Bioethicist says parents who don't vaccinate should face liability for consequences - Page 13 - Mothering Forums
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#361 of 412 Old 08-29-2013, 11:40 AM
 
dinahx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: earth
Posts: 2,144
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I have never had a parent ask me that, in that context, but I would absolutely answer honestly, even tho I believe it does put my family @ social risk (lynching, hysteria,, rejection).

I am pretty open about our journey & I can confidently say that everyone we socially contact on an intentional level is aware of our approach. I advise Vax'ing parents on brand selection even (mostly during flu season) & they often ask my personal choice & I totally answer honestly.

I find most mothers readily share this info.

I have had my child babysat in a house where the parents had carry permits & tho I did not like that aspect, my assessment of the entire situation was that it was safe. If something had happened to my child while there & there was not negligence in ownership, well it had been openly disclosed to me that there were firearms on the property.
applejuice likes this.
dinahx is offline  
#362 of 412 Old 08-29-2013, 11:56 AM - Thread Starter
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,228
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 88 Post(s)
HPV is SEXUALLY transmitted. I cannot catch it from you by sitting next to you or eating dinner with you.

The notion that I should somehow think its a reasonable assumption for me to make that if I send my child over for a play date that there's a chance you might have SEX with him is abhorrent. And illegal. You would go to jail.

But is it reasonable for me to expect that during a play date kids will play with toys together, share germs, not always wash their hands as much as they should, share drinks etc ? YES.

If any child in my home had lice I would ABSOLUTELY disclose that to a parent that called and asked for a play date. It's the responsible and considerate thing to do.

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#363 of 412 Old 08-29-2013, 12:03 PM
 
OrmEmbar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 392
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)

sorry this is long!

 

One of my issues with vaccination is that our medical system (and also the general public) has taken a much more casual stance identifying diseases for which children are vaccinated.  

- It seems to be assumed that if you've received the vaccines according to the recommended schedule that you are immune and therefore our population experiences a lack of proper diagnosis and isolation for these milder diseases.

In addition. . . 

- There is very little communication to parents about the fact that a child who has just received a live vaccine can transmit the virus to susceptible people.  

- There is rarely any education about how one can support a child's immune system once they've received the vaccine, so that the vaccination can confer immunity.  

   

Within this context it seems incredibly unethical to me to place blame for the spread of a disease on those who are not vaccinated.  Note that I am leaving out the huge elephant in the room called "most of our adult population is not up-to-date on their vaccinations".

 

Case in point:  One of my children, at age 2, had a very slight fever.  I thought it was because she was teething.  Then, after a bath, I noticed she had a splotchy rash at the nape of her neck.  

 

Since I make a point of being informed about the symptoms of childhood illnesses I recognized that she possibly had Rubella and promptly called the doctor to set up an appointment to get a diagnosis.  The advise nurse on the phone said it couldn't be rubella and that rashes are commonly associated with fevers, so no need for a doctor visit.  By the next morning the rash had travelled down the torso, in a typical rubella pattern.  My toddler didn't seem bothered by it and was still active, but I kept us isolated because I suspected the advice nurse was not recognizing rubella and I knew we shouldn't be coming in contact with pregnant women while contagious.  I called the doctor's office a 2nd time, expressing my concern that it was rubella and I wanted a positive diagnosis.  Again, I was told that it couldn't be rubella.  By the 3rd day the rash started fading so I took a couple pictures and phoned the DR's office a 3rd time with a different tactic.  This time, instead of describing symptoms, I said:  "My little one has not received the MMR vaccine yet and I believe she has rubella."  This time the nurse expressed tremendous concern and got me in to see the DR within 3 hours.  Of course, the rash had faded by then.  Luckily I had the pictures.  DR said it was definitely rubella and we ran titres later in the year which confirmed a good immune response and decent immunity.

 

After that, I spoke with a neighbor who also had a 2 year old (fully vaccinated according to CDC schedule). Their toddler had recently contracted rubella as well.  In fact, the timing suggested that DD contracted it from this neighbor child.  Did it ever occur to me to be upset with my neighbor to passing along the virus?  No.  But it did make me research symptoms of all the other VPDs again so that I could make a quick identification in case we were exposed to something else and the dr's office, again, had such a casual approach.

 

Interesting stuff to think about, but reality is so much more complicated than theory.

rachelsmama and kathymuggle like this.
OrmEmbar is offline  
#364 of 412 Old 08-29-2013, 12:05 PM - Thread Starter
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,228
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 88 Post(s)
" - I say all or PRIVATE! "

So your vote is for private then?

