Outbreak of measles in Cork. None of affected children had been vaccinated.

Dave!

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0515/1224316130477.html

DR MUIRIS HOUSTON

Tue, May 15, 2012

THE LATEST outbreak of measles in the Republic has occurred in west Cork, the Health Service Executive said yesterday.

Twenty-five children, mainly teenagers aged 12-18, have been diagnosed with the viral illness in the last four weeks.

None of those infected had been immunised with the MMR vaccine, which protects against mumps, measles and rubella, public health doctors confirmed.

MMR immunisation rates here have still not recovered following discredited research in 1998 linking the vaccine with bowel disease and autism.

Dr Fiona Ryan, specialist in public health medicine at HSE South, said, “This outbreak is affecting children who are not vaccinated. Siblings of children with measles, if not vaccinated, are also recommended to stay out of school or childcare during the incubation period (usually about 14 days but may be up to 21 days), to ensure that they do not transmit infection to other children who may be too young for vaccination or be at increased risk due to other conditions.”

She urged parents of children who are not immunised to attend for vaccination.

MMR given to a child within 72 hours of exposure to measles may prevent the illness. The vaccine can prevent measles in more than 90 per cent of immunised children, following a single dose of the vaccine. With a second dose of MMR vaccine, more than 99 per cent of immunised children are protected from measles infection.

This vaccine is given free by family doctors to children aged 12-15 months, and a second dose is given at school entry. MMR vaccination is also recommended for children aged 11-12 years who have not received two previous doses of MMR.

Symptoms of measles develop nine to 11 days after becoming infected. The first symptoms include irritability, a runny nose, red eyes, a hacking cough and a fever. These symptoms may last up to eight days.

A skin rash, consisting of flat red or brown blotches, starts from day four. It usually starts on the forehead and spreads downwards over the face, neck and body and lasts from four to seven days.

About one in 20 of those infected will get pneumonia, one in 1,000 will get encephalitis (brain inflammation) and between one and two in 1,000 will die from measles.

The latest annual report from the Health Protection Surveillance Centre showed a 149 per cent increase in measles cases in Ireland in 2010, with 403 cases notified compared with 162 cases in 2009.

About one-quarter of the 2010 cases required hospitalisation. Cases predominantly occurred in children who had not been vaccinated in what the surveillance centre said was a “worrying number of measles outbreaks in Ireland and Europe”.

The European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control reported a recent measles outbreak in Ukraine, prompting a warning to soccer fans planning to travel there for next month’s European Championships to ensure they are fully immunised.

I didn't realise the Andrew Wakefield stuff had had an effect in Ireland too. Are our vaccination rates still low?

edit

Another article here

http://www.thejournal.ie/parents-urged-to-vaccinate-children-after-measles-outbreak-451367-May2012/

Oryx

This is in paranormal why??

Dave!

It's not, but it's relevant because the skeptical community is at constant battle with anti-vaccination proponents and peddlers of pseudoscience in general. It also mentions Andrew Wakefield's fraudulent study, which has been a hot topic on skeptical blogs, podcasts and forums for years.

Is this forum reserved for skeptical discussion of the paranormal only, or can it be used for discussion of general topics relevant to skeptics and the skeptical community?

Monty Burnz

Might be more suited to the Conspiracy Theories forum, as there are two CTs at work here:

1. Evil big medicine wants to kill your babies by injecting evil vaccines
2. MMR causes autism.

Oryx

Dave! wrote: »

Is this forum reserved for skeptical discussion of the paranormal only, or can it be used for discussion of general topics relevant to skeptics and the skeptical community?

Good question. I always figured it was for skepticism of a paranormal nature, seeing as it is a sub forum of paranormal, and arose as a need for a specific place away from the general paranormal forum.

Do you guys still have the Hosted forum or is that old hat?

mcmoustache

This is definitely more of a CT thing than a paranormal thing. The locals here aren't really that anti-vax. I think this thread might get a bit more traction in the CT forum.

Dave!

Depends if the purpose of this forum is to be narrowly defined as being skeptical of the paranormal, or for skeptical discussion in general. If you go onto any other skeptical forum, there'll be loads of vaccination-related topics, because it's a rather huge subject within that community. Seems a bit silly to limit the discussion here to specifically paranormal claims when there is scope to facilitate discussion of all skeptical topics.

