Anti-Vaxxer Sympathy

[thehedglin]

Hmm, what do I think. Hmmm...

I think all the anti-vaxxers could collectively die in a fire and it wouldn't effect me at all, I really dislike them and would rather they get off my planet.

You are wrong about that.  If they all died in a fire, then they would no longer be causing people to not be vaccinated, and consequently would not be causing diseases that should be eradicated to continue to exist.  In other words, they are not only harming themselves and their children, they are harming other people, too.  This is why they should be condemned.  If they only harmed themselves, then I would have no problems with that.  As far as I am concerned, anyone may commit suicide at any time.  But these fucking assholes cause diseases to spread among people who are not as fucking stupid as they are, and they are rightly condemned for that.

Well, I was talking about sympathy, but I stand corrected.

[IATIA]

If a child is not vaccinated, how is the child going to give "everyone" else the measles? Were they not vaccinated either?

For the anti-vaxxers, if they think the subjecated viruses in the vaccine will cause autism, what will a full-fledged onset cause?

I am not concerned about the public health, I am concerned about the children. Anti-vaxxers can talk all the shit they want, but it should be mandatory that the children get their vaccinations.

[Redbeard The Pink]

If a child is not vaccinated, how is the child going to give "everyone" else the measles?  Were they not vaccinated either?

For the anti-vaxxers, if they think the subjecated viruses in the vaccine will cause autism, what will a full-fledged onset cause?

I am not concerned about the public health, I am concerned about the children.  Anti-vaxxers can talk all the shit they want, but it should be mandatory that the children get their vaccinations.

It's not that they'll give it to everyone. It's that they'll give whatever preventable plague it happens to be to a kid/baby who's too young to be vaccinated, or maybe somebody who has an immune deficiency and can't get vaccinated; their health depends on running into as few unvaccinated people as possible, and the more anti-vaxxers there are, the more troublesome that becomes. There are enough humans who can't get vaccinated for whatever actual reason without people voluntarily adding to those ranks without reason.

[Thumpalumpacus]

If a child is not vaccinated, how is the child going to give "everyone" else the measles? Were they not vaccinated either?

For the anti-vaxxers, if they think the subjecated viruses in the vaccine will cause autism, what will a full-fledged onset cause?

I am not concerned about the public health, I am concerned about the children. Anti-vaxxers can talk all the shit they want, but it should be mandatory that the children get their vaccinations.

In addition to Redbeard's fine points, unvaccinated people provide a genetic reservoir for these microbes, which will then evolve, and at that point the smart folks who vaccinated their kids find their bed efforts compromised by the inaction of a dolt.

If they want sympathy, they can find it in the dictionary.

[Lemonvariable72]

If a child is not vaccinated, how is the child going to give "everyone" else the measles? Were they not vaccinated either?

For the anti-vaxxers, if they think the subjecated viruses in the vaccine will cause autism, what will a full-fledged onset cause?

I am not concerned about the public health, I am concerned about the children. Anti-vaxxers can talk all the shit they want, but it should be mandatory that the children get their vaccinations.

Some people have diseases where even if you are vaccinated you could still catch say measles, especially people like say my mother who has rheumatoid arthritis and has been on immunosuppressants for years else her fingers puff into golf balls and she can't walk. Hence I have to get a flu shot every year because of she gets a cold its there for weeks.
Now there are many people that are even worse than her for suppressed immune systems such as diabetics, cancer patients, or even just elderly people in bad heath. That is a great gift to Grandpa, if give him rubella or the mumps.

[Justtristo]

Screw the anti vaccination crowd.

I believe when you put yours and others children to risk to getting totally preventable diseases, then the government can override your lifestyle choice and act in best interests of public safety. They can be overridden even if they claim you are only practicing in accordance to your religious beliefs.

These people should be treated in the same way as those who practice Female Genital Mutilation on their girls, even if they claim they are only practicing in accordance to their religious beliefs or traditions.

[bennyboy]

This isn't a case of rights. It's a case of morons who want exclusive rights. Specifically, they want the right to deny health care to their children, but they will not tolerate the indignity of their children or themselves being excluded from parts of society (like schools or doctors' offices) when OTHERS attempt to exercise their own rights. . . specifically to protection from the uninformed and dangerous decisions of morons.