Say my husband has MRSA. I invite your child over and don't disclose it and your child contracts it and winds up hospitalized. That's ok in your book? Since using your logic, that's private medical information and NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS?

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#365 of 412 Old 08-29-2013, 12:22 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,819
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 73 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post

Except cervical and prostate cancer are not contagious to me or my child.

If you ask my child over for a play date and I say "Sure, but only if your children are up to date on their vaccines because I have a newborn at home or I'm pregnant." And you lie or mislead me into believing they are and my newborn dies or has to hospitalized and an outbreak is traced to your child, I most likely would win a lawsuit against you.
 
Personally, I would not lie to you.  In all probability I would answer you honestly, and we would skip the visit.  I am under no obligation to answer you, however, and if I got a bad vibe from you for one reason or another, I would tell you to mind your own business, and you could infer from that as you will.  I imagine there would be no playdate.
I personally believe excluding someone (at a private function) is often a very fear based and illogical decision that shows poor risk assessment.   However, you (general you) are entitled to your fear-based decision, so I would not lie.  
 

There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#366 of 412 Old 08-29-2013, 12:34 PM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,012
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrmEmbar View Post

sorry this is long!

 

One of my issues with vaccination is that our medical system (and also the general public) has taken a much more casual stance identifying diseases for which children are vaccinated.  

- It seems to be assumed that if you've received the vaccines according to the recommended schedule that you are immune and therefore our population experiences a lack of proper diagnosis and isolation for these milder diseases.

In addition. . . 

- There is very little communication to parents about the fact that a child who has just received a live vaccine can transmit the virus to susceptible people.  

- There is rarely any education about how one can support a child's immune system once they've received the vaccine, so that the vaccination can confer immunity.  

   

Within this context it seems incredibly unethical to me to place blame for the spread of a disease on those who are not vaccinated.  Note that I am leaving out the huge elephant in the room called "most of our adult population is not up-to-date on their vaccinations".

 

Case in point:  One of my children, at age 2, had a very slight fever.  I thought it was because she was teething.  Then, after a bath, I noticed she had a splotchy rash at the nape of her neck.  

 

Since I make a point of being informed about the symptoms of childhood illnesses I recognized that she possibly had Rubella and promptly called the doctor to set up an appointment to get a diagnosis.  The advise nurse on the phone said it couldn't be rubella and that rashes are commonly associated with fevers, so no need for a doctor visit.  By the next morning the rash had travelled down the torso, in a typical rubella pattern.  My toddler didn't seem bothered by it and was still active, but I kept us isolated because I suspected the advice nurse was not recognizing rubella and I knew we shouldn't be coming in contact with pregnant women while contagious.  I called the doctor's office a 2nd time, expressing my concern that it was rubella and I wanted a positive diagnosis.  Again, I was told that it couldn't be rubella.  By the 3rd day the rash started fading so I took a couple pictures and phoned the DR's office a 3rd time with a different tactic.  This time, instead of describing symptoms, I said:  "My little one has not received the MMR vaccine yet and I believe she has rubella."  This time the nurse expressed tremendous concern and got me in to see the DR within 3 hours.  Of course, the rash had faded by then.  Luckily I had the pictures.  DR said it was definitely rubella and we ran titres later in the year which confirmed a good immune response and decent immunity.

 

After that, I spoke with a neighbor who also had a 2 year old (fully vaccinated according to CDC schedule). Their toddler had recently contracted rubella as well.  In fact, the timing suggested that DD contracted it from this neighbor child.  Did it ever occur to me to be upset with my neighbor to passing along the virus?  No.  But it did make me research symptoms of all the other VPDs again so that I could make a quick identification in case we were exposed to something else and the dr's office, again, had such a casual approach.

 

Interesting stuff to think about, but reality is so much more complicated than theory.

yes, it's called life and if you want to be sue/law happy you send your $$$ -if someone told me they were one way and it turned out they weren't - it's words against words, a smart attorney will tell you that you have NO case (nothing was in writing) and you really can't disprove what they told you - a bad attorney will tell you that your case is strong and take you and your money for a long ride

 

a too sanitized world (based on a big dose of fear) doesn't help the immune system function as it was meant to be - society has made it thus far (even with massive plagues) because the immune system is suppose work as intended - in the end a lawsuit won't change the immune system and if you think it will stop people from lying you have bigger problems than the unvaced child - make all the laws you want, that also does not change things, feel~good fear based justice has never worked in the past-IMO


 

 pro-transparency advocate

&

lurk.gif  PROUD member of the .3% club!

