the decsion to vaccinate or not should only have natural consequences. - Page 4 - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#91 of 106 Old 02-15-2014, 12:13 PM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,265
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 76 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by erigeron View Post
 

I don't agree. Flu is a serious threat to many hospitalized patients. The risk of side effects from the vaccine pales in comparison to the risks of the flu for this population. If a person in healthcare is unwilling to take this risk for the sake of their patients, I don't really want that person caring for a newborn or a pneumonia patient or a person on chemo or with lung disease or ??? They should get a job working with a patient population that is less at risk if this is such a big deal to them. It's not just about yourself anymore in that line of work. 

that would be fine if the vaccine worked, it simply is not working

 

it's been pointed out several times on here and elsewhere about how problematic the vaccines is, you don't know you even have in most cases and you can still spreading it

 

 

http://www.nbcnews.com/health/cold-flu/flu-shot-fail-why-doesnt-vaccine-always-work-n21446

Mirzam, BeckyBird and Taximom5 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  
#92 of 106 Old 02-15-2014, 12:54 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,126
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by erigeron View Post
 

I don't agree. Flu is a serious threat to many hospitalized patients. The risk of side effects from the vaccine pales in comparison to the risks of the flu for this population. If a person in healthcare is unwilling to take this risk for the sake of their patients, I don't really want that person caring for a newborn or a pneumonia patient or a person on chemo or with lung disease or ??? They should get a job working with a patient population that is less at risk if this is such a big deal to them. It's not just about yourself anymore in that line of work. 

 

 

First of all, it's ridiculous to compare the risk of side effects of a vaccine that doesn't work with the side effects of a disease that is overly-diagnosed (without lab confirmation).

Second of all, the Cochrane Review has already looked at all the available studies--including the industry-funded ones--and concluded that there is no evidence that vaccinating health care workers results in any improved outcomes for their patients: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23881655

 

Why on earth would you expect or even want a health care worker to take on ANY risk when there is no evidence of efficacy?

Taximom5 is offline  
#93 of 106 Old 02-15-2014, 01:04 PM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,265
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 76 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post
 

 

 

First of all, it's ridiculous to compare the risk of side effects of a vaccine that doesn't work with the side effects of a disease that is overly-diagnosed (without lab confirmation).

Second of all, the Cochrane Review has already looked at all the available studies--including the industry-funded ones--and concluded that there is no evidence that vaccinating health care workers results in any improved outcomes for their patients: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23881655

 

Why on earth would you expect or even want a health care worker to take on ANY risk when there is no evidence of efficacy?

I feel it's "feel-good" medicine as in the recent study on the effectiveness of mammograms, no matter what, some people are under the impression ENOUGH isn't being done unless SOMETHING is done even if the evidence coming out doesn't support it - IF you don't vac all health care workers for EVERYTHING no matter what, you are not doing all you can, it's been said by others that support vaccines, you do until they say other wise, this is the best we know so far! - that is how I interrupt the post by erigeron

BeckyBird likes 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  
#94 of 106 Old 02-15-2014, 02:17 PM
 
fisherfamily's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 363
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I am wondering if people just aren't responsible. What if a person could be liable for spreading disease? It would have to be for any disease, not just vpd. Obviously, it would be hard to prove, because then perhaps lab tests would have to be ordered etc. But, if there were consequences for spreading disease, then maybe the unnatural consequences wouldn't be so necessary. A friend told us she was sure her son had measles. Know what we did? We stayed home for three full weeks, even from the people who were exposed the same time we were. Not everyone did, and that upset me. I felt like they were being reckless. My dd was slobber sharing toys with the boy the day he came down with a fever. So, we stayed put. (And, no, we didn't get measles.)
fisherfamily is offline  
#95 of 106 Old 02-15-2014, 02:51 PM
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,345
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post
 

 


Second of all, the Cochrane Review has already looked at all the available studies--including the industry-funded ones--and concluded that there is no evidence that vaccinating health care workers results in any improved outcomes for their patients: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23881655

That study is only relating to transmissiom to residents of long-term care over age 60.

 

And just b/c the vax doesn't work as well as we would like doesn't mean it doesn't work. 

 

Sorry so brief, one arm devoted to holding baby.

chickabiddy likes this.
erigeron is offline  
#96 of 106 Old 02-15-2014, 03:26 PM
 
kiachu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 73
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by erigeron View Post

That study is only relating to transmissiom to residents of long-term care over age 60.

And just b/c the vax doesn't work as well as we would like doesn't mean it doesn't work. 

Sorry so brief, one arm devoted to holding baby.

