or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › Forced Vaccinations: Stepping into Eugenics?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Forced Vaccinations: Stepping into Eugenics? - Page 12  

post #221 of 251
Quote:
Originally Posted by emma1325 View Post

 

We would know that your daughter is not safe to the public.  Should she be admitted to school?

 

That's not really the point of vaccination or the issue with not vaccinating.  Simply not being immune doesn't make you a hazard.  When large groups choose not to vaccinate, or when small percentages choose not to vaccinate but cluster geographically, is when there's a risk to the public health.

post #222 of 251
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post

Well, you would know the vaccine is worthless. 

 

I don't think not invoking an immune response in a very small percentage - fraction of a percentage, even - of people who get it makes the vaccine worthless.  But I believe antibodies mean immunity, and even in the germ theory, so maybe I'm hopeless.

post #223 of 251
Quote:
Originally Posted by emma1325 View Post

 

 

"Done what they can"??

 

So it's just a compliance thing to you?

 

Or is it a public health thing?  Because if immunity is the goal, why not tie lab-confirmed immunity to school entry rather than shot status?

 

No, it's not "just compliance," it's about giving my daughter the best chance I can.  I'll take the 99% or more percent that she's immune to a 100% chance she's not.  But once she's been vaccinated, what else can we do?  Again, from a public health perspective, vaccinating is practically equivalent to vaccination, since only a vary small percentage of people aren't immune after vaccination.  If I had my daughter tested and she wasn't immune, what could be done about it?  Pretty much nothing.  So what's the point?  When vaccine levels are adequate it makes little to no difference that a tiny number of people are left susceptible even after vaccination.

post #224 of 251
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

 

That's not really the point of vaccination or the issue with not vaccinating.  Simply not being immune doesn't make you a hazard.  When large groups choose not to vaccinate, or when small percentages choose not to vaccinate but cluster geographically, is when there's a risk to the public health.

 

So individual immunity is not important and not important enough to tie to school entry, but shot status is.  Is that what you're saying?

post #225 of 251
Quote:
Originally Posted by emma1325 View Post

 

So individual immunity is not important and not important enough to tie to school entry, but shot status is.  Is that what you're saying?

 

I'm saying we can control vaccination status, and in 99 or more out of 100 cases that is equivalent to immunity status.  We can't actually control immunity status.  Even in the case of natural infection some people don't develop permanent immunity.

post #226 of 251
Quote:
Originally Posted by emma1325 View Post

 

We would know that your daughter is not safe to the public.  Should she be admitted to school?


Sure, Rrrachel could sign a religious or philosophical exemption.

post #227 of 251
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

 

I'm saying we can control vaccination status, and in 99 or more out of 100 cases that is equivalent to immunity status.  We can't actually control immunity status.  Even in the case of natural infection some people don't develop permanent immunit

Is the fact that they can't control it really the issue?

 

Let's face it...if we checked immunity on everyone, we could more closely control the immune status of the herd.  Currently we have outbreaks of disease happening in highly vaccinated populations.  We could prevent much of this by requiring titer testing.  If you believe vaccines will work, then you have nothing to worry about...your child would be admitted to school.  If by some chance your child is still not immune to something, well, then you could just homeschool. 

 

Also, your 99% stat does not really hold water.  Vaccines work at varying degrees depending on the individual vaccine and the individual receiving the vaccine.

post #228 of 251
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post
I think most people would. I"m kind of surprised so many people who actually DO think vaccines are harmful think such a low bar for avoiding them insurmountable.

It isn't about that….it is about why should parents have to jump through hoops to decline an elective medical procedure?

post #229 of 251
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickabiddy View Post


Sure, Rrrachel could sign a religious or philosophical exemption.

 

Unless she lived in West Virginia or Mississippi.  Or in one of the  states which heavily regulate the exemptions, where she might be denied. 

 

But sure, she could just jumpt through the hoops.  No biggie.

 

And if she's denied, she can just homeschool.  Unless the laws apply to homeschoolers in her state.  Then she could just move to another state.

post #230 of 251

You couldn't prevent crap with titer testing.  Because there's nothing you can do about titer status except vaccinate.  Unless you're going to force people to contract the illness, which would defeat the point.  You wouldn't be able to CONTROL the immune status of the herd, you would be able to monitor it, except we can already monitor it pretty darned closely through vaccine status, which as I've already said several times now is an incredibly accurate proxy for immune status.

 

My 99% stat absolutely does hold water.

 

I feel like we're just going back and forth saying the same thing to each other.  You want me to be all "eleventy!!  My kid should get to go to school anyway!" but we're not ever going to get that far because you're really missing the point of vaccine requirements.

post #231 of 251
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

It isn't about that….it is about why should parents have to jump through hoops to decline an elective medical procedure?

 

I've already addressed this.

post #232 of 251
Quote:
Originally Posted by emma1325 View Post

 

Unless she lived in West Virginia or Mississippi.  Or in some states which heavily regulate the exemptions, where she might be denied. 

 

But sure, she could just jumpt through the hoops.  No biggie.

 

And if she's denied, she can just homeschool.  Unless the laws apply to homeschoolers in her state.  Then she could just move to another state.

 

Yeah, I might get denied if I tried to commit fraud by signing a religious exemption, you're right.

post #233 of 251
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

You couldn't prevent crap with titer testing.  Because there's nothing you can do about titer status except vaccinate.  Unless you're going to force people to contract the illness, which would defeat the point.  You wouldn't be able to CONTROL the immune status of the herd, you would be able to monitor it, except we can already monitor it pretty darned closely through vaccine status, which as I've already said several times now is an incredibly accurate proxy for immune status.

