or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › The case for vaccination
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The case for vaccination - Page 28  

post #541 of 713
Quote:
Originally Posted by crayfishgirl View Post

 

I can't speak for Rachel, but I'm cognizant that vaccination offers protection to my children, and protects others through herd immunity and it's for both of these reasons that we vaccinate our children.  We don't live in a bubble...we travel frequently, and associate with people who travel frequently.  Why do you think polio has been eradicated in the western world?


World travellers excepted, then.

 

Otherwise - I maintain my point.  I do not think people who are aware that there are 0 polio cases in the USA, and that diptheria has many years with 0 cases, are vaccinating because they are afraid of their child catching the disease.  They are doing it to prevent the disease from returning - which is a herd immunity issue.

post #542 of 713
Quote:
Originally Posted by pickle18 View Post

 

kathymuggle - can you point me in the right direction for understanding this?  I had a pretty nasty case of chickenpox as a kid and went on to get shingles as an adult.  In fact, everyone I know who has had shingles had chickenpox as a kid - I thought that was the whole point, that the virus stayed in your spine once you had chicken pox, and later re-emerges as shingles?

 

 

Here is a link to get you started:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/03/health/03vaccine.html

post #543 of 713
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post 
They are doing it to prevent the disease from returning - which is a herd immunity issue.

Okay, then count me in to vaccinating to increase herd immunity, if that's how you define herd immunity. I don't want polio or diphtheria to come back and, if they do, I don't want my kid to get them.

post #544 of 713
Quote:
Originally Posted by erigeron View Post

Okay, then count me in to vaccinating to increase herd immunity, if that's how you define herd immunity. I don't want polio or diphtheria to come back and, if they do, I don't want my kid to get them.


That's fine.  I was really only responding to rachel's assertion that no one vaccinated for herd issues only.

post #545 of 713
Quote:
Originally Posted by erigeron View Post

Okay, then count me in to vaccinating to increase herd immunity, if that's how you define herd immunity. I don't want polio or diphtheria to come back and, if they do, I don't want my kid to get them.


That's a valid wish, but I wonder if resourses would be better spent on monitoring and containing polio and diphtheria than on worldwide mass vaccinations against them.

post #546 of 713
Thread Starter 
I vaccinate to protect my own child, first and foremost. Sometimes that means vaccinating to prevent diseases from coming back. I define herd immunity as protecting the unvaccinated. I do not vaccinate "for the greater good," and I don't believe a significant number of people do.

Eta: oh look Wikipedia agrees with me: "Herd immunity (or community immunity) describes a form of immunity that occurs when the vaccination of a significant portion of a population (or herd) provides a measure of protection for individuals who have not developed immunity"
post #547 of 713
Thread Starter 
How do you suggest they contain polio other than vaccination?
post #548 of 713
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

I don't want all disease to disappear.

 

I do not want chicken pox, mumps and rubella to disappear.  I want children to catch those diseases, overcome them, and give their immune system a workout. Vaccines hsould be availible for those who really should not catch the disease.   If you read up on the hygiene hypothesis ( http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070905174501.htm ) might give you an inkling of why I feel as I do.

 

So you literally hope kids get mumps and rubella?!? Oh my god!

 

"Giving the immune system a workout" is exactly what vaccines do. Like, that's the whole point! The idea is that it gets your antibodies going, similar to what would happen if you got sick, without the actual risks of having the disease.

post #549 of 713

.

post #550 of 713
Thread Starter 
It is kind of ironic that vaccines are too scary and impure to use, but we should let kids get diseases to avoid being too hygenic. Contradictory?
post #551 of 713
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
  They are doing it to prevent the disease from returning - which is a herd immunity issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post


That's fine.  I was really only responding to rachel's assertion that no one vaccinated for herd issues only.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

You vaccinated for diptheria and polio because you feared getting the diseases?

 

Diptheria had no cases between 2004-2009.

 

Polio is eradicated in the western world.

 

http://www.vaccineinformation.org/polio/qandadis.asp

same link for diptheria stat - just click on diptheria.

 

I cannot see any other reason you vaxxed for those diseases.  

 

Of course, diptheria is part of a trio of vaxxes.   None-the-less it is on the schedule and you vaxxed for it…for what?

 

I was responding to your query as to why I vaccinate for diphtheria and polio. Fundamentally, it comes down to not wanting my child (and secondarily, anyone else's child) to get the diseases. Polio may not be present in the western world anymore, but all it takes is one unvaccinated traveler to bring back a case. According to your incredibly broad definition, apparently I vaccinate for herd immunity. *shrug*.

post #552 of 713
Quote:
Originally Posted by rachelsmama View Post

That's a valid wish, but I wonder if resourses would be better spent on monitoring and containing polio and diphtheria than on worldwide mass vaccinations against them.

