---

Both the CDC and the WHO agree that the first line of defense is hand hygiene. Vaccinations are helpful but not as effective as hygiene.

Ha! Take that!

Ok I will. The last sentence isn't entirely true. As the late Paul Harvey would say, now for the other side of the story. Hand hygiene, as far as washing with soap and water, is really a good way to prevent transmission of all sorts of disease causing bacteria that may find themselves on your hands. The problem comes when people think using a hand sanitizer is necessary. Use too often, as in most hospitals, actually encourages bacteria to evolve as more resistant strains. When they do (and they will), we have a case of thousands of unintentional Typhoid Marys causing all sorts of noscomial infections. The same thing will happen in the general population too if people continue to abuse hand sanitizers in the name of hygiene.

---

my buddy just got the chicken pox from being vaccinated.

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.

It's the same thing when people, during flu season, claim they got the flu the day after (or hours after) being vaccinated for the flu. The incubation period is 2-5 days so they already were exposed. The same reasoning will eliminate most reports of vaccines causing what they are supposed to prevent.

[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.

[The Grand Nudger]

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

Vaccines, not anything, vaccination Shell. We may prefer a world where any number of variables are this or that, but we do make decisions like this one, constantly, with no hub-bub. This one rubs people for the wrong reasons, it seems.

[Shell B]

I have never made a decision that involved a forced medical procedure.

[The Grand Nudger]

You personally are not likely to have been included in any decision like this, nor have I, that doesn't mean they aren't made. Do you know anyone who's passed legislation, or made any amendments to the constitution? I'm assuming that you do not, and yet amendments exist, legislation is passed. Would it be a stretch to say that you are advocating here that individual human beings should have ultimate say in something like public health policy?

(I also wanted to point out here, that when talking about vaccination, we're not talking about what someone chooses to do with their body, but more likely what they choose to do with their child's body. Are there not cases where we as a society trump the wishes of the parent in favor of the best interests of the child? How is this not one of those issues..at the very least?)

[Shell B]

You personally are not likely to have been included in any decision like this, nor have I, that doesn't mean they aren't made. Do you know anyone who's passed legislation, or made any amendments to the constitution? I'm assuming that you do not, and yet amendments exist, legislation is passed. Would it be a stretch to say that you are advocating here, that individual human beings should have ultimate say in something like public health policy?

If it involves their own body, yes. If they are employed in a service area, no. You have to follow the rules of your job.

At any rate, that's my entire point. What I am talking about is my opinion. I'm not talking about legislation other people have passed. What they have passed has naught to do with my opinion.

[The Grand Nudger]

Public health policy almost always involves someone else's body, should we be tossing out those rulings?
(sorry for the late edit to the last post btw, kid tried to off himself)

[Shell B]

Actually, most public health policies have to do with work environments. If it involves a person's body at all, it typically involves their behavior in the work place.

As for kids, hell yes, I think parents should make the right choice. Do I feel like I should demand that of them? Not really. To an extent, it may fall under neglect and I would back such a policy if it came about, but only for certain vaccinations. Low risk with a high probability of infection without a vaccination may constitute neglect in my mind if the parent withholds the vaccination. However, something like the flu vaccine is not high risk for a healthy child. Most children can fight off the flu with no consequences. And . . . yes, the worst aspects of the flu can be treated with antibiotics.

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm thinking more along the lines of polio, rubella, smallpox, etc. You wouldn't be against a policy that required parents to vaccinate their children against those things?

---

Actually, most public health policies have to do with work environments

and someone else's body. There's no escaping that, unless public health policy only applies to those that physically sign the bill.

[Shell B]

I'm thinking more along the lines of polio, rubella, smallpox, etc. You wouldn't be against a policy that required parents to vaccinate their children against those things?

Again, it depends on the likelihood of the child being exposed to it. If the child is home schooled and lives on a fucking commune, I'm okay with foregoing it. Having it be regulated in schools, I'm fine with, as I mentioned already. I am against policy making parents do it, no matter what the circumstances.

and someone else's body. There's no escaping that, unless public health policy only applies to those that physically sign the bill.

You have a choice whether to take a job that has those guidelines or not. We do not make everyone wash their hands after using the bathroom. It is not illegal to leave meat on the counter at home for more than three hours. We do not dictate what people do with their bodies.