 

My 99% stat absolutely does hold water.

 

I feel like we're just going back and forth saying the same thing to each other.  You want me to be all "eleventy!!  My kid should get to go to school anyway!" but we're not ever going to get that far because you're really missing the point of vaccine requirements.

 

We're going back and forth because you're not facing reality here.  Linking school entry to titer results absolutely would prevent disease outbreaks, unless you believe immunity is not important in disease prevention.

 

We could ensure that each child who is in school is immune to all the diseases. 

 

"There's nothing you can do abou titer status except vaccinate."  Well that's not the public's problem, is it?  The government has a responsibility to keep everyone safe.  Parents of non-immune children could just work  it out. 

 

It's funny that you claim that vaccine mandates are about immunity and public health, but you resist the idea of confirming immunity and linking it to school entry. 

post #234 of 251
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

 

Yeah, I might get denied if I tried to commit fraud by signing a religious exemption, you're right.

 

But you do what you've got to do to protect your child, right?  Jump through any hoop, climb any mountain.

post #235 of 251
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

 

That's not really the point of vaccination or the issue with not vaccinating.  Simply not being immune doesn't make you a hazard. 

 

notes2.gif…………….mischievous.gif  (joking)

 

I only see two options:

 

1.  People are genuinely worried about effects of those who are non-immune to VAD being in school- which would include all people who are unimmunized and never had the disease, and some people who are immunized (chicken pox, flu, pertussis - all have issues with effectiveness).   If this is the case, testing for titres sounds acceptable - with a re-vaccination if titres are low - or applying for exemptions.  Cross your fingers that you live in a state with easy exemptions.

 

2.  It is not about immunity to VADs - it is about compliance and control.

post #236 of 251

You're displaying a really fundamental misunderstanding of many of the concepts here.

 

Requiring titer results would change NOTHING about immune status.  nothing.  zero.  zip.  nada.  zilch.  bupkiss.  nien.  As such it would have NO influence on disease outbreaks.  please stop saying you can control immune status by requiring titers.  You can't.  You can OBSERVE IT, which is not very useful, because we mostly already know what it is based on vaccine status.  Vaccine requirements are effective because they encourage people to vaccinate, not because there's something magic about going to school that suddenly makes you a hazard to the public.

 

I'm going to sleep.  You feel free to keep beating your head against this particular wall, just go back a few posts and read what I wrote through to here, then cycle back and start over. that ought to do it.

post #237 of 251
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

 

notes2.gif…………….mischievous.gif  (joking)

 

I only see two options:

 

1.  People are genuinely worried about effects of those who are non-immune to VAD being in school- which would include all people who are unimmunized and never had the disease, and some people who are immunized (chicken pox, flu, pertussis - all have issues with effectiveness).   If this is the case, testing for titres sounds acceptable - with a re-vaccination if titres are low - or applying for exemptions.  Cross your fingers that you live in a state with easy exemptions.

 

2.  It is not about immunity to VADs - it is about compliance and control.

 

 

You don't get it.  There is not a danger to a small percentage of non immune people in a population.  In small percentages non-immunity doesn't compromise herd immunity.  The percentage of people who don't develop immunity after vaccination is very, very small.  In these people re-vaccination is unlikely to help, unless the primary failure of the vaccine is due to an error like mis administering the vaccine or not adhering to the booster schedule.

 

Lack of immunity is a problem when it happens in larger percentages, because it compromises herd immunity.  The can happen when large percentages choose not to vaccinate or when small percentages choose not to vaccinate but cluster geographically.  People who are non immune due to primary vaccine failure are a smaller percentage and dont' cluster geographically (because they are randomly distributed) so it wouldn't apply to them.

 

There is not something magic about school.  Going to school without being vaccinated does not magically make you dangerous.  School requirements are a way to encourage vaccination, that's it.  It's a carrot/stick.  that's all.

post #238 of 251

Rrrrachel, I understand what you are saying, titers are really quite meaningless, you can be immune to a disease without evidence of antibodies because that disease was contracted naturally and the body developed cell mediated immunity. Vaccination can only provide a humoral (antibody mediated) immune response which we all know wanes and in some cases pretty quickly (mumps, pertussis, flu etc).

 

I have never had chicken pox even though I have been exposed countless times as a child and an adult. I might well no have varicella antibodies (no idea never tested and never will), but I certainly appear to be immune to chicken pox.

 

Frankly, I would be totally against schools requiring titer testing as proof of immunity, because it is not definitive proof by any means.

post #239 of 251
Well we agree, but for totally different reasons.
post #240 of 251
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

You're displaying a really fundamental misunderstanding of many of the concepts here.

 

Requiring titer results would change NOTHING about immune status.  nothing.  zero.  zip.  nada.  zilch.  bupkiss.  nien.  As such it would have NO influence on disease outbreaks.  please stop saying you can control immune status by requiring titers.  You can't.  You can OBSERVE IT, which is not very useful, because we mostly already know what it is based on vaccine status.  Vaccine requirements are effective because they encourage people to vaccinate, not because there's something magic about going to school that suddenly makes you a hazard to the public.

 

I'm going to sleep.  You feel free to keep beating your head against this particular wall, just go back a few posts and read what I wrote through to here, then cycle back and start over. that ought to do it.

 

 

"you can OBSERVE IT..."

 

Yes, and you can also deny the non-immune school entry to increase the immunity of the herd.  I'm using the SAME logic as you are re: vaccine mandates and how they pertain to public health. 

 

"which is not very useful"

 

It's not?  So immunity is not important? 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations Debate
This thread is locked  
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › Forced Vaccinations: Stepping into Eugenics?