The ethics of "disease parties" - Page 2 - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
 121Likes
 
Thread Tools
Old 07-15-2014, 06:37 PM
 
One_Girl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,668
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
I thought the discussion was about what it is ethical for parents to consent to or what should be legal not a literal interpretation of consent and the many illegal acts parents can technically consent to do. Maybe the OP can clarify that so we can get back on track with a thoughtful and intelligent conversation about the topic.
One_Girl is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 07-15-2014, 06:50 PM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,407
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 126 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by One_Girl View Post
I thought the discussion was about what it is ethical for parents to consent to or what should be legal not a literal interpretation of consent and the many illegal acts parents can technically consent to do. Maybe the OP can clarify that so we can get back on track with a thoughtful and intelligent conversation about the topic.
Yea I think it's wacky to lump pick-up truck and tattoos into disease parties and equate them to be somehow relevant or equal to this tread.

 

 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  
Old 07-15-2014, 07:21 PM
 
One_Girl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,668
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post
Yea I think it's wacky to lump pick-up truck and tattoos into disease parties and equate them to be somehow relevant or equal to this tread.
ITA. I'm having such a hard time following the thread but it's probably the insomnia. I think each disease has risk factors that would be relevant to the decision about whether it's ethical to have a party for exposure or not.

Op: What kids of disease parties were you thinking of or was it all diseases lumped together? I'd be all for cps intervening if people start holding tuberculosis parties, and I'm sure they would. I think there is a continuum though and that it's important to be cautious about giving up our right to make thoughtful choices for our children's health.
One_Girl is offline  
Old 07-15-2014, 07:26 PM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,407
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 126 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by One_Girl View Post
ITA. I'm having such a hard time following the thread but it's probably the insomnia. I think each disease has risk factors that would be relevant to the decision about whether it's ethical to have a party for exposure or not.

Op: What kids of disease parties were you thinking of or was it all diseases lumped together? I'd be all for cps intervening if people start holding tuberculosis parties, and I'm sure they would. I think there is a continuum though and that it's important to be cautious about giving up our right to make thoughtful choices for our children's health.
I'm not sure why you quoted me and I really can't follow your post.

Do you think people are having tuberculosis parties? It seems you are implying they are occurring- is that correct?

 

 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  
Old 07-15-2014, 07:43 PM
 
One_Girl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,668
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post
I'm not sure why you quoted me and I really can't follow your post.

Do you think people are having tuberculosis parties? It seems you are implying they are occurring- is that correct?
I quoted you because I agreed with what you said, ITA is short for I Totally Agree on the other forums on mothering.

I was addressing the OP (originalposter) and basically asking her if she thinks all diseases are bad to have parties for or if she believes some would be ok. Then I gave an example of one disease I am sure we all agree wouldn't be ok to have a party for and pointed out that I am sure there would be a consequence if those parties did exist. Then I pointed out that I don't think all disease parties are as extreme as my example and said I don't think parents should have their choice to expose their kids to low risk diseases removed.

Last edited by One_Girl; 07-15-2014 at 09:52 PM.
One_Girl is offline  
Old 07-15-2014, 07:47 PM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,407
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 126 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by One_Girl View Post
ITA. I'd be all for cps intervening if people start holding tuberculosis parties, and I'm sure they would.
I dont' understand this. Who is "they"? Would what?

Does that mean have a TB party ?

I'm not picking a fight but I don't understand what you mean, thus why I asked.

 

 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  
Old 07-15-2014, 07:51 PM
 
applejuice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: hunting the wild aebelskiever
Posts: 18,400
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Comparing tuberculosis and chicken pox as diseases is a bit naive.

I think the difference is obvious.
applejuice is offline  
Old 07-15-2014, 07:57 PM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,407
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 126 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by One_Girl View Post
I quoted you because I agreed with what you said, ITA is short for I Totally Agree on the other forums on mothering. I'm not sure how you misunderstood what I wrote since it was written since it was such a simple three sentences, especially compared to the research on vaccinations posted on these forums, but in case you are actually serious and not just trying to pick a fight I'll try to break it down a little more for you.