I think the hosted forum is for the Irish Skeptics society. A lot of the topics covered here will be covered there too. I'm never sure which forum to be posting in between the two.

If I wanted to antagonise the crazies then I would have posted in CT. I was more looking for a skeptical discussion really, or to bring it to the attention of skeptics who might be interested. I could have posted in Health Science too probably. I've never seen a thread about vax in Paranormal.

steddyeddy

Dave! wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0515/1224316130477.html



I didn't realise the Andrew Wakefield stuff had had an effect in Ireland too. Are our vaccination rates still low?

edit

Another article here

http://www.thejournal.ie/parents-urged-to-vaccinate-children-after-measles-outbreak-451367-May2012/

Well I may fall out with some but this is the skeptic forum and its an important thread. Several hundred thousand children in the uk recieved these vaccinations and its a certain amount of papers who have stated that said vaccines have caused Autisim. Its very important to say that th tabloids (and the Daily mail) twisted the facts to make a story. The story was a young girl who recieved the vaccine started showing signs of severe autisim. The papers linked this with a vaccine.

In my humble opinion the papers were either lieing or twisting the truth. Yes a girl did indeed suffer from autisim post vaccine but if the papers asked one doctor they would have known that very few girls develop severe autisim irrespective of external events. The girl who the papers were referencing clearly had retts syndrome which is a form of autisim which only shows symptoms after the ages of four or five. That made it easy for the papers to say she developed it post vaccine!

This is a very very important thread for the skeptics forum, in fact it may be one of the most important. The skeptics forum to me is all about fighting belief systems. This belief system could damage children so in my eyes its extremely important. Thanks for bringing it up Dave.

steddyeddy

mcmoustache wrote: »

This is definitely more of a CT thing than a paranormal thing. The locals here aren't really that anti-vax. I think this thread might get a bit more traction in the CT forum.

Does skeptic mean anti paranormal? I dont think it does?

PseudoFamous

Dave! wrote: »

If I wanted to antagonise the crazies then I would have posted in CT.

"Crazies" have feelings too

Coriolanus

I was never mmr'd and I'm an eighties kid. The distrust predated the Wakefield incident by quite a bit.

Monty Burnz

Coriolanus wrote: »

I was never mmr'd and I'm an eighties kid. The distrust predated the Wakefield incident by quite a bit.

MMR vaccine may not have existed or have been rolled out when you were a kid.

Dave!

Up to 51 now

The HSE has urged parents to ensure their children are vaccinated against measles following an outbreak in west Cork that has affected 51 children.

Assistant national director of health protection Dr Kevin Kelleher said two of those affected had been hospitalised, which showed how serious a measles infection could be, and the importance of vaccination to prevent unnecessary illness and the associated complications.

“Most of the children infected in Cork are teenagers and 88 per cent of cases have never received any dose of MMR vaccine. This large and rapidly spreading outbreak is a major concern not only to people in west Cork but for the whole of Ireland,” Dr Kelleher said.

Vaccination with MMR is the only way to protect against measles, he added.

“Failure to vaccinate leaves children exposed to a serious and potentially fatal disease. “But just as importantly, it exposes other children especially the most vulnerable babies under one year of age to this devastating disease.”

Children under one are those most likely to be liable to the severe complications and possibly death, Dr Kelleher said.

MMR vaccine is routinely provided at 12 months of age and again at preschool age (4-5 years of age.

The HSE said older children who did not get the vaccine at these ages needed to be vaccinated and that their parents should contact their GP.

Children younger than 13 years of age who missed out on the vaccine may still get it free of charge from their GP.

An administration fee may apply for older children and teenagers, but the vaccine itself is free.

MMR immunisation rates here have still not recovered following discredited research in 1998 linking the vaccine with bowel disease and autism.

Coriolanus

Monty Burnz wrote: »

MMR vaccine may not have existed or have been rolled out when you were a kid.

UCC has it listed as coming out in 88, so I missed it by two or three years. Funny really, I would have thought it had been around a lot longer than that.

ShanePouch

Dave! wrote: »

I was more looking for a skeptical discussion really, or to bring it to the attention of skeptics who might be interested. I could have posted in Health Science too probably. I've never seen a thread about vax in Paranormal.

