Advertisement
Boards Golf Society are looking for new members for 2022...read about the society and their planned outings here!
How to add spoiler tags, edit posts, add images etc. How to - a user's guide to the new version of Boards

Incidence of measles, mumps and rubella all increase due to anti-vaccine campaign

1101112131416»

Comments



  • It should be a pre-requisite for child allowance and access to state facilities.

    Those who don't want the "state" vaccines can make do without it's benefits as well (valid reason for not getting vaccinated aside).




  • Jernal wrote: »
    You'd make extinct a lot of virulent strains. Completly eradicating a disease if you kept the vaccination rate consistent.


    But have you given any thought to what mandatory vaccination policies themselves will do to a society? Yes we'll all be healthy and we'll all live a lot longer etc, but what quality of life would we really have in a world free of disease? What kind of a precedent have we set for the future when you have people who are opposed to State interference in their own lives, but welcome State interference then when it suits them in the lives of others?

    These are the kind of questions I'm thinking we should ask ourselves before we start forcing our will on other people and if they don't comply - "take the children away and vaccinate them against the parents will", "stupid people don't deserve an opinion", etc.

    That makes us no better than the people who we see as ignorant, and guilt tripping, condemnation, shaming, ultimatums? None of that crap works! Mandatory vaccinations? You push people, they'll push back, unless you educate them and work with them and help them understand the benefits of vaccines.

    The 'huge majority' being those who know that vaccinations are a good idea. There has only being one person (and I'm not even sure he was) disagreeing with that fact.

    The thread is about whether or not they should be mandatory / compulsory / forced. Most seem to agree that they should be, yet nobody has explained how it could be achieved within the various legal and constitutional confines that already exist. Let alone attempt to deal with the social and ethical issues surrounding the idea, or the effect that such a massive change would have.

    Are you going to step up and have a go at solving it?


    I'm guessing that's me? Yes, vaccines are good, mandatory vaccination programs are bad, is the simplest way to explain my position. Other posters disagree, but have yet to put forward a viable strategy going forward. The general consensus seems to be "vaccinate them or we'll take your children from you and vaccinate them anyway". Empty, impractical, meaningless rhetoric that's just playing to the crowd.

    astrofool wrote: »
    It should be a pre-requisite for child allowance and access to state facilities.

    Those who don't want the "state" vaccines can make do without it's benefits as well (valid reason for not getting vaccinated aside).


    So that nullifies your whole suggestion then?


    Now, I'm off back to the "Iona Institute homophobic" / same-sex marriage thread where I left off reading up as far as page 25 about people defending their human rights...




  • "What quality of life will we have in a world free of disease"

    Really?




  • _Redzer_ wrote: »
    "What quality of life will we have in a world free of disease"

    Really?


    Yes.

    What quality of life will we have in a world free of disease?

    More stupid people whose opinions are invalid will live longer for a start! That's bound to get on your wick at least... (Films like "Idiocracy" and "WALL-E" come to mind)...

    Secondly, have you considered that more people living longer means more consumption of limited resources (GM foods could meet the demand, but then GM advocates will call those organic advocates "a pack of nutters").

    Thirdly- less need for medicines means less need for funding for research, less funding for research means less employment in the heath, biomedical and biosciences sectors, which means more competition in other sectors and more unemployed people living longer, with less employed people to support them.

    Fourthly - the people you forced to be vaccinated against their will, what do you think that's going to do to them? What do you think the public outcry is going to be like? People have known about dying children in Africa for the last 30 years, but all it'll take will be the handful of vaccinated children in the Western world to die and people will begin to lose faith in your mandatory vaccine program.

    That's not to mention the mental health damage you'll have done to people who objected to the mandatory vaccine program in the first place so you arbitrarily took their children from them and vaccinated them against their will. Have you a support system in place for these children you've taken away from their parents?

    I don't have all the answers either, but I sure have a hell of a lot of questions about this whole idea. These are the same questions you'd face from stupid people whom you think should have no opinion. Are you just going to say "Shut up and take your medicine", or are you going to try and educate them and their children about their health in general and why they would benefit from vaccination?




  • Was it the Irish Times that had an article recently about pylons/wind and one off housing where they said that for one county all of the planning applications granted last year were for one off houses.

    Which means a four times higher risk of death for road users (pedestrians ?) and much higher costs for services.

    The economics amount to being subsided to some extent by the rest of us, but the increased risk of RTA is interesting. It amounts to putting yourself in harms way.