I was addressing the OP (originalposter) and basically asking her if she thinks all diseases are bad to have parties for or if she believes some would be ok. Then I gave an example of one disease I am sure we all agree wouldn't be ok to have a party for and pointed out that I am sure there would be a consequence if those parties did exist. Then I pointed out that I don't think all disease parties are as extreme as my example and said I don't think parents should have their choice to expose their kids to low risk diseases removed.

If you would like me to say this in an even simpler way so you can understand please let me know.
If you are implying you think people would have TB parties, I think that is really weird and I don't see cause or any indications people have any desire to do so.

If you want to talk about TB parties, I don't know how that would work as it's not easy to catch, being contagious and able to catch are not that easy with TB. You can catch TB more than once so I don't get why do a "party" for it. It's not like "lifetime" immunity or chance of contracting like you have in other VPD's.

 

 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  
Old 07-15-2014, 08:01 PM
 
katelove's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,894
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 32 Post(s)
"They" in this instance is CPS. One_Girl said she would be in favour of CPS intervening if someone was to throw a TB party and she feels sure that CPS would agree with her on that point and would initiate an investigation.

She isn't suggesting that anyone actually *has* had a TB party. She gave it as an example because she does not have a blanket opposition to disease parties but feels that TB is on one end of the spectrum. The "not ok" end. She didn't say what diseases she thinks would be at the other end but indicated that she would probably be ok with parties for some diseases.
katelove is online now  
Old 07-15-2014, 08:10 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,226
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 227 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
Of course consent matters, but consent is very different when talking about a minor child vs adult.


"You may think that parents should not have the right to consent for their children, but then that holds with vaccines as well."

1. ]Not really. There are limits to what you can consent to. It's not an all or nothing deal. I can consent to my child getting a vaccine but I can't consent to letting my child ride in the back of a pickup on the highway. Nor could I consent to letting him sit in the backseat without a carseat or seatbelt. Or getting a permanent tattoo. Or any number of things.

Where chickenpox parties fall in all this is debatable. But measles parties, for me, would fall on the negligence/illegal side of the grey zone.

I agree there are things parents cannot legally consent to. Some I disagree with but many I agree with. That's neither here nor there, really.

Is deliberately exposing children to VADs illegal? I don't think so. It might be when diseases are on the quaratine list - but even that is iffy. You might think it should be illegal, but hey - I think schools should have to accept all children without exemptions…if wishes were horses and all that.

I do think you can make a case that deliberate exposure to certain disease could constitute neglect. What those diseases are up for debate…and who gets to decide? Is there some sort of matrix? How does it relate to other risks we let parents take (example: riding a motorcycle for 55 hours has a 1/1000 fatality rate…yet kids are legally allowed to ride on the back of motorcycles.
http://www.terrificscience.org/lesso...ew_of_Risk.pdf)

I do think comparing disease parties to other risks is a good idea. Vaccine debates can be very emotional. I remember a pro-vaxxer from yesteryear being horrified that posters would deliberately expose children to chicken pox. This same poster undoubtably drove in a car with her kids (1/23000 fatality rate ove rthe course of childhood). Maybe she owned a pool or was an avid skiier -all of which are more dangerous for kids over their childhood than chicken pox. We need to look at comparative risks to see if we are being rational or reactionary.

Ethically, I see the issue as a spectrum. Some may think it is never Ok to expose a child to a disease for which a vaccine exists, some may think it is always ok to expose a child to a disease for which a vaccine exist, and many people fall in the middle. It really comes down to nastiness of disease and disease prevalence for me. I am much more likely to be ok with deliberate exposure for mild diseases that are still common.

I don't think vaxxers have any get out of jail free card where ethics is concerned. While most may think vaccine risks are small, all vaccine carries a risk. I think giving a vaccine for a disease your child has virtually no chance of getting (Polio for example) is ethically questionable.

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  
Old 07-15-2014, 08:27 PM
 
One_Girl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,668
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by katelove View Post
"They" in this instance is CPS. One_Girl said she would be in favour of CPS intervening if someone was to throw a TB party and she feels sure that CPS would agree with her on that point and would initiate an investigation.

She isn't suggesting that anyone actually *has* had a TB party. She gave it as an example because she does not have a blanket opposition to disease parties but feels that TB is on one end of the spectrum. The "not ok" end. She didn't say what diseases she thinks would be at the other end but indicated that she would probably be ok with parties for some diseases.
That's exactly right!
One_Girl is offline  
Old 07-15-2014, 08:57 PM
 
One_Girl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,668
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post
I dont' understand this. Who is "they"? Would what?

