Change in living situation? - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
 89Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 66 Old 06-04-2014, 11:27 AM - Thread Starter
 
tribalmax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 753
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Question Change in living situation?

Hi there,

My family is moving into a faculty in residence situation at a major american university. We are in a building that has a high % of international students. And we have recently discovered that there is a loophole in the vaccine laws about non-degree seeking students that allows them to not follow the same vaccine regulations as other students.

My children (9 and 6) are completely unvaccinated. Up until this point, we have decided this is the best choice for our family. So no debate on that part please.

At this point, I am trying to decide if the change in living situation changes my stance on vaccines (and I think it does!) and which vaccines are the most important. Right now I feel like meningitis and hep A are the biggest things I am worried about. We will be eating at campus restaurants pretty often.

I would love some thoughts -- both on if the living change warrants a reevaluation of choices and if it does, what vaccines would be the most important. I would also love if anyone has info about the meningitis vaccine being given to children younger than 12 in high risk situations and the associated reactions.

THANK YOU!

Rachel
tribalmax is offline  
#2 of 66 Old 06-04-2014, 12:14 PM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,530
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 391 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by tribalmax View Post
Hi there,

My family is moving into a faculty in residence situation at a major american university. We are in a building that has a high % of international students. And we have recently discovered that there is a loophole in the vaccine laws about non-degree seeking students that allows them to not follow the same vaccine regulations as other students.

My children (9 and 6) are completely unvaccinated. Up until this point, we have decided this is the best choice for our family. So no debate on that part please.

At this point, I am trying to decide if the change in living situation changes my stance on vaccines (and I think it does!) and which vaccines are the most important. Right now I feel like meningitis and hep A are the biggest things I am worried about. We will be eating at campus restaurants pretty often.

I would love some thoughts -- both on if the living change warrants a reevaluation of choices and if it does, what vaccines would be the most important. I would also love if anyone has info about the meningitis vaccine being given to children younger than 12 in high risk situations and the associated reactions.

THANK YOU!

Rachel
Hi!

This is all I could find about the meningitis vaccine for those under 12:

"Infants and Children

Meningococcal conjugate vaccine (Menactra®, Menveo®, MenHibrix®) is recommended for certain children at increased risk from ages 2 months through 10 years.
This vaccine is routinely recommended for children at increased risk for meningococcal disease, including those:
With certain medical conditions (persistent complement component deficiencies (e.g., C5-C9, properdin, factor H, or factor D) and functional or anatomic asplenia)
Who travel to specific countries
Who are in a defined risk group during a community or institutional meningococcal disease outbreak"

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/...fants-children

I'd talk to your pediatrician about whether or to get the vaccine for your children, sorry I couldn't be more help!

If I were you, I'd be a lot more worried about measles than Hep A. Hep A is unlikely to be serious in people under the age of 50.

If I were you, I'd start with the MMR, Polio, and Dtap and ask your doctor about the meningitis vaccine.

Good luck!

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#3 of 66 Old 06-04-2014, 01:29 PM - Thread Starter
 
tribalmax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 753
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
Hi!

This is all I could find about the meningitis vaccine for those under 12:

"Infants and Children

Meningococcal conjugate vaccine (Menactra®, Menveo®, MenHibrix®) is recommended for certain children at increased risk from ages 2 months through 10 years.
This vaccine is routinely recommended for children at increased risk for meningococcal disease, including those:
With certain medical conditions (persistent complement component deficiencies (e.g., C5-C9, properdin, factor H, or factor D) and functional or anatomic asplenia)
Who travel to specific countries
Who are in a defined risk group during a community or institutional meningococcal disease outbreak"

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/...fants-children

I'd talk to your pediatrician about whether or to get the vaccine for your children, sorry I couldn't be more help!

If I were you, I'd be a lot more worried about measles than Hep A. Hep A is unlikely to be serious in people under the age of 50.

If I were you, I'd start with the MMR, Polio, and Dtap and ask your doctor about the meningitis vaccine.