 

Want to join? Just ask me!

 

"You know, in my day we used to sit on our ass smoking Parliaments for nine months.

Today, you have one piece of Brie and everybody goes berserk."      ROTFLMAO.gif 

serenbat is offline  
#367 of 412 Old 08-29-2013, 12:35 PM
 
rachelsmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia
Posts: 1,553
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post


If you ask my child over for a play date and I say "Sure, but only if your children are up to date on their vaccines because I have a newborn at home or I'm pregnant." And you lie or mislead me into believing they are and my newborn dies or has to hospitalized and an outbreak is traced to your child, I most likely would win a lawsuit against you.

 

Honestly, from the sounds of it, you grossly over-rate the amount of protection your child gets from other people's vaccinations.  Yes, it would be unethical for somebody to lie, but if you're so paranoid about contagious diseases that you feel the need to pry into people's medical history, then maybe you need to avoid socialising.  If you said, "Sure, but my baby is at an immunologically vulnerable stage, so if there is any chance you could be currently contagious with anything, please cancel" you would get a much more relevant answer, without prying into details.

rachelsmama is offline  
#368 of 412 Old 08-29-2013, 12:39 PM
 
OrmEmbar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 392
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post

" - I say all or PRIVATE! "

So your vote is for private then?

Say my husband has MRSA. I invite your child over and don't disclose it and your child contracts it and winds up hospitalized. That's ok in your book? Since using your logic, that's private medical information and NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS?

All the more reason to work on being part of a healthy, resilient community and fostering strong friendships that feel emotionally safe for open communication.  Is see that as a much better approach to the safety of my children than requiring identification for those who are un-vaxxed.  (to bring it back to the original topic)

OrmEmbar is offline  
#369 of 412 Old 08-29-2013, 12:40 PM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,012
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by rachelsmama View Post

Honestly, from the sounds of it, you grossly over-rate the amount of protection your child gets from other people's vaccinations.  Yes, it would be unethical for somebody to lie, but if you're so paranoid about contagious diseases that you feel the need to pry into people's medical history, then maybe you need to avoid socialising.  If you said, "Sure, but my baby is at an immunologically vulnerable stage, so if there is any chance you could be currently contagious with anything, please cancel" you would get a much more relevant answer, without prying into details.

and IF you are so in fear of you babies stage - very simple - don't socialize - they don't need anyway 


 

 pro-transparency advocate

&

lurk.gif  PROUD member of the .3% club!

 

Want to join? Just ask me!

 

"You know, in my day we used to sit on our ass smoking Parliaments for nine months.

Today, you have one piece of Brie and everybody goes berserk."      ROTFLMAO.gif 

serenbat is offline  
#370 of 412 Old 08-29-2013, 12:45 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,819
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 73 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post

" - I say all or PRIVATE! "

So your vote is for private then?

Say my husband has MRSA. I invite your child over and don't disclose it and your child contracts it and winds up hospitalized. That's ok in your book? Since using your logic, that's private medical information and NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS?

Here is the thing:  unvaxxed children are not sick.  

 

Someone with an MRSA has an MRSA

 

It is possible, legally, that you straight up do not have to tell me there is an MRSA in your household.  I would need to look into that.  

 

Ethically, I think you should inform someone of an illness so they can decide whether or not to risk contact.

 

_______________

 

"This is Johnny.  Johnny is not vaxxed.  He is not sick at all and has not been in contact with anyone who is sick.  In the incredibly unlikely occurrence of a VAD outbreak (pertussis and flu excluded, as those are fairly lousy vaccines) he might be slightly more likely to get the VAD than vaccinated individuals - or should I say vaccinated children -  as most adults are not up to date on their vaccines.  You are slightly more likely to get hit by lightening twice (1/9 000 000 risk) than get diphtheria, polio and a number of other diseases from my child, but feel free to excuse us from your activities.  Call it what it is though - a form of discrimination or social engineering to get people to VAX.  If you stick to "oh my goodness - you could give me a disease!" you will look like a moron as CDC stats show most vaccinatable diseases are quite rare."

rachelsmama likes this.

There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#371 of 412 Old 08-29-2013, 12:53 PM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,012
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

Here is the thing:  unvaxxed children are not sick.  