In Ireland there has always been a suspicion of education and science, known as the invincible ignorance brigade. you can spot them quite easily because they usually tell you they "believe" in something or other or they "don't believe " in something or other.

For example, they might "believe" in homoeopathy, and not "believe" in vaccination. The invincible ignorance comes in because whatever evidence is available, they will hold their noses aloft and choose not to look at it, so convinced are they in their own invincible ignorance.

I'd also have to "believe" in homoeopathy because there is no evidence it works. I don't have to "believe" in paracetamol, because I know it works based on good evidence backed up by clinical trials. Likewise, I know vaccination works because of the plethora of evidence available, backed up by clinical trials.

Those who choose not to vaccinate themsleves, or their children, are at liberty to choose that route, but their decisions are flawed as we have seen by the results.

Monty Burnz

ShanePouch wrote: »

Those who choose not to vaccinate themsleves, or their children, are at liberty to choose that route, but their decisions are flawed as we have seen by the results.

Unfortunately their ignorance effects the rest of it because if vaccination levels fall below 85-90% we no longer have 'herd' immunity and even those who were vaccinated can catch the diseases from those weren't.

ShanePouch

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Unfortunately their ignorance effects the rest of it because if vaccination levels fall below 85-90% we no longer have 'herd' immunity and even those who were vaccinated can catch the diseases from those weren't.

Of course, invincible ignorance affects us all in many ways. However, I wouldn't like to live in the sort of country that forces parents to have their children vaccinated, and prefer instead to live in a country where we are free to make our own decisions, withing reason, however wrong those decisions might be.

Monty Burnz

ShanePouch wrote: »

Of course, invincible ignorance affects us all in many ways. However, I wouldn't like to live in the sort of country that forces parents to have their children vaccinated, and prefer instead to live in a country where we are free to make our own decisions, withing reason, however wrong those decisions might be.

Within reason, of course. But when you start to cause unnecessary deaths of children, perhaps you should be compelled to vaccinate?

ShanePouch

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Within reason, of course. But when you start to cause unnecessary deaths of children, perhaps you should be compelled to vaccinate?

I have to admire your courage, and myself would hate to see crying children taken from their parents by force, by agents of the state, and the parents resptarined and the children held down and for the purpose of vaccination. I imagine the European Court of Human Rights might have an argument with your apparent position on this.

Of course the parents we all get are a lottery, but even if I think their views wrong, that doesn't mean I think I should force my views upon them.

I wouldn't go as far as that myself, and if you decide that is a route you'd be prepared to take, then we differ.

Dave!

I'd be open to the idea of indirectly compelling parents to vaccinate, e.g. by schools requiring confirmation of vaccination before granting a child a place. I'm not sure that would be constitutional though.

ShanePouch

Dave! wrote: »

I'd be open to the idea of indirectly compelling parents to vaccinate, e.g. by schools requiring confirmation of vaccination before granting a child a place. I'm not sure that would be constitutional though.

Whatever about the constitution, I imagine the European Court of Human Rights might have, rightly, some objections.

What is it about modern Ireland where we want to bully everyone else around to our way of thinking, and where we no longer respect the rights of others to their own opinions, whether or not we agree with them.

The problem with this sort of thinking is that what happens then when it is you who have a strongly held view? I happen to agree with vaccination as I have said, but I also happen to believe in freedom and that includes the freedom to hold and express views with which I disagree.

Monty Burnz

ShanePouch wrote: »

What is it about modern Ireland where we want to bully everyone else around to our way of thinking, and where we no longer respect the rights of others to their own opinions, whether or not we agree with them.

Yes, I'm sick and tired of being afraid to drive my car after drinking and not being allowed carry guns around town.

Dave!

ShanePouch wrote: »

Whatever about the constitution, I imagine the European Court of Human Rights might have, rightly, some objections.

What is it about modern Ireland where we want to bully everyone else around to our way of thinking, and where we no longer respect the rights of others to their own opinions, whether or not we agree with them.

The problem with this sort of thinking is that what happens then when it is you who have a strongly held view? I happen to agree with vaccination as I have said, but I also happen to believe in freedom and that includes the freedom to hold and express views with which I disagree.

But you agree that freedom is not unlimited, and that it's reasonable to limit it if it is endangering others?

And you agree that failing to vaccinate children gives potentially fatal diseases scope to spread throughout a population?

You're free to hold and express views all you want.