Good luck!
Thank you for the info and the thoughts! Keep 'em coming!
tribalmax is offline  
#4 of 66 Old 06-04-2014, 02:42 PM
 
ma2two's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,476
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
According to the CDC,

"The likelihood of symptomatic illness from HAV infection is directly related to age. In children younger than 6 years of age, most (70%) infections are asymptomatic."
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/hepa.html

So if your children haven't had hepatitis A yet, (and you probably wouldn't know if they did), now would be a good time for them to get it (the disease, not the vaccine)! Then they'd have lifetime immunity.

I don't know why teacozy recommends the polio vaccine. There hasn't been a case in the U.S. since 1979.

There is between 0 and 1 case of diphtheria in the U.S. per year, and tetanus is not communicable. The pertussis vaccine is extremely ineffective. So I don't see any reason to give the DTaP.
ma2two is offline  
#5 of 66 Old 06-04-2014, 03:44 PM
 
sassyfirechick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,570
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ma2two View Post
According to the CDC,

"The likelihood of symptomatic illness from HAV infection is directly related to age. In children younger than 6 years of age, most (70%) infections are asymptomatic."
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/hepa.html

So if your children haven't had hepatitis A yet, (and you probably wouldn't know if they did), now would be a good time for them to get it (the disease, not the vaccine)! Then they'd have lifetime immunity.

I don't know why teacozy recommends the polio vaccine. There hasn't been a case in the U.S. since 1979.

There is between 0 and 1 case of diphtheria in the U.S. per year, and tetanus is not communicable. The pertussis vaccine is extremely ineffective. So I don't see any reason to give the DTaP.


Following Tea's advice would have you fully caught up to the CDC schedule in no time and that's not what you asked for!

Which would narrow it down to just meningitis. At which point you're looking at only certain strains being covered which still leaves them and everyone else at the university of getting a non-vax available strain. Perhaps looking at prevalence of the vax available strains in the areas you'll be in and go from there as to whether or not it's truly necessary.
sassyfirechick is offline  
#6 of 66 Old 06-04-2014, 07:33 PM
 
ma2two's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,476
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Also keep in mind that even though your kids will be living amongst university students, they won't have the same risk factors as students for meningitis. They won't have super close contact with the students such as sharing glassware and kissing. They also won't have the stresses of students such as lack of sleep, and poor eating habits.
ma2two is offline  
#7 of 66 Old 06-04-2014, 11:00 PM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,785
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 119 Post(s)
I would be worried about polio on an international campus. It's still wild in countries which do send students. It's unlikely, but could happen.

So I would go for Dtap, but that's my personal comfort level.

Mumps would be a concern to me too. This went round my campus in the last year. And measles is seriously a worry this year in my opinion (we should start a thread on those statistics).
teacozy likes this.
prosciencemum is online now  
#8 of 66 Old 06-08-2014, 11:02 AM
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 383
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 128 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ma2two View Post
The pertussis vaccine is extremely ineffective.
Pertussis vaccine is about 70% effective:

http://www.cdc.gov/pertussis/about/faqs.html#booster
tadamsmar is offline  
#9 of 66 Old 06-08-2014, 02:38 PM
 
applejuice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: hunting the wild aebelskiever
Posts: 18,699
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
The package information from the drug company that makes it says 59-78% after three shots.

That is not very effective.

When one considers the fact that the vaccine makes the recipient a carrier and spreader of the disease, how effective can it be?
applejuice is offline  
#10 of 66 Old 06-08-2014, 05:41 PM
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 383
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 128 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by applejuice View Post
The package information from the drug company that makes it says 59-78% after three shots.

That is not very effective.

When one considers the fact that the vaccine makes the recipient a carrier and spreader of the disease, how effective can it be?
It is impossible for vaccine to make the recipient a carrier or spreader of the disease because the vaccine does not contain the complete cell.
tadamsmar is offline  
#11 of 66 Old 06-08-2014, 06:31 PM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,369
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 101 Post(s)
http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/6/5...12_article.htm


The effects of whole-cell pertussis vaccine wane after 5 to 10 years, and infection in a vaccinated person causes nonspecific symptoms (3-7). Vaccinated adolescents and adults may serve as reservoirs for silent infection and become potential transmitters to unprotected infants (3-11). The whole-cell vaccine for pertussis is protective only against clinical disease, not against infection (15-17). Therefore, even young, recently vaccinated children may serve as reservoirs and potential transmitters of infection.