  • Advertisement


  • Czarcasm wrote: »
    Yes.

    What quality of life will we have in a world free of disease?

    More stupid people whose opinions are invalid will live longer for a start! That's bound to get on your wick at least... (Films like "Idiocracy" and "WALL-E" come to mind)...

    Secondly, have you considered that more people living longer means more consumption of limited resources (GM foods could meet the demand, but then GM advocates will call those organic advocates "a pack of nutters").

    Thirdly- less need for medicines means less need for funding for research, less funding for research means less employment in the heath, biomedical and biosciences sectors, which means more competition in other sectors and more unemployed people living longer, with less employed people to support them.

    Fourthly - the people you forced to be vaccinated against their will, what do you think that's going to do to them? What do you think the public outcry is going to be like? People have known about dying children in Africa for the last 30 years, but all it'll take will be the handful of vaccinated children in the Western world to die and people will begin to lose faith in your mandatory vaccine program.

    That's not to mention the mental health damage you'll have done to people who objected to the mandatory vaccine program in the first place so you arbitrarily took their children from them and vaccinated them against their will. Have you a support system in place for these children you've taken away from their parents?

    I don't have all the answers either, but I sure have a hell of a lot of questions about this whole idea. These are the same questions you'd face from stupid people whom you think should have no opinion. Are you just going to say "Shut up and take your medicine", or are you going to try and educate them and their children about their health in general and why they would benefit from vaccination?

    This is the most bizarre opinion I've ever heard :)




  • iguana wrote: »
    My son will be fully vaccinated, not so much because I worry about his health but because I feel a responsibility toward other children with weakened immune systems and feel we have a responsibility as a society to take care of our weakest members. But we can't enforce mandatory vaccinations. Try look at this from another point of view. We all know that, on average, children who aren't breastfed suffer from a higher rate of illness than is the biological norm. So do we make breastfeeding (to the WHO and HSE recommendations of 6 months exclusively and then a minimum of another 18 months complimentary) mandatory? You can't do that, even though it would most likely benefit society as a whole.

    The way forward is honest and open campaigns that address people's fears without making them feel dismissed but that also explain the importance of herd immunity in easy to understand ways.

    And if a sizeable number of people still don't change their minds what then? If they deny their kids the right to protection and endanger other kids who can't get vaccinated (too young, allergies) then we're supposed to say "oh well we tried". I am not OK with giving parents the right to deny their children medical aid.




  • steddyeddy wrote: »
    And if a sizeable number of people still don't change their minds what then? If they deny their kids the right to protection and endanger other kids who can't get vaccinated (too young, allergies) then we're supposed to say "oh well we tried". I am not OK with giving parents the right to deny their children medical aid.


    There aren't too many Eddy would be too fond of your idea of part-time parenting either.




  • Czarcasm wrote: »
    So that nullifies your whole suggestion then?

    (facetious) How's about we gos with "(valid reason for not getting vaccinated aside, which has been approved by the state)"

    As to your point, they're not mandatory if you want to live without any benefits from the state, so people can still be an ass if they want to, tax payer just won't fund their being an ass ways.




  • Jonny7 wrote: »
    This is the most bizarre opinion I've ever heard :)


    Don't worry Jonny, it's never going to happen. It's a completely unrealistic extrapolation of the suggestions that some posters have put forward in this thread as the solution for those people who do not agree with mandatory vaccination.

    astrofool wrote: »
    (facetious) How's about we gos with "(valid reason for not getting vaccinated aside, which has been approved by the state)"


    Yes, that's what I thought you meant originally. They have a system something like that in the US already, and indeed there are still many parents that choose to opt out already, for reasons that the State really can't do a whole lot about (not for the lack of trying either!).

    As to your point, they're not mandatory if you want to live without any benefits from the state, so people can still be an ass if they want to, tax payer just won't fund their being an ass ways.


    Wouldn't we all love that in all fairness? (And there's plenty of ways of being an ass to boot!).

    I was watching "Benefits Street" last night and there was a guy on it who had four children by four different women, gave all the usual story and so on, he'd lost contact with his children, completely socially irresponsible, got himself on a methadone program and the camera cuts to some woman saying "he's really gotten his life back together", cuts back to the guy and he's cracking open a can of beer or ale or some shíte walking down the street in broad daylight.