FWIW I'm not advocating this policy, but think it should be a part of the discussion. We curtail liberties all the time, either to protect the individual (seatbelts) or bystanders (smoking ban, drink-driving, take your pick, etc).

ShanePouch

Dave! wrote: »

And you agree that failing to vaccinate children gives potentially fatal diseases scope to spread throughout a population?

FWIW I'm not advocating this policy, but think it should be a part of the discussion. We curtail liberties all the time, either to protect the individual (seatbelts) or bystanders (smoking ban, drink-driving, take your pick, etc).

.
Of course I don't necessarily agree that someone with a dangerous disease can pass it on to someone who has been properly vaccinated. In fact, the whole point of vaccination is to prevent those vaccinated from contracting diseases which are dangerous and as we have been told, those who were vaccinated here were not affected and its only those who were not vaccinated who were affected.

Yes, all the things you mention are part of an increasingly nanny state. the difference is that none of them are saying that the state is going to force you to have a foreign substance injected into your body, against your will.

The seatbelt law does not do that, nor does the smoking ban or drink driving laws. In fact, I disagree with nanny state forcing us to wear seatbelts, but always wear my own seatbelt because its a good idea. The smoking ban, again I consider the nanny state where the ban was introduced on dubious grounds and has, in fact, harmed the very people the ban was brought in supposedly to protect.

No one can seriously argue that it should not be an offence to drive a vehicle while drunk, and to suggest this is equivalent to having moral or ethical or medical or even crackpot reasons to not vaccinate ones children is a nonsense.

Dave!

AFAIK Hospital workers in the US are usually required to be vaccinated, do you disagree with that also? The workers aren't held down and injected, they just couldn't work there. A form of discrimination of course, but in the interest of patient safety.

Edit

Vaccinations are not 100% effective, so it's not correct to say that they will always be safe if vaccinated themselves. I believe studies have shown that an unvaccinated person in a highly vaccinated population is less likely to contract a disease than a vaccinated person in a population with low uptake of vaccination

ShanePouch

Dave! wrote: »

AFAIK Hospital workers in the US are usually required to be vaccinated, do you disagree with that also? The workers aren't held down and injected, they just couldn't work there. A form of discrimination of course, but in the interest of patient safety.

Edit

Vaccinations are not 100% effective, so it's not correct to say that they will always be safe if vaccinated themselves. I believe studies have shown that an unvaccinated person in a highly vaccinated population is less likely to contract a disease than a vaccinated person in a population with low uptake of vaccination

No one forces anyone to apply for any job, and if someone doesn't like the conditions of employment thy are also free to walk away.

My brother in law is Urologist and occassionally gets a needle stick injury which necessitates him to go on anti HIV medication. Its sensible and a necessary precaution, and its not unusual for medical staff to be vaccinated against various diseases, and in some instances its required by the empolyer where the employer might be held responsible should an employee contract a disease which might have been preventable, which is not confined to the USA.

Vaccinations are not always 100% effective, but to not vaccinate is 100% non effective.

Monty Burnz

ShanePouch wrote: »

.
Of course I don't necessarily agree that someone with a dangerous disease can pass it on to someone who has been properly vaccinated.

You can believe what you want, but I suggest you check the facts first. And look into 'herd immunity'.

caff

Some people appear to mix up the concept of Democracy and Freedom, in a democracy the majority agree to have their freedom restricted by a minority. The alternative is anarchism where people rule themselves without a leader.
I see no reason why in a democracy to protect the publics health that some vaccinations should not compulsory after sufficent peer review has proven it to be safe. It is not a human right to spread infection no more so than it is a human right to piss upstream.

steddyeddy

ShanePouch wrote: »

Of course, invincible ignorance affects us all in many ways. However, I wouldn't like to live in the sort of country that forces parents to have their children vaccinated, and prefer instead to live in a country where we are free to make our own decisions, withing reason, however wrong those decisions might be.

Basically your saying no one should be forced to look after their children properly. Not getting your child vaccinated is pretty close to child cruelty.

ShanePouch

steddyeddy wrote: »

Basically your saying no one should be forced to look after their children properly. Not getting your child vaccinated is pretty close to child cruelty.

I'm afraid if that's what you think , than you misunderstand me as I have said no such thing.