 

Someone with an MRSA has an MRSA

 

It is possible, legally, that you straight up do not have to tell me there is an MRSA in your household.  I would need to look into that.  

 

Ethically, I think you should inform someone of an illness so they can decide whether or not to risk contact.

 

_______________

 

"This is Johnny.  Johnny is not vaxxed.  He is not sick at all and has not been in contact with anyone who is sick.  In the incredibly unlikely occurrence of a VAD outbreak (pertussis and flu excluded, as those are fairly lousy vaccines) he might be slightly more likely to get the VAD than vaccinated individuals - or should I say vaccinated children -  as most adults are not up to date on their vaccines.  You are slightly more likely to get hit by lightening twice (1/9 000 000 risk) than get diphtheria, polio and a number of other diseases from my child, but feel free to excuse us from your activities.  Call it what it is though - a form of discrimination or social engineering to get people to VAX.  If you stick to "oh my goodness - you could give me a disease!" you will look like a moron as CDC stats show most vaccinatable diseases are quite rare."

you really are being nice here -

 

 

If someone has MRSA and they are dumb enough to be inviting company over, they have more problems than the MRSA IMO.

 

IF someone has MRSA - they are the ones that should not be around others - not socializing, same with those who have sever immune issue, it is for their benefit to keep isolated, not that you are protecting others, you are protecting the person who is weak and can catch more- thus people use to know what diseases were and how to treat them, a long time ago this thing called staying home and bed rest use to be used for a reason and you didn't invite others over either!

 

for the record, I don't allow my child over to people's homes I don't trust 101%


 

 pro-transparency advocate

&

lurk.gif  PROUD member of the .3% club!

 

Want to join? Just ask me!

 

"You know, in my day we used to sit on our ass smoking Parliaments for nine months.

Today, you have one piece of Brie and everybody goes berserk."      ROTFLMAO.gif 

serenbat is offline  
#372 of 412 Old 08-29-2013, 12:56 PM
 
OrmEmbar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 392
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)

I am having a hard time with some of the terms being used in posts.  "anti vax people"  "pro-vaxers"  This way of using language makes it easy to mentally dismiss the discussion contributions of those who have a different world-view than one's self.  It is a way of constructing a devision between "self" and "other" or "my tribe" and "your tribe".  

 

Frankly, we're all in this world together and I love to hear views that are different from my world view.  I find it educational and expansive.  But - reading comments that are dismissive and contain the above terms makes me feel less open to reading the posts.  

 

I know quite a few families that have had different approaches to vaccination according to the needs of each child.  Decisions made with the advice of their doctor.  These families would not fit into either the pro or the anti label.  Then there are many who delay or chose some vaccines and not others.  How would they be categorized?  

 

I think we can move forward with discussing information and ideas without using labels.  Especially ones that are so narrow that they most likely apply to only a tiny fraction of those participating in this discussion.

rachelsmama and prosciencemum like this.
OrmEmbar is offline  
#373 of 412 Old 08-29-2013, 01:03 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,819
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 73 Post(s)

I will also say, fwiw, that the fear of being sued (if I thought it was likely to happen to me - which I don't) would not induce me to vaccinate.  I am deeply concerned about the wisdom of infants undergoing the full vaccination schedule.  I am not convinced it is safe.  

 

I put health above almost everything else - including money.  

 

A question for any vaxxers - would the threat of being sued (perhaps because live vaccines can shed) deter you from vaxxing?

applejuice likes this.

There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#374 of 412 Old 08-29-2013, 01:12 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,819
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 73 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrmEmbar View Post

I am having a hard time with some of the terms being used in posts.  "anti vax people"  "pro-vaxers"  This way of using language makes it easy to mentally dismiss the discussion contributions of those who have a different world-view than one's self.  It is a way of constructing a devision between "self" and "other" or "my tribe" and "your tribe".  

 

 

Well, many non-vaxxers have asked to be called "non vaxxers" as opposed to anti vax - but that is regularly ignored.
 
I rarely see people who advocate for vaccines complain about the term pro-vax (and it is their job to communicate unhappiness with the term if they dislike it).  I am not sure what other term to use?
 
I suppose we could skip labels all together.  It would take a concerted effort and consensus by all parties (or more modding - which the mods would love, lol) - and I don't think it is realistic at this point. Baby steps to more acceptable labels might work.  I think this would make a good spin-off.   My 2 cents.  