Does that mean have a TB party ?

I'm not picking a fight but I don't understand what you mean, thus why I asked.
CPS is an abbreviation for Child Protective Services. The word they is in the same sentence so it refers to CPS.

Last edited by One_Girl; 07-15-2014 at 09:43 PM.
One_Girl is offline  
Old 07-16-2014, 05:13 AM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,407
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 126 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by One_Girl View Post
CPS is an abbreviation for Child Protective Services. The word they is in the same sentence so it refers to CPS.

You must not have read what I asked you, I didn't ask for clarification on what is CPS.
I got your full quote, apparently you do have issues. How lovely.

 

 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  
Old 07-16-2014, 10:42 AM
 
sassyfirechick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,624
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 38 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
Death/hospitalization rates for measles have been linked and discussed ad nauseam on these forums.

Even if you wanted to use Europe's more conservative stats of 1 death per 3,000 cases you'd still be looking at over 5,300 deaths in an outbreak that hit 16 million children. Just in the US alone.

As for shingles, there have been studies that show that children vaccinated for chickenpox are 79% less likely to get shingles than unvaccinated children.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23922376

Similar results were found after studying children with leukemia. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1658650
Where exactly do you see or propose these outbreaks to occur in the millions? I'm no math whiz but 5300 out of 16 million is an incredibly small fraction of a percentage....0.033125% to be exact. I'll take my chances with the disease and pick up some Vit A if I feel we are in danger of contracting it....since that seems to be the number one factor in how the body reacts to measles and whether or not it is mild or results in complications.

As for the Chickenpox vax vs shingles, that's pretty laughable considering that the vax hasn't been in use long enough to even calculate that risk of a disease which typically would not occur until 65 or older.....aka in those who perhaps did not have children whom would have re-exposed them to a natural booster or who did not have grandchildren to again naturally booster them. But we are now seeing it in 20 somethings fairly regularly....all thanks to the vaccine and lack of re-exposure!
sassyfirechick is online now  
Old 07-16-2014, 10:56 AM
 
sassyfirechick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,624
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 38 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
What do you guys think? By disease parties I mean chickenpox/measles/rubella/etc parties.

Is it ethical to deliberately try and expose a child to an infectious disease? Should it even be legal to do so?

If not, what should the "punishment" be for doing so?

If a parent deliberately infected a child with chickenpox and then exposed a baby too young to be vaccinated in public and they got seriously ill, should the parent have to pay for the medical bills?

Discuss.
How does chosing to expose your own child suddenly become a legal issue with a baby who gets exposed? Where is this connection that I am missing??? IF I chose to expose my own DD I'd do at a time when I could keep her home and monitor her for signs of illness so as not to spread to others who may not want it. How does that then translate into exposing a baby and my having to pay for their illness? How about this - when there is ZERO protection in place for pharmaceutic al companies that would allow me to direct compensation for any ill effect my child gets from their product then perhaps you can make the leap that damages shoudl be paid by the "spreadee". But that is a bold statement to make that I as a non-vaxxer (without knowing reasons for doing so mind you) would have to pay for someone else's illness strictly on the principle that I'm a non-vaxxer. Because this conversation NEVER comes up when the origin of disease is from a vaccinated individual.
sassyfirechick is online now  
Old 07-16-2014, 12:22 PM - Thread Starter
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,588
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 437 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyfirechick View Post
How does chosing to expose your own child suddenly become a legal issue with a baby who gets exposed? Where is this connection that I am missing??? IF I chose to expose my own DD I'd do at a time when I could keep her home and monitor her for signs of illness so as not to spread to others who may not want it. How does that then translate into exposing a baby and my having to pay for their illness? How about this - when there is ZERO protection in place for pharmaceutic al companies that would allow me to direct compensation for any ill effect my child gets from their product then perhaps you can make the leap that damages shoudl be paid by the "spreadee". But that is a bold statement to make that I as a non-vaxxer (without knowing reasons for doing so mind you) would have to pay for someone else's illness strictly on the principle that I'm a non-vaxxer. Because this conversation NEVER comes up when the origin of disease is from a vaccinated individual.
If you'd keep your child at home and isolated from potentially vulnerable public, then the hypothetical about paying for medical bills doesn't apply to you.