 

 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  
#12 of 66 Old 06-08-2014, 07:07 PM
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 383
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 128 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post
http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/6/5...12_article.htm


The effects of whole-cell pertussis vaccine wane after 5 to 10 years, and infection in a vaccinated person causes nonspecific symptoms (3-7). Vaccinated adolescents and adults may serve as reservoirs for silent infection and become potential transmitters to unprotected infants (3-11). The whole-cell vaccine for pertussis is protective only against clinical disease, not against infection (15-17). Therefore, even young, recently vaccinated children may serve as reservoirs and potential transmitters of infection.
That's a quote from a 14 year old publication about a vaccine used in a different country.

The vaccine currently used in the USA is not the whole-cell vaccine.

Quote:
Originally Posted by applejuice
When one considers the fact that the vaccine makes the recipient a carrier and spreader of the disease, how effective can it be?
It is impossible for the vaccine currently used in the USA to make the recipient a carrier or spreader of the disease.
tadamsmar is offline  
#13 of 66 Old 06-08-2014, 07:25 PM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 6,618
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 169 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by tadamsmar View Post
That's a quote from a 14 year old publication about a vaccine used in a different country.

The vaccine currently used in the USA is not the whole-cell vaccine.



It is impossible for the vaccine currently used in the USA to make the recipient a carrier or spreader of the disease.
Simple enough.
1) The current vaccine is even less effective than the whole cell vaccine.
2) You are right that the vaccine itself does not cause infection as it is
a) bacterial
b) dead
3) But you are wrong about the carriage and transmission as the vaccine doesn't prevent people who are vaccinated from carrying the pertussis bacteria so if people are exposed they can carry and spread the illness, even if they were recently vaccinated.

The unvaccinated (never vaccinated) on the other hand, get a different type of immunity which does prevent carriage and transmission. After they have had pertussis once, they won't be catching or spreading it for from 10 to 50 years. Look into pertussis and Original Antigenic Sin.
Deborah is online now  
#14 of 66 Old 06-08-2014, 07:53 PM
 
applejuice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: hunting the wild aebelskiever
Posts: 18,699
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Thank you, Deborah.
applejuice is offline  
#15 of 66 Old 06-08-2014, 08:23 PM
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 383
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 128 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deborah View Post
Simple enough.
1) The current vaccine is even less effective than the whole cell vaccine.
2) You are right that the vaccine itself does not cause infection as it is
a) bacterial
b) dead
3) But you are wrong about the carriage and transmission as the vaccine doesn't prevent people who are vaccinated from carrying the pertussis bacteria so if people are exposed they can carry and spread the illness, even if they were recently vaccinated.
I am not wrong because I never said that the vaccine prevents people who are vaccinated from carrying the bacteria. I disputed applejuice's claim that the vaccine makes people carriers and spreaders of the disease.
tadamsmar is offline  
#16 of 66 Old 06-08-2014, 09:13 PM
 
applejuice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: hunting the wild aebelskiever
Posts: 18,699
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
What do you call it when you carry a disease and transmit the disease to someone else?
serenbat and Taximom5 like this.
applejuice is offline  
#17 of 66 Old 06-08-2014, 10:59 PM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,785
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 119 Post(s)
Vaccinated people are less likely (individually) to be carries of pertussis, since the vaccine not only makes it less likely they'll get sick at all, it also often reduces the severity and length of the disease.

There's just a lot more vaccinated people than unvaccinated.
prosciencemum is online now  
#18 of 66 Old 06-09-2014, 12:29 AM
 
applejuice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: hunting the wild aebelskiever
Posts: 18,699
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
How do you measure less likely scientifically?

How do you measure the length and severity of the disease scientifically?

The person with a less severe form of pertussis is more likely to go about their business, to work, to market, to the mall, everywhere breathing, coughing, and sneezing, and sharing his/her germs with everyone that person encounters.

How is this supposed to be good public health policy?
serenbat likes this.
applejuice is offline  
#19 of 66 Old 06-09-2014, 02:19 AM
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 383
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 128 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by applejuice View Post
What do you call it when you carry a disease and transmit the disease to someone else?