There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#375 of 412 Old 08-29-2013, 01:39 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 156
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by rachelsmama View Post

Honestly, from the sounds of it, you grossly over-rate the amount of protection your child gets from other people's vaccinations.  Yes, it would be unethical for somebody to lie, but if you're so paranoid about contagious diseases that you feel the need to pry into people's medical history, then maybe you need to avoid socialising.  If you said, "Sure, but my baby is at an immunologically vulnerable stage, so if there is any chance you could be currently contagious with anything, please cancel" you would get a much more relevant answer, without prying into details.


The protection against diseases by vaccines is well documented. An unvaccinated child is 35 times more likely to get measles than a vaccinated child http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=190649 That's huge and not bigger because of herd immunization, lower vaccination rates would likely make this number higher.

 

For Pertusiss an unvaccinated child is at least 8 times more likely http://www.cdc.gov/pertussis/about/faqs.html  to get the disease than a vaccinated child (one study argues 23 times http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/123/6/1446.full.pdf+html )

teacozy likes this.
bakunin is offline  
#376 of 412 Old 08-29-2013, 01:47 PM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,012
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrmEmbar View Post

I am having a hard time with some of the terms being used in posts.  "anti vax people"  "pro-vaxers"  This way of using language makes it easy to mentally dismiss the discussion contributions of those who have a different world-view than one's self.  It is a way of constructing a devision between "self" and "other" or "my tribe" and "your tribe".  

 

Frankly, we're all in this world together and I love to hear views that are different from my world view.  I find it educational and expansive.  But - reading comments that are dismissive and contain the above terms makes me feel less open to reading the posts.  

 

I know quite a few families that have had different approaches to vaccination according to the needs of each child.  Decisions made with the advice of their doctor.  These families would not fit into either the pro or the anti label.  Then there are many who delay or chose some vaccines and not others.  How would they be categorized?  

 

I think we can move forward with discussing information and ideas without using labels.  Especially ones that are so narrow that they most likely apply to only a tiny fraction of those participating in this discussion.

yeahthat.gif 

sadly there needs to be labels, select/delay really are not up-to-date according to some and let's not forget - visitors, those on here I am thinking of from England who's children are "not up to date" according to what some states require for school, and again, no federal "requirements" means if changes from state to state - do we issue these "labels" at state line? do we let the little  English baby play with the US baby when the English one hasn't had it's HepB at birth?

 

who gets to judge you? the OP or someone who will look more strictly and say they won't except one's family reason over the "good" of others -select- nope, not good enough!

 

Reminds me a lot of -        "first they came for........."        and in the end we see no one is left to speak up!

rachelsmama and kathymuggle like this.

 

 pro-transparency advocate

&

lurk.gif  PROUD member of the .3% club!

 

Want to join? Just ask me!

 

"You know, in my day we used to sit on our ass smoking Parliaments for nine months.

Today, you have one piece of Brie and everybody goes berserk."      ROTFLMAO.gif 

serenbat is offline  
#377 of 412 Old 08-29-2013, 01:54 PM
 
dinahx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: earth
Posts: 2,144
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by bakunin View Post


The protection against diseases by vaccines is well documented. An unvaccinated child is 35 times more likely to get measles than a vaccinated child http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=190649 That's huge and not bigger because of herd immunization, lower vaccination rates would likely make this number higher.

For Pertusiss an unvaccinated child is at least 8 times more likely http://www.cdc.gov/pertussis/about/faqs.html  to get the disease than a vaccinated child (one study argues 23 times http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/123/6/1446.full.pdf+html )

Thanks for giving us such a clear example of how numbers can be quite misleading when taken out of context. 35x more likely to sounds scary, except when you stop to consider that because the MMR Vax series is held to be 99% effective against Measles, in a country with uptake rates above 90% nearly everywhere, a child exposed to MMR should be virtually gauranteed not to contract measles.

Pertussis is more likely for either child to contract, which is why 8x more likely really only speaks to lower Vax efficacy & greater disease prevalence.
applejuice likes this.
dinahx is offline  
#378 of 412 Old 08-29-2013, 02:09 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 156
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by dinahx View Post


Thanks for giving us such a clear example of how numbers can be quite misleading when taken out of context. 35x more likely to sounds scary, except when you stop to consider that because the MMR Vax series is held to be 99% effective against Measles, in a country with uptake rates above 90% nearly everywhere, a child exposed to MMR should be virtually gauranteed not to contract measles.