I respect the rights of parents to make decisions for their children, and I even respect their right to make what I consider might be wrong decisions for their children.

I don't relish living in a society where parents who genuinely believe that vaccination might be harmful, are forced to vaccinate their children against their better judgment.

I disagree with people who believe many things, but I am tolerant of their rights to disagree and hold different opinions. I dont think a few parents choosing not to have their children vaccinated poses a threat to society, as recent events seem to prove.

Should you decide its child cruelty to opt not to have ones children vaccinated, then I disagree, quite apart from the fact I suspect that any attempts by the Irish state to force parents to vaccinate their children would be scuppered, quite rightly, by the European Court of Human Rights.

I am now repeating what I said earlier so unless there are some new points to address, will stop repeating myself.

Monty Burnz

ShanePouch wrote: »

I disagree with people who believe many things, but I am tolerant of their rights to disagree and hold different opinions. I dont think a few parents choosing not to have their children vaccinated poses a threat to society, as recent events seem to prove.

What recent events? Recent events like the outbreaks of measles mentioned in the OP?

Sure, if a few people don't get the immunisation, they are really only risking themselves. But if it creeps up to 10-15%, it affects us all. And of course, the same people will probably be expecting to tap the public healthcare purse to deal with their child's illness and if the illness causes some disability the taxpayer will be on the hook for that too.

Gurgle

Monty Burnz wrote: »

if a few people don't get the immunisation, they are really only risking themselves.

This (stupid, ill-informed, irresponsible) decision isn't made by 2-day old babies.

steddyeddy

ShanePouch wrote: »

I'm afraid if that's what you think , than you misunderstand me as I have said no such thing.

I respect the rights of parents to make decisions for their children, and I even respect their right to make what I consider might be wrong decisions for their children.

I don't relish living in a society where parents who genuinely believe that vaccination might be harmful, are forced to vaccinate their children against their better judgment.

I disagree with people who believe many things, but I am tolerant of their rights to disagree and hold different opinions. I dont think a few parents choosing not to have their children vaccinated poses a threat to society, as recent events seem to prove.

Should you decide its child cruelty to opt not to have ones children vaccinated, then I disagree, quite apart from the fact I suspect that any attempts by the Irish state to force parents to vaccinate their children would be scuppered, quite rightly, by the European Court of Human Rights.

I am now repeating what I said earlier so unless there are some new points to address, will stop repeating myself.

I dont think parents should have the right to deliberately expose their children to harm. Could you detail how not immunising your child from a disease isnt cruel?

Stark

ShanePouch wrote: »

I respect the rights of parents to make decisions for their children, and I even respect their right to make what I consider might be wrong decisions for their children.

So you'd resent parents being forced to feed their children. Or forced to allow them blood transfusions. Or not being allowed to mutilate their children's genitals.

Monty Burnz

Gurgle wrote: »

This (stupid, ill-informed, irresponsible) decision isn't made by 2-day old babies.

Of course - should read 'their children' - thought I'd edited it...

ShanePouch

Monty Burnz wrote: »

What recent events? Recent events like the outbreaks of measles mentioned in the OP?

Sure, if a few people don't get the immunisation, they are really only risking themselves. But if it creeps up to 10-15%, it affects us all. And of course, the same people will probably be expecting to tap the public healthcare purse to deal with their child's illness and if the illness causes some disability the taxpayer will be on the hook for that too.

So if it creeps up to 10-15%, what do you propose when it reaches a level you deem dangerous?

I agree about the taxpayer implicataions, and have often wondered who pays, for example, for the drugs for homosexual men who seek out unsafe sex and contract HIV. Or smokers who contract lung cancer, or boozers who get liver disease and so and so on.

I notice you haven’t addressed the not insignificant issue of the likely objections of the European Court of Human Rights to any legislation compelling parents, in this case, to have their children vaccinated.

For the last time, I am going to point out that I agree with you that vaccination is a good and desirable thing.

Where we seem to differ is that

1. You seem to be advocating a law which forces parents to vaccinate their children against various diseases, against their will, (whereas I prefer the sort of society where we tolerate those with different opinions on this issue)

2. I can’t see any law framed in such a way that the European Court of Human Rights will not quash it, and you have yet to discuss how you think Ireland can frame a law in such a way to force parents, even using physical force or imprisonment, to vaccinate their children in such a way that that law will not attract the interest of the European Court of Human Rights.