Well, you don't say posting on mothering.com made me a carrier. You don't say apple juice made me a carrier. You don't say the vaccine made me a carrier.
tadamsmar is offline  
#20 of 66 Old 06-09-2014, 04:05 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,131
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 180 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by tadamsmar View Post
I am not wrong because I never said that the vaccine prevents people who are vaccinated from carrying the bacteria. I disputed applejuice's claim that the vaccine makes people carriers and spreaders of the disease.
Playing word games with health information is unacceptable, IMHO. As fas as I can tell, you either:

Didn't know that those who are vaccined can still get and transmit pertussis

or

knew it but did not want to admit it to readers and are using wording to justify picking at anothers post rather than admitting the truth in it.
serenbat 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  
#21 of 66 Old 06-09-2014, 06:02 AM
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 383
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 128 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
Playing word games with health information is unacceptable, IMHO. As fas as I can tell, you either:

Didn't know that those who are vaccined can still get and transmit pertussis

or

knew it but did not want to admit it to readers and are using wording to justify picking at anothers post rather than admitting the truth in it.
I was just trying to make sure the OP was not misinformed by applejuice into thinking that the vaccine would make her kids carriers and spreaders of pertussis, nothing more.

There is no truth in the claim that the vaccine makes the recipient a carrier.

applejuice is responsible for that wording, not me. If she did not mean what she posted, then she should say so.

Last edited by tadamsmar; 06-09-2014 at 06:13 AM.
tadamsmar is offline  
#22 of 66 Old 06-09-2014, 06:15 AM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,369
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 101 Post(s)
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/815247

IMO the OP can also see many news reports of fully vaccinated that sill get the disease and can look at the rates of vaccinated in her area to best choose what is or isn't in her best interest.
applejuice and beckybird 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  
#23 of 66 Old 06-09-2014, 05:35 PM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 6,618
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 169 Post(s)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22423127
"Our data suggests that the current schedule of acellular pertussis vaccine doses is insufficient to prevent outbreaks of pertussis. We noted a markedly increased rate of disease from ages 8-12 years, proportionate to the interval since the last scheduled vaccine."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16081896

"Despite the introduction of mass vaccination against pertussis in Finland in 1952, pertussis has remained an endemic disease with regular epidemics." This involved the whole cell vaccine which was supposed to be more effective. It did not prevent the Finns from experiencing "regular" epidemics of pertussis.
applejuice and beckybird like this.
Deborah is online now  
#24 of 66 Old 06-09-2014, 11:01 PM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,785
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 119 Post(s)
Sure the pertussis vaccine is less effective than we'd like.

However:
1. The vaccine is not useless. People who are vaccinated have been shown to be less likely to have serious symptoms of whooping cough.

2. The vaccine does not cause whooping cough. It cannot.

3. I have seen no proof that because vaccinated people are less likely to get sick if exposed this makes then more likely to spread ehooping cough. Its a convincing sounding idea, but prove it (science!). Could you also take into account the fact that vaccinated people will get over the mild case of pertussis on average much quicker. I'm not convinced theyd be asymptomatic carriers any longer than an uvaccinated person who will go on to have the full debilitating illness after their period of asymptomatic infectiousness.
prosciencemum is online now  
#25 of 66 Old 06-10-2014, 12:24 AM
 
applejuice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: hunting the wild aebelskiever
Posts: 18,699
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Did you even read anything upthread? There are two links up there to answer your science question.

How can you scientifically quantify "less likely"? Prove it. Yes, use some science here.

How can you say that the vaccine does not cause the disease, yet people get a milder case? Who is getting the milder case of whooping cough? The person who got vaccinated? How is that an advantage?

Why bother getting vaccinated if you are going to get whooping cough anyway?

There is a risk to getting vaccinated, so why take the risk of vaccination and then suffer through the disease too?