Pertussis is more likely for either child to contract, which is why 8x more likely really only speaks to lower Vax efficacy & greater disease prevalence.

According to CDC "More than 95% of the people who receive a single dose of MMR will develop immunity to all 3 viruses. A second vaccine dose gives immunity to almost all of those who did not respond to the first dose." that sounds like a big difference.

 

It appears to me you basically conclude that the 35x factor is misleading mainly because it's too big? When you state "in a country with uptake rates above 90% nearly everywhere, a child exposed to MMR should be virtually gauranteed not to contract measles" well, that's one of the goals: herd immunization. Still the over 95% effectiveness leads me to believe that if vaccinations rates were to continue to down, the 35x factor will only go up, not down!!

 

Besides, an 8x factor is still worth being noted!!

teacozy likes this.
bakunin is offline  
#379 of 412 Old 08-29-2013, 02:19 PM
 
dinahx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: earth
Posts: 2,144
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I am saying that 35X completely statistically unlikely is still fairly unlikely.

Whereas 8x pretty likely would be yk, more likely.

But 35x would appear to a casual reader to be the greater danger.
applejuice likes this.
dinahx is offline  
#380 of 412 Old 08-29-2013, 02:23 PM - Thread Starter
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,228
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 88 Post(s)
I don't have time to respond to everyone, we are going out of town tomorrow and still have laundry to do and bags to pack!

Obviously I would never let a child near my husband if he had MRSA. It was to illustrate how ridiculous bats position was that you have to either share everything or nothing.

Many people don't want unvaccinated children around their newborns, it's not a radical concept and I do strongly believe in herd immunity. Science and data are on my side on this one.

This whole notion that as long as your kids don't look sick they aren't contagious is baffling. Many many VPDs are the most contagious before any symptoms appear. So just asking if any of your children look sick isn't enough IMO.

I find it pretty funny that so many anti vaxers are worried about catching something from a vaccine shedding which is almost unheard of in healthy person. Are they mild childhood diseases or aren't they? The chance of my newborn catching measles from your unvaccinated child is many many many times higher than the risk of your child contracting measles from the vaccine. But I'm the crazy one, of course eyesroll.gif

No snark, I'd really like to see an instance of where a measles outbreak occurred from someone contracting measles from a vaccine shedding.

From what I've read, the measles vaccine only gives you a measles like rash that's not itchy or contagious to other people.

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#381 of 412 Old 08-29-2013, 02:34 PM - Thread Starter
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,228
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 88 Post(s)
"Viral Shedding and Live Vaccines

Viral shedding, in which someone becomes contagious and can pass a virus to someone else, is sometimes a concern when parents think about live vaccines.

Fortunately, viral shedding is not usually a problem because:

the MMR vaccine doesn't cause shedding
the chicken pox vaccine can rarely cause shedding if a child develops a vesicular rash after getting vaccinated, but can be avoided by avoiding direct contact with the rash
the rotavirus vaccine only causes shedding in stool, so can be avoided with routine hygiene techniques, such as good hand washing, and if immunocompromised people avoid diaper changes, etc., for at least a week after a child gets a rotavirus vaccine
transmission of the live, nasal spray flu vaccine has not been found in several settings, including people with HIV infection, children getting chemotherapy, and immunocompromised people in health-care settings"


Another concern for parents is whether healthy children should get live vaccines if they will be exposed to someone else who has a problem with their immune system. Fortunately, except for OPV and the smallpox vaccine, which aren't typically used, children who live with someone who has an immunologic deficiency can get most vaccines in the routine childhood immunization schedule, such as MMR, Varivax, and the rotavirus vaccines. "



http://pediatrics.about.com/od/immunizations/a/live-vaccines.htm

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#382 of 412 Old 08-29-2013, 02:47 PM
 
rachelsmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia
Posts: 1,553
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post



I find it pretty funny that so many anti vaxers are worried about catching something from a vaccine shedding which is almost unheard of in healthy person. Are they mild childhood diseases or aren't they? The chance of my newborn catching measles from your unvaccinated child is many many many times higher than the risk of your child contracting measles from the vaccine. But I'm the crazy one, of course eyesroll.gif

 