ShanePouch

Stark wrote: »

So you'd resent parents being forced to feed their children. Or forced to allow them blood transfusions. Or not being allowed to mutilate their children's genitals.

If you can point me to anywhere I have said any of these things in this thread, I'll swim the channel.

If you want to engage with what I have said, and discuss or argue, then I am happy to do so. However, if you want me to argue with you about things which you invent, then argument seems futile.

who the fug

I still do not understand why the state could not accommodate the wishes of the parent, and allow them a choice of vaccination; people are not rational (especially when it comes to their kids).

Gurgle

who the fug wrote: »

I still do not understand why the state could not accommodate the wishes of the parent, and allow them a choice of vaccination.

They do, and some idiot parents made the stupid choice. That's what this thread is about.

who the fug

Gurgle wrote: »

They do, and some idiot parents made the stupid choice. That's what this thread is about.

Thought in the UK ,they just replaced the old system with the MMR.

mimsy

Gurgle wrote: »

Monty Burnz wrote: »

if a few people don't get the immunisation, they are really only risking themselves.

This (stupid, ill-informed, irresponsible) decision isn't made by 2-day old babies.

My child attends a preschool with several children who have special needs. Some of these children these cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons. I consider it irresponsible of any parent to allow their healthy child attend this preschool without an mmr vaccine. These parents are depending on everyone else to protect their children and are being incredibly selfish for purely ignorant and unfounded reasons.

The preschool is not allowed to refuse admission to their service because of not having vaccines. I think this is doing a disservice to a child who needs cooperation from all of society to ensure their safety.

whenever

ShanePouch wrote: »

In Ireland there has always been a suspicion of education and science, known as the invincible ignorance brigade. you can spot them quite easily because they usually tell you they "believe" in something or other or they "don't believe " in something or other.

For example, they might "believe" in homoeopathy, and not "believe" in vaccination. The invincible ignorance comes in because whatever evidence is available, they will hold their noses aloft and choose not to look at it, so convinced are they in their own invincible ignorance.

I'd also have to "believe" in homoeopathy because there is no evidence it works. I don't have to "believe" in paracetamol, because I know it works based on good evidence backed up by clinical trials. Likewise, I know vaccination works because of the plethora of evidence available, backed up by clinical trials.

Those who choose not to vaccinate themsleves, or their children, are at liberty to choose that route, but their decisions are flawed as we have seen by the results.

But is this liberty a liability to other children? The exposure of vaccinated children to potential carriers elevates their risk. This is to say nothing of vunerable children who may not be vaccinated for medical reasons. So should parents be at liberty to deny vaccination and yet have their children in school with those whose parents have had the good sense to protect?

Gurgle

ShanePouch wrote: »

In Ireland there has always been a suspicion of education and science

Not even remotely true.

The Celts were on a par with the Egyptians best astronomers back when they were building pyramids, Newgrange was built hundreds of years before the Giza pyramid. They just didn't have the equivalent 'natural resources' (i.e. millions of slaves) to build on that scale.

"Island of saints and scholars", it wasn't all about praying.

A fair whack of modern science was developed here, including the work of several nobel laureates.

Throw in a good batch of the great explorers, authors, poets, playwrights.

This notion of thick paddies stomping around in the mud while the world passes by is not particularly accurate. We had ~150 years of abject poverty, otherwise the island has been as modern as (almost) anywhere else for the last 5000 years.

ShanePouch

whenever wrote: »

But is this liberty a liability to other children? The exposure of vaccinated children to potential carriers elevates their risk. This is to say nothing of vunerable children who may not be vaccinated for medical reasons. So should parents be at liberty to deny vaccination and yet have their children in school with those whose parents have had the good sense to protect?

How are you proposing to force those parents who have their own objections to vaccinations to have their children vaccinated?

And how will whatever solution you propose be likely to be viewed by the ECHR ?

Lastly, do you really want to live in a society where parents are forced, by agents of the state, to be handed over to the authorities to be injected with substances those parents think are harmful, whatever the rights or wrongs about whether they are harmful or not? Certainly, i don't want to live in a society like that.

Stark

ShanePouch wrote: »

If you can point me to anywhere I have said any of these things in this thread, I'll swim the channel.