I would like a broader study that also includes ICU, NICU, Hospice and general immunocompromised populations before I would make a decleration that the outcome is not changed and the vaccines doea not work at all.
kiachu is offline  
#97 of 106 Old 02-15-2014, 03:46 PM
 
ss834's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 301
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by FisherFamily View Post

I am wondering if people just aren't responsible. What if a person could be liable for spreading disease? It would have to be for any disease, not just vpd. Obviously, it would be hard to prove, because then perhaps lab tests would have to be ordered etc. But, if there were consequences for spreading disease, then maybe the unnatural consequences wouldn't be so necessary. A friend told us she was sure her son had measles. Know what we did? We stayed home for three full weeks, even from the people who were exposed the same time we were. Not everyone did, and that upset me. I felt like they were being reckless. My dd was slobber sharing toys with the boy the day he came down with a fever. So, we stayed put. (And, no, we didn't get measles.)

 

People have brought up this liability issue with vpd's specifically. Why only vpds? I'm pretty sure it's because the preponderance of the evidence would have to show negligence, and presumably the laws would determine not vaccinating as a clear sign of negligence.

 

For other illnesses, it's difficult to show that the person who transmitted disease was negligent without legally defining certain acts as negligent. Being irresponsible (not washing your hands) just isn't legally punishable except maybe in some settings like food service or hospitals. Also, many diseases are transmissible before the person knows they have it.It would be too challenging to prove negligence unless specific actions were previously defined, and it was fairly easy to show that the act was committed. Failing to self-quarantine for 3 weeks after a possible exposure and without a government recommendation isn't unusually reckless-- as you witnessed, most people won't self-quarantine.

 

I think in some cases spreading STDs can be considered criminal assault if the person who spreads it has previous knowledge. That's obviously not comparable to a highly contagious airborne disease like measles.

ss834 is offline  
#98 of 106 Old 02-15-2014, 04:01 PM
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,058
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 30 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by erigeron View Post

That study is only relating to transmissiom to residents of long-term care over age 60.

 

And just b/c the vax doesn't work as well as we would like doesn't mean it doesn't work. 

 

Sorry so brief, one arm devoted to holding baby.

 



That's not a reason to dismiss it, particularly since the elderly and hospitalized patients are both vulnerable populations. What would be the relevant difference? I do think, however, that there is stronger evidence to cite in this context. This study also focuses on the elderly: http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2013/09/analysis-finds-limited-evidence-hcw-flu-vaccination

Again, that whole it-sucks-but-it's-the-best-we-can-do argument, (reflected even in the article above), is not a valid reason to blackmail employees into consenting to vaccination.

ETA: If a HCW is ever caught neglecting to wash hands after using the restroom or between surgeries, I'd lead the charge to get that person fired. Neglecting hygiene in this manner is a surefire way to spread a LOT of different diseases. But for a vaccine that may or may not work on only 3-4 strains of one illness? Absurd.

When this scientifically controversial, forced vaccination has no place in health care settings.

In God we trust; all others must show data. selectivevax.gifsurf.gifteapot2.GIFintactivist.gif
Turquesa is offline  
#99 of 106 Old 02-15-2014, 04:05 PM
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,058
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 30 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post

 

Given that those vaccinated for whooping cough can still be colonized for up to 35 days without symptoms, you cannot know who is a potential carrier - do you close the whole school? During the outbreak at my DD's school, there was no suggestion of sending kids home with prophylactic antibiotics which strikes me as very heavy-handed and unethical if forced on people.

 



Agreed on the ABX. Whether or not the school closes, my vaccinated children would definitely stay home.

In God we trust; all others must show data. selectivevax.gifsurf.gifteapot2.GIFintactivist.gif
Turquesa is offline  
#100 of 106 Old 02-15-2014, 04:12 PM
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,058
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 30 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ss834 View Post

To answer your question: not necessarily schools and daycares, universities, too. I would say workplaces, except I have never heard of it happening. Hospitals obviously remain open during disease outbreaks (but unvaccinated people might be treated differently upon arriving at the hospital). So just those places that are likely to be shut down during some kind of outbreak, whichever institutions have a history of such closures/quarantines.

 

I agree with you about pertussis, and meningitis is another one that should be automatic school closure. No one should be going to school during those outbreaks.

To address your last point, another benefit of quarantine IMO (selective or not) is that it would make more people aware of the outbreak so that they might avoid other places where they could contract illness. It's not foolproof, obviously. I would think spending 1 hr in the grocery store is less risky than spending 8 hours locked up in a building with tons of other people though.