I can't speak for anybody else, and since I'm not anti-vax I might not be who you're talking about, but when I point out the fact that people who recently received a live vax have the potential to shed it's not because I fear them, I really don't, it's because in most regions the chances that an unvaccinated person will ever be carrying M, M or R is pretty small, but there's a relatively high chance that somebody who is recently vaccinated will be shedding for a while, even if the chances of transmission are small.  So it seems a bit out of proportion to make such a very big deal about the very small chances that an unvaccinated person could be carrying a disease and completely ignore the hordes of kids running around who actually are carrying.

rachelsmama is offline  
#383 of 412 Old 08-29-2013, 02:59 PM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Outside the hive mind
Posts: 7,296
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post


I find it pretty funny that so many anti vaxers are worried about catching something from a vaccine shedding which is almost unheard of in healthy person. Are they mild childhood diseases or aren't they? The chance of my newborn catching measles from your unvaccinated child is many many many times higher than the risk of your child contracting measles from the vaccine. But I'm the crazy one, of course eyesroll.gif

 

 

First I am not anti vax, I am pro health freedom, and the right to refuse all medical treatments, including vaccines, if I don't want them or want my children to have them. I personally couldn't care less if people choose to vaccinate for whatever reason, that is their choice.

 

I am not in the least bit concerned with sheading vaccines, if my children caught measles from a recently vaccinated child, so beit, I do not fear mealses.


Rainbow.giftstillheart.gifsmile.gif

 

"If you find from your own experience that something is a fact and it contradicts what some authority has written down, then you must abandon the authority and base your reasoning on your own findings"~ Leonardo da Vinci

Mirzam is online now  
#384 of 412 Old 08-29-2013, 04:16 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,085
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by bakunin View Post

According to CDC "More than 95% of the people who receive a single dose of MMR will develop immunity to all 3 viruses. A second vaccine dose gives immunity to almost all of those who did not respond to the first dose." that sounds like a big difference.

That means that 95% of the people who get a second MMR DIDN'T NEED ONE.
Taximom5 is online now  
#385 of 412 Old 08-29-2013, 04:25 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 156
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post


That means that 95% of the people who get a second MMR DIDN'T NEED ONE.

Not quite. You might not need it for measles, but one would still need to consider the other two diseases. What it does mean is that one is MUCH safer from measles with the vaccine

bakunin is offline  
#386 of 412 Old 08-29-2013, 04:54 PM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,012
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post

I don't have time to respond to everyone, we are going out of town tomorrow and still have laundry to do and bags to pack!

Obviously I would never let a child near my husband if he had MRSA. It was to illustrate how ridiculous SERENbats position was that you have to either share everything or nothing. (you totally missed my point!)

Many people don't want unvaccinated children around their newborns, it's not a radical concept and I do strongly believe in herd immunity. Science and data are on my side on this one.

This whole notion that as long as your kids don't look sick they aren't contagious is baffling. Many many VPDs are the most contagious before any symptoms appear. So just asking if any of your children look sick isn't enough IMO.

I find it pretty funny that so many anti vaxers are worried about catching something from a vaccine shedding which is almost unheard of in healthy person.(is this dig meant at me?- if so you are not even on the correct thread here! - in the "Right to know" you obviously did not read what I posted to draw this conclusion-no where have I read anti vaxer are "worried" ) Are they mild childhood diseases or aren't they? The chance of my newborn catching measles from your unvaccinated child is many many many times higher than the risk of your child contracting measles from the vaccine. But I'm the crazy one, of course eyesroll.gif

No snark, I'd really like to see an instance of where a measles outbreak occurred from someone contracting measles from a vaccine shedding.

From what I've read, the measles vaccine only gives you a measles like rash that's not itchy or contagious to other people.

it's one thing to deflect when your position isn't popular (far from it in this thread) it's another to not read but only to read in what suites your agenda

 

really, if one is soooooo worried about their newborn, do what is prudent, don't go out in public with a week old infant for shopping or dinner, etc and know that the common cold (NOT just a VPD) can KILL a young child and there is not vac for that

 

so worried about measles - stay away and keep your child at home until it's vaccinated - very simply, allow only those who can show you documentation to visit ( I can guarantee we don't come visit you)

 

when a very unpopular label/branding gets floated around it usually (in my experience) comes from a deep paranoia that statically is unfounded - just how many young under the age of vaccination children die each year form the un-vax child?

A young unvac baby has a far GREATER death chance from OTHER things, NOT unvaccinated children - page 13 if you care to read it (no where did I see measles listed) - 

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_07.pdf

 

Congenital malformations, deformations and chromosomal abnormalities ................................(Q00–Q99)

Disorders related to short gestation and low birth weight, notelsewhereclassified .............................(P07)

Suddeninfantdeathsyndrome..........................(R95)

Newborn affected by maternal complications of pregnancy . . . . . . . . .