I'm not all that convinced that most people would take those precautions, though. Keeping a 7 or 8 year old cooped up in the house for weeks sounds pretty miserable to me.

What if the only time you found a chickenpox party was during the school year? Would you keep them out of school for weeks as well?

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson
teacozy is offline  
Old 07-16-2014, 03:00 PM
 
samaxtics's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 666
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 149 Post(s)
Quote:
I'm not all that convinced that most people would take those precautions, though. Keeping a 7 or 8 year old cooped up in the house for weeks sounds pretty miserable to me.
And I'm pretty sure that's the driving reason behind the hesitancy to check titres because that puts all those vaccinating parents in the same position as non-vaccinators.

Quote:
What if the only time you found a chickenpox party was during the school year? Would you keep them out of school for weeks as well?
Would you squirt FluMist up your daycare or school age child's nose in Sept or later? Would you keep them out of daycare/school/public until 28 days have passed due to possible shedding?
samaxtics is online now  
Old 07-16-2014, 03:26 PM - Thread Starter
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,588
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 437 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by samaxtics View Post


Would you squirt FluMist up your daycare or school age child's nose in Sept or later? Would you keep them out of daycare/school/public until 28 days have passed due to possible shedding?
No I wouldn't keep them isolated for 28 days after the flumist. There is no reason to. The risk of transmission is so remote as to not even be a blimp on the radar. Vaccine shedding anxiety only seems to be a concern for those who are anti vaccine, for some strange reason. It really makes no sense.

You can't compare that to sending a child who has had prolonged exposure to chickenpox, which is highly contagious, to school or daycare.

"There have been no instances of symptomatic transmission of the vaccine virus in adults. The only documented case of person-to-person transmission of the FluMist virus occurred when one child transmitted virus to another at daycare where there was prolonged close contact. The second child did not develop symptomatic infection. Finally, there has never been an instance where the FluMist virus has regained its ability to reproduce at higher temperatures or to cause infection. Thus, there is no likelihood that vaccination with FluMist would cause a flu-like infection. "

Underlining and bolding mine.

http://www.mc.vanderbilt.edu:8080/re...x.html?ID=3689

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson

Last edited by teacozy; 07-16-2014 at 03:55 PM.
teacozy is offline  
Old 07-16-2014, 06:06 PM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 6,563
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 203 Post(s)
I'm afraid when it comes to flumist it is a "don't look, don't find" scenario.

Is every outbreak of flu following flumist adminstration in a school setting checked out to be sure there is no connection? Of course not. So what we've got is a tiny bit of observation which is treated as though it is universally applicable.

No thanks.
Deborah is online now  
Old 07-16-2014, 06:34 PM
 
samaxtics's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 666
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 149 Post(s)
Would you be confident enough to take your flu-mist vaccinated child around immunocompromised people Teacozy?
samaxtics is online now  
Old 07-17-2014, 12:30 AM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,828
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 144 Post(s)
That seems like an odd question - tea was clearly stating that transmission to healthy individuals has never been documented - in response to a question asking if children who recently had flumist should stay home from school.

Do immunocompronised children go to school?

I thought the non vax view was flu is rare and harmless. So why does it matter to you anyway?
prosciencemum is offline  
Old 07-17-2014, 04:46 AM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,407
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 126 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post
That seems like an odd question - tea was clearly stating that transmission to healthy individuals has never been documented - in response to a question asking if children who recently had flumist should stay home from school.

Do immunocompronised children go to school? Yes, all the time!

I thought the non vax view was flu is rare and harmless. So why does it matter to you anyway?

Don't the immunocompromised in the UK get educated?

We have/had teachers, support staff and students with all kind of issues, from cancer, HIV/AIDS to sickle cell, etc in schools and on public transportation. Where do you hide them in the UK?


ETA- for someone who lectures others on "science" quite often I find asking about immunocompromised children in school really outlandish, naive and really offensive in a way!

For all types of people, young or old they are active within our society here in the US. Those having chemo treatments ride public buses and go into public places, people with infections have to go about their life too, making the most of their time. Children that are very sick still want to be with their friends and attend school - and they do! It's a flippant knee jerk reaction - IMO

Finding now that so many who do vaccinate do not do it for others yet claim heard when appropriate. I can see when others that don't vaccinate voice concerns they are dismissed, such as with the mist, hand washing, basic health precautions.