 

I have heard of sending unvaxed kids home with prophylactic antibiotics for pertussis. I am not sure if this approach is practiced anymore, since it's most likely not beneficial.

I've also heard of selective quarantines, or monitoring of students, and school closures for measles.

 

Even if we just look at this question for measles alone, it's still valid. Unvaccinated people during a measles outbreak are far more likely to be selectively quarantined or monitored AND that's supported by known scientific data. Is this unnatural consequence unjust?

 

I think health officials have some obligation to protect the community in ways that might inconvenience families who don't vaccinate. In some cases they may overreact.

Even in those cases where the quarantine or school closure might not be scientifically supported, I don't think these types of "unnatural consequences" are nearly as objectionable as the more severe consequences-- like prosecution of parents who don't vaccinate. That's where it goes too far.

 



I may change my mind later, but so far I agree with your post. smile.gif I never considered meningitis, but I do agree. The strain should at least be isolated in order to confirm whether or not it's vaccine-targeted.

But here's a "public institution" that no one ever discusses: Congress. 100% of state capitols are old and often poorly ventilated buildings. Senators, representatives, their staff, lobbyists, etc. are all working long hours in close quarters during cold and flu season. The real kicker? They're all passing vaccine-related legislation affecting children . . . all the while unaware that there is a big, fat vaccine schedule for adults, and that there is no "herd immunity" as long as they aren't doing their part. At very least, if they "believe in vaccines," as so many of them put it, shouldn't they be held publicly accountable to that statement?

My proposal? All people holding public office need to provide proof that they are up-to-date on CDC-recommended vaccinations. Those wishing to opt out will be subject to the same state laws that they impose on school-age children. I'll bet you bottom-dollar that you'll start seeing philosophical exemption in all 50 states. Sheepish.gif
ss834, BeckyBird, Taximom5 and 1 others like this.

In God we trust; all others must show data. selectivevax.gifsurf.gifteapot2.GIFintactivist.gif
Turquesa is offline  
#101 of 106 Old 02-15-2014, 04:13 PM - Thread Starter
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,014
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 150 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by erigeron View Post
 

That study is only relating to transmissiom to residents of long-term care over age 60.

 

And just b/c the vax doesn't work as well as we would like doesn't mean it doesn't work. 

 

Sorry so brief, one arm devoted to holding baby.

 

 

 

 

You had the baby?

 

Congrats!  :love

Turquesa 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  
#102 of 106 Old 02-15-2014, 05:13 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,126
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turquesa View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ss834 View Post
 

To answer your question: not necessarily schools and daycares, universities, too. I would say workplaces, except I have never heard of it happening. Hospitals obviously remain open during disease outbreaks (but unvaccinated people might be treated differently upon arriving at the hospital). So just those places that are likely to be shut down during some kind of outbreak, whichever institutions have a history of such closures/quarantines.

 

I agree with you about pertussis, and meningitis is another one that should be automatic school closure. No one should be going to school during those outbreaks.

To address your last point, another benefit of quarantine IMO (selective or not) is that it would make more people aware of the outbreak so that they might avoid other places where they could contract illness. It's not foolproof, obviously. I would think spending 1 hr in the grocery store is less risky than spending 8 hours locked up in a building with tons of other people though.

 

I have heard of sending unvaxed kids home with prophylactic antibiotics for pertussis. I am not sure if this approach is practiced anymore, since it's most likely not beneficial.

I've also heard of selective quarantines, or monitoring of students, and school closures for measles.

 

Even if we just look at this question for measles alone, it's still valid. Unvaccinated people during a measles outbreak are far more likely to be selectively quarantined or monitored AND that's supported by known scientific data. Is this unnatural consequence unjust?

 

I think health officials have some obligation to protect the community in ways that might inconvenience families who don't vaccinate. In some cases they may overreact.

Even in those cases where the quarantine or school closure might not be scientifically supported, I don't think these types of "unnatural consequences" are nearly as objectionable as the more severe consequences-- like prosecution of parents who don't vaccinate. That's where it goes too far.

 



I may change my mind later, but so far I agree with your post. smile.gif I never considered meningitis, but I do agree. The strain should at least be isolated in order to confirm whether or not it's vaccine-targeted.

But here's a "public institution" that no one ever discusses: Congress. 100% of state capitols are old and often poorly ventilated buildings. Senators, representatives, their staff, lobbyists, etc. are all working long hours in close quarters during cold and flu season. The real kicker? They're all passing vaccine-related legislation affecting children . . . all the while unaware that there is a big, fat vaccine schedule for adults, and that there is no "herd immunity" as long as they aren't doing their part. At very least, if they "believe in vaccines," as so many of them put it, shouldn't they be held publicly accountable to that statement?