That's what this brand of libertarians don't get-- that the liberties of others will be opposed to them, and that those others' opinions must be accepted in good measure. In other words, a society has every right to exclude dangerous idiots from public venues.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Vaccines do not provide 100% resistance to a disease; they simply "prep" the immune system to recognize an invader and respond more quickly, which makes it more likely you (or in this case, your child) will be able to successfully fight off the infection, or get over it more quickly. A small exposure, say from a child who has a mild case of a disease, is also less likely to result in infection in another person. Refusing to get vaccines for your child still means that vaccinated kids are at risk. For most anti-vaxers, it's a matter of scientific illiteracy coupled with those who profit from fearmongering, even if "profit" just means the inherent power and feeling of self-importance of being listened to by others.

This situation is especially not helped by the fact that people like Donald Trump, the king of "listen to me, I'm important", who try to suggest links between vaccines and childhood problems, such as autism, forcing caring but scientifically illiterate people to choose between a scientifically-proven way of protecting their children and another that feels like protecting them but isn't. People fear the unknown, and charlatans take advantage of that fear.

[Aractus]

The article is proof that pussy can seriously fuck with a dude's head.

Anti-vaccination sympathy? Seriously? The author is trading the very real dangers of the anti-vaccination ideology for the sake of a faux progressive respect for a difference of opinion and an over-exaggerated estimate of his wife's intelligence; something he repeatedly proclaims with no justification as if repeating it makes it true.

Fucking polio. These assholes just need to go away before any real harm can be done. There's no debate. Treating these idiots with kid gloves is a bad tactic.

Cato, you can't just go and force medical intervention on people - it's unethical for one - and for the other the parents need to be in control of their children's healthcare and be attentive to it. That is absolutely crucial to the health of children. And it's not up to these parents to "see sense and change their own minds" it's up to doctors, nurses, and other medical practitioners to do this wherever possible.

Does that mean we should have a target of 100% vaccination? Of course. But it doesn't mean we attain that target by dictatorial force.

Did she have a good reason? Yes in my opinion she did - she had a very deep seeded mistrust in healthcare. That is not something to ignore - here in Australia it's something we face especially with the Indigenous.

I don't understand why you and the op feel the need to use labels in the first place. "Us and them". As if people who don't have their children vaccinated must be some of the most horrible, deplorable, unimaginably negligent parents on Earth.

But wait a second. We have (Australia) maybe 93-94% rate of childhood immunisation. Now compare that to say the fact that 20% of women in Australia report that they have experienced childhood sex abuse. I don't have the statistic in front of me but it's something around half that for men. But here's another statistic - more than 23% of children in Australia experience seeing domestic violence in their home between their parents.

So 1 in 4 parents exposes their child to domestic violence - roughly - and you're worried about the 6 or 7 percent of parents who don't immunise their children. Honestly grow some perspective, the rate is never going to get better by victim-blaming people who mistrust health delivery services.

And I take issue with the statement that "children who don't get vaccinated put other children at risk". 1. YOU CAN'T BLAME CHILDREN. 2. No they don't, they just don't participate in herd protection. 3. You can't make blanket statements about individuals like that; it's only statistically relevant at the population level. 4. The so-called harm that people don't vaccinate their children is only a "potential". It's not an actuality like domestic violence, sexual abuse, neglect, etc. I've never seen any of you idiots get this worked up about parents who actually cause their children real harm, instead you just rattle on about parents who's children are statistically more likely to get whooping cough or the measles because they didn't vaccinate.

And if I'm not mistaken you don't need 100% immunisation for effective herd protection, you only need 95% and the herd protection is as strong as it gets statistically speaking. Some children can't get vaccinated for various reasons, so you can't attain a 100% rate anyway.

Grow some perspective.

[Aroura]

O, os I finally read the whole article.
At the end he explains that his wife took some drugs at 17 that sent her into a panic attack. When she went to the doctor, he prescribed some pills. And she felt unhappy with the doctor because he gave her pills to cope with smoking something once (he describes it as giving her drugs to cope with a drug problem? Um....smoking something ONE time is not a drug PROBLEM.)
Then he says she was clean for 4 years, but her trust for doctors was broken. Um..what? The doctor did nothing wrong, in his story. Unless his wife was an ADDICT and he gave her like, ativan or something. But the story does not say.

And supposedly this little incident destroyed her trust in doctors and modern medicine? AND she turned to Naturopathy??? And he thinks she's one of the smartest people he knows???

Whatever. She eventually gave in and got the kids shots anyway, when the kids themselves requested them.

I'm all for being kind when discussing difference of opinion, not calling people stupid and such. But with this kind of potentially deadly things, potentially deadly for OTHER PEOPLE as well, then you need to take a firm stand. He never did. They are his kids too and he just let her put them in harms way!

/facepalm to that whole story.