 

 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 


Last edited by serenbat; 07-17-2014 at 06:04 AM.
serenbat is offline  
Old 07-17-2014, 08:28 AM
 
applejuice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: hunting the wild aebelskiever
Posts: 18,400
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Dear PSM, the question was -

Quote:
Would you be confident enough to take your flu-mist vaccinated child around immunocompromised people, Teacozy?
How about a direct answer? So nice of you to answer for the nonvaxers, but "would a vaccine proponent, such as yourself, be confident enough to take your flu-mist vaccinated child around immunosuppressant persons"?

If, as you say, this has never been proven to happen, then I guess you would be confident. Just surmising here. How about a direct yes or no?

What is wrong with people around here dodging the question?
applejuice is offline  
Old 07-17-2014, 09:30 AM
 
sassyfirechick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,624
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 38 Post(s)
Nice try there Tea but my exact quote was
Quote:
IF I chose to expose my own DD I'd do at a time when I could keep her home and monitor her
....notice I even used caps on there because I'm still not 100% sure that I would go that route in the first place. Second, I said I would do so at a time when I could keep her home implying that I would have to weigh it all out. So if the opportunity presented itself in kindergarten for CP exposure, I might be more likely to keep her home from school than if she was in middle school and attendance is far more important at that stage of learning.

And I'm anxiously awaiting the response to this:
Quote:
Would you be confident enough to take your flu-mist vaccinated child around immunocompromised people Teacozy?
I don't fear vaccine shedding. I think it's highly inappropriate when pvers brush it off as a non-issue and make it out to seem like the nvers are all fearful. I don't think the vast majority fear shedding. I think we care just as much about how shedding could affect someone who's immunocompromised as a pver cares about spread of disease to that same group. It just common sense/common courtesy.

And yes immunocompromised children do attend school....along with mentally handicapped, physically handicapped and a whole host of other handicapps, all integrated into the same schools! Funny how that works....
sassyfirechick is online now  
Old 07-17-2014, 09:44 AM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,828
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 144 Post(s)
I'm fortunate to not know anyone who is immunocompronised.

However if I did I would be more careful making sure we did get the flu vaccine in order to protect them. And I would probably avoid them following flumist, but more bc of the trip to the dr office and all the germ exposure that entails than the vaccine itself.
prosciencemum is offline  
Old 07-17-2014, 09:54 AM
 
samaxtics's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 666
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 149 Post(s)
Just recently someone posted the story of a child in Vancouver who whilst undergoing chemo caught chickenpox at school.

They claimed he got it from a non-vaccinated child.

In this page for children/teens going under immunosuppressive treatments, they do not list flumist as being one of the live virus vaccine safe for family members to have. http://www.aboutkidshealth.ca/En/Hea...e-Systems.aspx


Also, there are medications that suppress the immune system, not just chemo.
samaxtics is online now  
Old 07-17-2014, 09:54 AM
 
applejuice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: hunting the wild aebelskiever
Posts: 18,400
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
What about the advice I was given by my husband's oncologist?

The same advice was given by the transplant team to our friend who had an organ transplant and was taking immuno-suppressive drugs.

Quote:
Keep all recently vaccinated children away from your husband.
Why would an oncologist and transplant team advise that?
applejuice is offline  
Old 07-17-2014, 10:12 AM - Thread Starter
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,588
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 437 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by samaxtics View Post
Would you be confident enough to take your flu-mist vaccinated child around immunocompromised people Teacozy?
According to the CDC, the only people you have to worry about are severely immunocompromised patients- ones who are being cared for in a protective environment. Not kids well enough to be in school.

"People who are in contact with others with severely weakened immune systems when they are being cared for in a protective environment (for example, people with hematopoietic stem cell transplants), should not get the nasal spray vaccine. People who have contact with people with weakened (but not severely weakened) immune systems due to underlying illness (e.g. diabetes, asthma, and heart disease, can get the nasal spray vaccine."

Bolding not mine.