If you want to engage with what I have said, and discuss or argue, then I am happy to do so. However, if you want me to argue with you about things which you invent, then argument seems futile.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0112/transfusion.html

The needs of the child come before the ignorance of the parent.

ShanePouch

Stark wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0112/transfusion.html

The needs of the child come before the ignorance of the parent.

I note you don't say how you propose to get around the ECHR.
'

Akrasia

ShanePouch wrote: »

Dave! wrote: »

I'd be open to the idea of indirectly compelling parents to vaccinate, e.g. by schools requiring confirmation of vaccination before granting a child a place. I'm not sure that would be constitutional though.

Whatever about the constitution, I imagine the European Court of Human Rights might have, rightly, some objections.

What is it about modern Ireland where we want to bully everyone else around to our way of thinking, and where we no longer respect the rights of others to their own opinions, whether or not we agree with them.

The problem with this sort of thinking is that what happens then when it is you who have a strongly held view? I happen to agree with vaccination as I have said, but I also happen to believe in freedom and that includes the freedom to hold and express views with which I disagree.

i know how you feel. i miss polio too. why did the state interfere with my childs right to get polio!

Dave!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jul/27/infant-deaths-whooping-cough-epidemic

Five infant deaths signal serious UK whooping cough outbreak

Health experts are warning of a major outbreak of whooping cough: five infants have died so far this year, prompting doctors to consider a new round of vaccinations.

The Health Protection Agency said on Friday it was very concerned by figures which show 2,466 confirmed cases between January and June, six times the comparable figure for the previous big outbreak in 2008.

The government's vaccination committee is now considering recommending booster vaccinations for teenagers and pregnant women and has already recommended immunising healthcare workers who treat young children because infants are most at risk.

Mary Ramsay, the agency's head of immunisation, said: "We are working closely with the Department of Health's Joint Committee of Vaccination and Immunisation to consider the most effective ways to tackle the ongoing outbreak. The committee is reviewing a number of options, including the introduction of a booster dose in teenagers and offering whooping cough vaccination to pregnant women.

"In the meantime we are actively reviewing our cases to see what interventions could have the quickest impact on the spread."

On average, in the last 10 years in England and Wales, 800 cases of whooping cough were reported, with more than 300 babies being admitted to hospital and four babies dying each year.

"Whooping cough can spread easily to close contacts such as household members," said Ramsay. "Vaccination is the most effective way to protect people from this infection and uptake of the vaccine in the UK is very good. In addition to this, parents should ensure their children are up to date with their vaccinations so that they are protected at the earliest opportunity.

"Whooping cough can be a very serious illness, especially in the very young. In older people it can be unpleasant, but does not usually lead to serious complications. Anyone showing signs and symptoms, which include severe coughing fits accompanied by the characteristic "whoop" sound in young children, but as a prolonged cough in older children and adults, should visit their GP."

Infants are routinely vaccinated against whooping cough at two, three and four months, with a booster three years later. Before vaccination became routinely available in 1957 large epidemics occurred every three to five years in the UK. These epidemics affected up to 150,000 people and contributed to about 300 deaths annually.

Doesn't seem to be any mention of whether those affected are vaccinated or not... Should we take it that the young ones are too young for shots?

force eleven

We all want the best for our children. The vaccination question seems like a no brainer, but when you look at the sheer amount of vaccines we put into children in the first two years of life, you realise how much trust we're putting in multi national pharma companies and our health care providers.

I completely understand parents who worry about this question. It is in no way a black and white issue.

Zombrex

force eleven wrote: »

We all want the best for our children. The vaccination question seems like a no brainer, but when you look at the sheer amount of vaccines we put into children in the first two years of life, you realise how much trust we're putting in multi national pharma companies and our health care providers.

I completely understand parents who worry about this question. It is in no way a black and white issue.

That is like saying the amount of food we give our children in the first two years of life you realize how much trust we put in the multi-national food companies and our food safety authorities.

We do put trust in these groups, but we also need to eat. Which is why these groups are very well regulated.

Oryx

Multinational food companies stitch us up all the time (safe may not mean good for us). Bad example for comparison imo.

Yes, kids should be vaccinated. But should it be obligatory? No. For me, that would mean removal of a fundamental right. We are nannied and bullied enough by the state. This would be the thin end of the wedge for the removal of other material rights. Euthanasia, anyone?