    Some people just don't give a fcuk. They don't care if you withdraw their benefits, they don't care if you take their children (I can make more!), they don't care about their fcuking neighbours, and you expect them to give a damn for people they don't even know who are worlds apart (metaphorically speaking) from the world they know?

    Not all those against mandatory vaccinations are religious people nor airy fairy hippies either, so the solution isn't just "take their benefits off them", because you're still left with the issue of encouraging them to get vaccinated.


  • Advertisement


  • The anti vaccine movement should be proud of this. 16 people in New York have broken out in measles and nine of those. are children.

    LEFT]Remember that map we showed you in January that tracks all the instances of completely preventable diseases that are re-emerging due to lack of vaccination? Sadly, it is receiving several new data points due to an outbreak of the measles in New York City. Nineteen people have been diagnosed with measles and health officials are blaming an influx of people opting out of vaccinations. Four have been hospitalized due to their symptoms.
    Measles is a highly contagious, viral respiratory system infection that can be transmitted through the air. Symptoms include a fever, cough, and widespread rash that causes itching. Roughly 1 in 3 people who get diagnosed with measles will suffer a complication, according to the CDC. These complications vary in severity, ranging from pneumonia, ulcers on the cornea, swelling of the brain, and death. Measles can be easily controlled through vaccination and the United States saw a 99% drop in measles diagnoses since the vaccine was introduced in the 1960s. Unfortunately, the diseases have not been completely eradicated due to those in the anti-vaccination faction.
    “As long as your kid is vaccinated, why should you care if mine is?” This statement is often cited among parents who choose not to vaccinate their children, probably because it would be a logical argument if this were a perfect world. For those of us stuck here in reality, it is easy to see the blatant flaws. First and foremost, you cannot claim that herd immunity keeps other children safe when you actively try to thin the herd by advocating against vaccines.
    The first dose of the MMR vaccine isn’t administered until a child is 12-15 months old and doesn’t offer full protection until the child receives the second dose between ages 4-6. The youngest New Yorker to be diagnosed with measles is 3 months old. This child was never even given the option to be vaccinated and protected against the disease.
    In addition to the young, the immunocompromised also rely on being surrounded by vaccinated individuals in order to stay protected. Those with severe allergies to gelatin or are receiving blood products are not able to get vaccinated. New York has more citizens living with AIDS than any other state in the country and can be especially susceptible to infection. Those who are HIV+ are able to receive the MMR vaccines and may benefit from a booster, provided they are not showing symptoms of AIDS.
    Health officials in New York are recommending that everyone who is able to get the MMR vaccine do so. If an adult is unsure if they were vaccinated as a child, they can either receive another dose or get blood work done to check their immunity status. Pregnant women are unable to receive the vaccine, though getting an infection can increase the chances of birth defects, miscarriage, or pre-term labor.
    The MMR vaccine came under scrutiny in 1998 by Andrew Wakefield, who claimed it caused autism. Because autism symptoms typically appear around the same time that children get the bulk of their vaccines, parents began to worry and began rejecting vaccines. The rest of the scientific community denied his claims, as they were unable to reproduce the results. It was later revealed that Wakefield had actually falsified his data and was driven by financial motivation. His paper was retracted by the journal and his medical license was stripped, though some people still cling to the misinformation and view it as truth. There is absolutely zero scientific evidence to support a causal connection between vaccines and autism. This reckless anti-vax fear-mongering is absolutely responsible for this measles outbreak.

    Read more at http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/measles-outbreak-hits-new-york-city#w4XAzZdZg5CYR2hm.99
    [/LEFT]




  • :(
    The spread of Misinformation and lazy media is only going to make this worse.




  • steddyeddy wrote: »
    The anti vaccine movement should be proud of this. 16 people in New York have broken out in measles and nine of those. are children.


    I don't think that's a fair accusation to level at anyone whose point of view doesn't agree with yours. Do you honestly believe anyone wants to see children die, let alone their own children? Your statement is almost as inciteful as this line from the article is daft -

    The youngest New Yorker to be diagnosed with measles is 3 months old. This child was never even given the option to be vaccinated and protected against the disease.


    Three-month old children can't make decisions for themselves. That's why their parents advocate on their behalf. If any government takes that decision away from the parents (and we often hear the fallacy of the slippery slope argument around these parts), but this really IS the thin end of the wedge, and the more powerful lobby groups will be able to dictate government policy with regard to a whole spectrum of social behaviours that will take decisions out of the hands of parents.