(P01) Accidents(unintentionalinjuries) ......................

(V01–X59) Newborn affected by complications of placenta, cord and membranes . .

(P02) Bacterialsepsisofnewborn ...........................

(P36) Respiratorydistressofnewborn .........................

(P22) Diseasesofthecirculatorysystem .....................

(I00–I99) Neonatalhemorrhage ............. 

 

rachelsmama and Jennyanydots like this.

 

 pro-transparency advocate

&

lurk.gif  PROUD member of the .3% club!

 

Want to join? Just ask me!

 

"You know, in my day we used to sit on our ass smoking Parliaments for nine months.

Today, you have one piece of Brie and everybody goes berserk."      ROTFLMAO.gif 

serenbat is offline  
#387 of 412 Old 08-29-2013, 06:08 PM
 
emmy526's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,640
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by bakunin View Post
 

Not quite. You might not need it for measles, but one would still need to consider the other two diseases. What it does mean is that one is MUCH safer from measles with the vaccine

the vaccine is not always  a guarantee

 

Quote:
Dallas County Health and Human Services says one unvaccinated child traveled to another county in May, got measles, then came back and infected a 14-year-old sibling who was vaccinated.


Read more: http://www.myfoxdfw.com/story/23159272/statewide-health-alert-issued-in-texas-for-measles#ixzz2dPUc6FFQ

 

and please do not patronize those of us by saying his immunity 'must have worn off'

applejuice likes this.
emmy526 is online now  
#388 of 412 Old 08-29-2013, 06:17 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 156
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by emmy526 View Post
 

the vaccine is not always  a guarantee

 


Read more: http://www.myfoxdfw.com/story/23159272/statewide-health-alert-issued-in-texas-for-measles#ixzz2dPUc6FFQ

 

and please do not patronize those of us by saying his immunity 'must have worn off'

MUCH safer, does not imply guarantee. Otherwise the statement would say "100% of the people who receive a single dose of MMR will develop immunity" instead of 95%:eyesroll

bakunin is offline  
#389 of 412 Old 08-29-2013, 06:24 PM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,012
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)

many birth controls have a higher effective rate - http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/unintendedpregnancy/contraception.htm

 

life is no guarantee either

 

fully vac and re-booster and make sure everyone in your bubble is up-to-date and have a car accident and die - those odds are greater 


 

 pro-transparency advocate

&

lurk.gif  PROUD member of the .3% club!

 

Want to join? Just ask me!

 

"You know, in my day we used to sit on our ass smoking Parliaments for nine months.

Today, you have one piece of Brie and everybody goes berserk."      ROTFLMAO.gif 

serenbat is offline  
#390 of 412 Old 08-29-2013, 07:34 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,819
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 73 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post



This whole notion that as long as your kids don't look sick they aren't contagious is baffling. Many many VPDs are the most contagious before any symptoms appear. So just asking if any of your children look sick isn't enough IMO.
Of course people can have something and be contagious before they show symptoms
When I said unvaxxed kids are not sick with a VAD, it is because typically, they are not.  The average number of cases of measles per year in the USA is around 60.  So, 60/300 000 000.  Big, big risk - Not.  Now, you could argue that measles vaccination keeps the rate low, but that is completely beside the point where current risk assessment in concerned.   The average unvaxxed child today poses almost no threat to your family.  Of course, prevalence varies according to disease - some have a lower risk than measles, and some are higher - but the higher ones tends to have less effective vaccines, period (hence the high prevalence) in which case you might want to limit newborn solialising anyways.  


I find it pretty funny that so many anti vaxers are worried about catching something from a vaccine shedding which is almost unheard of in healthy person. Are they mild childhood diseases or aren't they? The chance of my newborn catching measles from your unvaccinated child is many many many times higher than the risk of your child contracting measles from the vaccine. But I'm the crazy one, of course eyesroll.gif
Did someone say you are crazy?  Are you saying non-vaxxers are?  In any event - I do not worry about live viruses much.  I would if I were immunocompromised and living in a house with a young child vaccinated on schedule.  I bring it up because I think it is hypocritical when people claim non-vaxxers are putting others at risk, when they themselves do things that put others at risk.  


 

k.

rachelsmama, Marnica and BeckyBird like this.

There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off