Originally Posted by teacozy
Neither the blood draw or vaccine is risk free, and both have benefits/risks. I'd rather get a second MMR than a blood draw myself any day. The individual risk associated with skipping the MMR can change in any given week or year, it's not set in stone.
You seem to want risk regarding this thread to be about blood draws, you missed the point IMO.
The risk IMO is between vaccine status vs immunity status
. Blood draws come in to play only because that is how immunity is checked.
and frankly mostly checked after outbreaks!
look at MMR, the difference between the first and the booster in terms of years is several. During that time frame (if that is a correct number - let's not forget Merck's numbers here http://www.forbes.com/sites/gerganak...e-of-vaccines/
) 5% do not have immunity
, in addition a even larger percentage
of those who can not be vaccinated also have no immunity
(10-15%-? ) and we know immunity to the MMR also wanes, so we are talking 20+%
with NO immunity. Yes the numbers do change but not that great, we have not had a baby-boom in some years here in the US so the number of children isn't that drastic between the age group.
That is just for MMR, 20+%
, we could talk about the vaccine failure of pertussis or another vaccines. BUT who get's the blame, the .3%! In every PRO vaccine article it's that .3%
, not the double digit percentage of those who are effected by vaccine failure, waning immunity or unable to be vaccinated.
How is that not the REAL risk? As I have said, the PRO side is far more willing to say all the reasons (justifications) for not knowing immunity RISK via a blood draw instead of dealing with the real risk, if it really is
Herd, even looking at the 5% (again this number may be far higher) with MMR, that is not even close to the .3%! We will have those unable to vaccinated and they seems to be growing as well.
Yes, the .3%, those who are not vaccinated. The tiny number that get 101% of the blame! That super small number that is sooooooo small they can not be even counted enough to have a study of vaccinated vs un-vaccinated because that group in the minds of PRO vaccers isn't large enough. Not large enough to be studied but large enough to be blamed! Irony!
I find this SUPER odd, 20+% NOT immune just for MMR, and the risk
is a all about a bruised arm? By the way, simply getting a vaccine, besides the severe side effects has many of the same common effects as a simple blood draw, http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/side-effects.htm
frozen shoulder / Adhesive Capsulitis, nerve damage, Guillain-Barre, etc is associated with some vaccines
Finding out if one is immune doesn't seem to be a goal that most who vaccinate care much about.
Faith that it just is going to work in the end after a second with the MMR is just that IMO - faith, some females find out later it didn't but the vast amount of the population we simply do not know about. IMO that's blind faith. We really should lump in all the other vaccines to know a real picture of what "failure" we are talking about and that would mean even more not immune to a host of VPD's.
When we talk about vaccine uptake, again we are just talking children. A state can have a nice high uptake, you still have 5% that are not immune until the second MMR, a percentage that can not be vaccinated, a percentage that the vaccine will fail with and percentage that has waning immunity...........but let's keep going after that .3%!
So what is the risk, the real risk? It's not about chocolate!
Vaccine status is not IMMUNITY