Globally, we currently spend a tremendous amount of money monitoring and containing polio - there is a massive eradication effort underway, involving active surveillance and both routine and responsive vaccination.  

post #553 of 713
Quote:
Originally Posted by erigeron View Post

 

 

. Polio may not be present in the western world anymore, but all it takes is one unvaccinated traveler to bring back a case.

So wouldn't it make more sense to focus the vaccination efforts on the travellers?  I can see the logic behind trying to get everybody vaccinated against polio in the countries where it's still present, and I can see the logic behind having rules about travellers' vaccine status for select diseases, I just don't see the logic behind the mass vaccinations of babies in countries where the disease has been eradicated....seems like a lot of responsibility for such tiny people.

post #554 of 713
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

It is kind of ironic that vaccines are too scary and impure to use, but we should let kids get diseases to avoid being too hygenic. Contradictory?


Well, diseases are natural and vaccines aren't. Of course, if you follow that line of logic, dying in childbirth is natural and c-sections aren't. And chewing on foxglove for heart failure is natural, but beta-blockers (drugs that actually improve survival in heart failure) are not. And being too near-sighted to function is natural, but wearing glasses isn't. Et cetera.

post #555 of 713
Quote:
Originally Posted by erigeron View Post


Well, diseases are natural and vaccines aren't. Of course, if you follow that line of logic, dying in childbirth is natural and c-sections aren't. And chewing on foxglove for heart failure is natural, but beta-blockers (drugs that actually improve survival in heart failure) are not. And being too near-sighted to function is natural, but wearing glasses isn't. Et cetera.

 

Those are treatments for existing ailments, not potential, hypothetical ones.

post #556 of 713
Quote:
Originally Posted by rachelsmama View Post,
I just don't see the logic behind the mass vaccinations of babies in countries where the disease has been eradicated....seems like a lot of responsibility for such tiny people.

I would be willing to bet it's at least partly a followup issue. The CDC knows that the time when the most people are getting checkups on a regular basis is when they are young children. So if you can make sure they get vaccinated then, they're set going forward. Trying to do mass vaccination of adults is much more difficult. If you want the population vaccinated, get them young.

 

As polio gets eradicated more places, I bet they'll drop that vax too, like smallpox.

post #557 of 713
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichelleZB View Post

 

So you literally hope kids get mumps and rubella?!? Oh my god!

 

 


 

 

I would be Ok with it if my own daughters got rubella as children - it is pretty benign for most children, and not so benign if you get it when pregnant.  I would not like it if they had a severe reaction (who would?) but the vast, vast majority of kids come through rubella just fine. Moreover, rubella confers lifetime immunity, and there is some evidence MMR does not.  You can be horrified if you like. 

 

I do think rubella vaccines should exist for those who should not get rubella - teens and adults (particularly females) who did not catch it in childhood, and medically  fragile children who should not catch rubella (perhaps due to a pre-existing condition)


Edited by purslaine - 6/20/12 at 4:34pm
post #558 of 713
Quote:
Originally Posted by rachelsmama View Post

So wouldn't it make more sense to focus the vaccination efforts on the travellers?  I can see the logic behind trying to get everybody vaccinated against polio in the countries where it's still present, and I can see the logic behind having rules about travellers' vaccine status for select diseases, I just don't see the logic behind the mass vaccinations of babies in countries where the disease has been eradicated....seems like a lot of responsibility for such tiny people.

clap.gif

post #559 of 713
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bokonon View Post

 

Those are treatments for existing ailments, not potential, hypothetical ones.


Exactly.  I have no issue using western medicine as a treatment when need be.   I have used everything from tylenol, to antibiotics, to surgery - all in response to a need.

 

Injecting a whole lot of stuff into a very young child when there is no pressing need does not sit well with me. 

post #560 of 713
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bokonon View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by erigeron View Post


Well, diseases are natural and vaccines aren't. Of course, if you follow that line of logic, dying in childbirth is natural and c-sections aren't. And chewing on foxglove for heart failure is natural, but beta-blockers (drugs that actually improve survival in heart failure) are not. And being too near-sighted to function is natural, but wearing glasses isn't. Et cetera.

 

Those are treatments for existing ailments, not potential, hypothetical ones.


Before vaccines almost everyone got measles. Almost everyone got rotovirus. These are not hypothetical conditions.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations
This thread is locked  
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › The case for vaccination