Just to further illustrate how remote the possibility is here are some numbers:

"Shedding can result in transmission, but does not result in illness in others

Like the influenza virus, the vaccine virus can also be transmitted to an unvaccinated individual
However, the vaccine virus has been engineered not to cause illness

The shed virus must regain its ability to replicate at the higher temperatures of the lungs in order for illness to occur4,5

The virus must revert back to wild type to produce illness

With at least 5 attenuating points in each strain, the odds of reversion to wild-type influenza are 1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 (one in 100 quintillion) replication cycles (1x1020 replication cycles), more than a millennium in time

No cases of reversion to wild type have been reported to date

FluMist Quadrivalent may be used by those eligible recipients who have close contact with immunocompromised persons"

Bolding mine. https://www.flumistquadrivalent.com/...d_vaccine.html

So yes, it is completely 100% illogical to worry about your non severely immunocompromised child catching the flu from the flumist.

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson
teacozy is offline  
Old 07-17-2014, 10:13 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,226
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 227 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

Do immunocompronised children go to school?

I thought the non vax view was flu is rare and harmless. So why does it matter to you anyway?


Sure they do.


When I bring up vaccine shedding in conversation such as this, it is always to point out the inherent hypocrisy is pointing fingers at non-vaxxers for theoretically putting others at risk when vaccination theoretically puts others at risk as well, through shedding.


In practical terms I don't think vaccine shedding is a huge issue. I think it might happen more often than we think - but I doubt it is huge, there is no real way to know, and I don't spend one moment of time worrying about it (although I would if I were immunocompromised).


I actually think the lousy adult vaccine rate and failure to check titres when we know (through accepted mainstream data) that a vaccine is not particularly effective are much more hypocritical than the vaccine shedding argument.


As per the flu: I think 2-4% of the population gets the flu strains that are in the vaccine every year. It is up to you whether or not you think it is rare. The flu vaccine only works about 50% of the time. If I got annual flu shots from the day I was born and live to be 80, the vaccine might save me from 2 cases of the flu or so over my lifetime.


I don't think the flu is harmless. It kills a number of people each year - mostly the elderly, but some adults and children as well. Statistically speaking, it is very, very unlikely your child will die from the flu.


I don't think anyone wants their child to have the flu. The flu can be pretty miserable. Things like chicken pox can be miserable (but often aren't) but they typically give you life long protection from getting another case of chicken pox. The flu does no such thing. I sincerely doubt non-vaxxers want their kids to get the flu - they just don't think the shot is all it is cracked up to be and it comes with its own set of issues.

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  
Old 07-17-2014, 11:08 AM
 
samaxtics's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 666
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 149 Post(s)
From the CDC:

Quote:
Can people receiving the nasal spray flu vaccine pass the vaccine viruses to others?
Yes, but its rare. Data indicate that both children and adults vaccinated with nasal spray can shed vaccine viruses after vaccination, although in lower amounts than occur typically with shedding of wild-type influenza viruses. Rarely, shed vaccine viruses can be transmitted from vaccine recipients to unvaccinated persons. However, serious illnesses have not been reported among unvaccinated persons who have been infected inadvertently with vaccine viruses.
My bold.

And the operative word seems to be "reported". No reports, no evidence. How would someone know the flu was from the vaccine unless they tested the flu strain? The authorities quit testing for H1N1 after a bit, what makes you think when someone presents with the flu, that they are going to be tested to see whether it is wild-type or vaccine strain?

Both the CDC and the manufacturer (the link you supplied) agree that children shed more than adults.

When I clicked on the source numbers for this statement:
Quote:
Despite shedding, the probability of transmission in children is extremely low1,8
#1 is the package insert and #8 goes to this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2710797/

The study for this statement:
Quote:
Based on available information, transmission of vaccine virus from a vaccine recipient to an unvaccinated contact is likely to be a rare event, even in young children, and without negative clinical consequences.
is one daycare study from your Flumist Quadrivalent link
Quote:
A study of 197 children under the age of 36 months in close contact in a daycare setting identified only one case of transmission, which did not result in illness8: The child exhibited runny nose/nasal congestion, irritability, and cough, but nasal swabs tested negative for influenza.
So the child had all the symptoms of flu but they said it did not result in illness. My children have not been in daycare so I don't know......do daycares accept children with those symptoms and if not, why not?
samaxtics is online now  
 
User Tag List

Thread Tools


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not 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