Apparently there is no benefit to getting vaccinated against pertussis if you are going to get pertussis anyway. How do you know the case of pertussis is milder than if you were not vaccinated? The pertussis vaccine is completely useless! The medical literature since 1937 states that a nonvaccinated person can cut the severity and length of pertussis by taking sodium ascorbate to bowel tolerance. http://www.seanet.com/~alexs/ascorba...37-n3-p268.htm
http://www.seanet.com/~alexs/ascorba...69.htm#Otani-1

Quote:
3. I have seen no proof that because vaccinated people are less likely to get sick if exposed this makes then more likely to spread whooping cough. Its a convincing sounding idea, but prove it (science!). Could you also take into account the fact that vaccinated people will get over the mild case of pertussis on average much quicker. I'm not convinced they'd be asymptomatic carriers any longer than an uvaccinated person who will go on to have the full debilitating illness after their period of asymptomatic infectiousness.
Does the vaccine make a person asymptomatic or give them a milder case? What are you saying here? Do you know? You are really confused. This is all speculation. Let us see some proof of something.

The drug company that makes the vaccine says:
http://www.adacel-locator.com/index....E&P=HowS_pread

“ It is unknown whether immunizing adolescents and adults against pertussis will reduce the risk of transmission to infants.”
serenbat likes this.

Last edited by applejuice; 06-10-2014 at 12:40 AM.
applejuice is offline  
#26 of 66 Old 06-10-2014, 06:18 AM
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 383
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 128 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deborah View Post
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22423127
"Our data suggests that the current schedule of acellular pertussis vaccine doses is insufficient to prevent outbreaks of pertussis. We noted a markedly increased rate of disease from ages 8-12 years, proportionate to the interval since the last scheduled vaccine."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16081896

"Despite the introduction of mass vaccination against pertussis in Finland in 1952, pertussis has remained an endemic disease with regular epidemics." This involved the whole cell vaccine which was supposed to be more effective. It did not prevent the Finns from experiencing "regular" epidemics of pertussis.
Because of this, getting pertussis vaccine is arguably more important that getting some other vaccine where you are unlikely to encounter a carrier.

Pertussis and flu vaccination is more likely to prevent a case in the individual because the individual is more likely be exposed. At the other extreme, there is no point in getting vaccinated for smallpox because your risk of exposure is almost nil unless you are one of the very few who work with smallpox.

Probability of prevention = probability of exposure * probability than the vaccine provided immunization.

Prevention can be relatively high even if the vaccine provides a relatively low rate of immunity.

Last edited by tadamsmar; 06-10-2014 at 07:10 AM.
tadamsmar is offline  
#27 of 66 Old 06-10-2014, 07:57 AM
 
applejuice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: hunting the wild aebelskiever
Posts: 18,699
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Quote:
Prevention can be relatively high even if the vaccine provides a relatively low rate of immunity.
Of course it does. Any science to back up that statement? That makes no sense whatsoever.
serenbat likes this.
applejuice is offline  
#28 of 66 Old 06-10-2014, 10:43 AM
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 383
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 128 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by applejuice View Post
Of course it does. Any science to back up that statement? That makes no sense whatsoever.
If you have a 10% probability of getting disease A without the vaccine and the vaccine is 70% effective, then it reduces your probability by 7%.

If you have a 1% probability of getting disease B without the vaccine and the vaccine is 90% effective, then it reduces your probability by 0.9%.

If the diseases are otherwise equal, and you are only willing to get one vaccination, you'd be better off getting the less effective vaccination.
tadamsmar is offline  
#29 of 66 Old 06-10-2014, 11:05 AM
 
applejuice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: hunting the wild aebelskiever
Posts: 18,699
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
You are not getting one vaccine, you are getting three.

That is why it is called the D - aP - T , each carrying its own risks.

This is what is known as "preventative medicine"? I will take my chances with disease. Thanks.

Where is the science?
serenbat likes this.
applejuice is offline  
#30 of 66 Old 06-10-2014, 11:09 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,131
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 180 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by tadamsmar View Post
If you have a 10% probability of getting disease A without the vaccine and the vaccine is 70% effective, then it reduces your probability by 7%.

If you have a 1% probability of getting disease B without the vaccine and the vaccine is 90% effective, then it reduces your probability by 0.9%.

If the diseases are otherwise equal, and you are only willing to get one vaccination, you'd be better off getting the less effective vaccination.
Hmmm…sort of.

Not all vaccine are created equal. Some have a higher reaction rate than others, some have to be given more often than others, etc. It isn't only if diseases are equal, it is if vaccines are equal.
applejuice and serenbat 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:
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