My proposal? All people holding public office need to provide proof that they are up-to-date on CDC-recommended vaccinations. Those wishing to opt out will be subject to the same state laws that they impose on school-age children. I'll bet you bottom-dollar that you'll start seeing philosophical exemption in all 50 states. Sheepish.gif

 

 
:yeah
applejuice likes this.
Taximom5 is offline  
#103 of 106 Old 02-15-2014, 07:07 PM
 
ss834's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 301
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turquesa View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ss834 View Post
 

To answer your question: not necessarily schools and daycares, universities, too. I would say workplaces, except I have never heard of it happening. Hospitals obviously remain open during disease outbreaks (but unvaccinated people might be treated differently upon arriving at the hospital). So just those places that are likely to be shut down during some kind of outbreak, whichever institutions have a history of such closures/quarantines.

 

I agree with you about pertussis, and meningitis is another one that should be automatic school closure. No one should be going to school during those outbreaks.

To address your last point, another benefit of quarantine IMO (selective or not) is that it would make more people aware of the outbreak so that they might avoid other places where they could contract illness. It's not foolproof, obviously. I would think spending 1 hr in the grocery store is less risky than spending 8 hours locked up in a building with tons of other people though.

 

I have heard of sending unvaxed kids home with prophylactic antibiotics for pertussis. I am not sure if this approach is practiced anymore, since it's most likely not beneficial.

I've also heard of selective quarantines, or monitoring of students, and school closures for measles.

 

Even if we just look at this question for measles alone, it's still valid. Unvaccinated people during a measles outbreak are far more likely to be selectively quarantined or monitored AND that's supported by known scientific data. Is this unnatural consequence unjust?

 

I think health officials have some obligation to protect the community in ways that might inconvenience families who don't vaccinate. In some cases they may overreact.

Even in those cases where the quarantine or school closure might not be scientifically supported, I don't think these types of "unnatural consequences" are nearly as objectionable as the more severe consequences-- like prosecution of parents who don't vaccinate. That's where it goes too far.

 



I may change my mind later, but so far I agree with your post. smile.gif I never considered meningitis, but I do agree. The strain should at least be isolated in order to confirm whether or not it's vaccine-targeted.

But here's a "public institution" that no one ever discusses: Congress. 100% of state capitols are old and often poorly ventilated buildings. Senators, representatives, their staff, lobbyists, etc. are all working long hours in close quarters during cold and flu season. The real kicker? They're all passing vaccine-related legislation affecting children . . . all the while unaware that there is a big, fat vaccine schedule for adults, and that there is no "herd immunity" as long as they aren't doing their part. At very least, if they "believe in vaccines," as so many of them put it, shouldn't they be held publicly accountable to that statement?

My proposal? All people holding public office need to provide proof that they are up-to-date on CDC-recommended vaccinations. Those wishing to opt out will be subject to the same state laws that they impose on school-age children. I'll bet you bottom-dollar that you'll start seeing philosophical exemption in all 50 states. Sheepish.gif

 

I like it. "Capitol Hill lines up for Tdap to take a stand against whooping cough"

 

Because of course, when they do get the shots, it always has to be a big publicity stunt. Like the '76 swine flu debacle, or Bush's smallpox shot.

ss834 is offline  
#104 of 106 Old 02-15-2014, 07:18 PM
 
chickabiddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 3,484
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)

I'm quite fine with people who pass laws requiring vaccinations being required to demonstrate that they themselves are following the CDC-recommended vaccine schedules or have medical exemptions signed by an MD.

dinahx likes this.

Carseat-checking (CPST) and WAH mama to a twelve-year-old girl.
chickabiddy is online now  
#105 of 106 Old 02-15-2014, 08:13 PM
 
OrmEmbar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 424
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Congrats Erigeron!!! Totally off topic. But I'm sure you'd all agree that a new little munchkin is worth interrupting the conversation.
Wishing you and your family lots of uninterrupted snuggles!
OrmEmbar is online now  
#106 of 106 Old 02-17-2014, 01:21 PM
 
dinahx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: earth
Posts: 2,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Chickabiddy: this JUST sorta happened to me. My brother was on about unVax & sending me a lame link & I was like 'wait: did you have Tdap recently? did you get your Flu shot?' Crickets.

An adult that is not UTD better not have any medical ideas for my infant, for sure.
ss834, BeckyBird and Taximom5 like this.
dinahx is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
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