    Educate people, that's all you can do, and after that if they still make decisions you can't agree with, then you don't have the right to go over their heads to force them to comply with your point of view.




  • The triumph of stupidity and "I have an opinion and it must be lived out by my children" brigade.




  • We should all be lemmings!




  • The triumph of stupidity and "I have an opinion and it must be lived out by my children" brigade.

    Explains why so many people are religious...




  • I believe MMR should be mandatory since I live by the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.




  • Czarcasm wrote: »
    I don't think that's a fair accusation to level at anyone whose point of view doesn't agree with yours. Do you honestly believe anyone wants to see children die, let alone their own children? Your statement is almost as inciteful as this line from the article is daft -





    Three-month old children can't make decisions for themselves. That's why their parents advocate on their behalf. If any government takes that decision away from the parents (and we often hear the fallacy of the slippery slope argument around these parts), but this really IS the thin end of the wedge, and the more powerful lobby groups will be able to dictate government policy with regard to a whole spectrum of social behaviours that will take decisions out of the hands of parents.

    Educate people, that's all you can do, and after that if they still make decisions you can't agree with, then you don't have the right to go over their heads to force them to comply with your point of view.


    I don't believe people want to see children die but that's what they're doing by opposing these vaccines.

    The three year old child has no say in this and that's the point. They rely on herd immunity and other people getting the vaccine.




  • Czarcasm wrote: »
    I don't think that's a fair accusation to level at anyone whose point of view doesn't agree with yours. Do you honestly believe anyone wants to see children die, let alone their own children?
    The irony is they think they are protecting their children when all they are doing is putting them and future generations at risk.

    They are only thinking short term and selfishly. Because if we can vaccinate every healthy person in the world at the same time then measles can be eradicated forever. And no ones child need never fear the pain, disability and death it causes.


    It's very simple. Many of the diseases for which we have vaccines aren't easily treatable. If you get measles then it's a horrible illness for most people with permanent health problems for one in a hundred and death for one in a thousand. And that's for small outbreaks it would be worse in a pandemic.


    How would you explain to a young adult that the reason they are now sterile was because you were worried about the MMR ? How would you explain to the kids in Syria that now have Polio that vaccines are bad ?




  • Some people think of mandatory vaccines as a separate issue than being pro or against vaccines but I don't think they are. It's not good enough to sit back and say it shouldn't be a requirement to get their child vaccinated and then say I think that people should vaccinate their child. That's not good enough because education doesn't always work. How many creationists in the world are converted through education? Some people can't get the vaccine through health reasons and age and educating people isn't good enough.

    By spending time educating people you're allowing the uneducated to use their child as a reservoir for the virus. That means it could mutate and eventually make the the vaccine useless. Now I would consider myself left but if getting rid of this virus makes me right wing then so be it.


  • Advertisement


  • steddyeddy wrote: »
    Some people think of mandatory vaccines as a separate issue than being pro or against vaccines but I don't think they are. It's not good enough to sit back and say it shouldn't be a requirement to get their child vaccinated and then say I think that people should vaccinate their child. That's not good enough because education doesn't always work. How many creationists in the world are converted through education? Some people can't get the vaccine through health reasons and age and educating people isn't good enough.

    By spending time educating people you're allowing the uneducated to use their child as a reservoir for the virus. That means it could mutate and eventually make the the vaccine useless. Now I would consider myself left but if getting rid of this virus makes me right wing then so be it.

    Also, you can't educate people who are so attached to their opinions that they confuse them with fact, and whose egos would be shattered if they had to admit that they were incorrect. They're the sort who have way more energy for arguments and will probably try to "educate" you. Jab their kids with a syringe concealed in a doll or something, Russian spy-style.




  • Vaccine refusals are correlated with an increase in the incidents of measles and it's happening in on of California's wealthier areas. Adding to the problem is a physician who doesn't advocate vaccinations.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/vaccination-refusals-in-southern-california-alarming-health-officials/

    ORANGE COUNTY, Calif. -- Public health officials say they're alarmed at the growing number of cases of measles and whooping cough. They blame parents who are now refusing to immunize their kids. And it's happening mostly in wealthy communities.By his own admission, Dr. Bob Sears may be the only pediatrician in Southern California who does not advocate child vaccinations.
    "I would say about half of my patients are not vaccinating," he said.
    It's a growing trend, especially in affluent communities like Santa Monica and Malibu, where nearly 15 percent of kindergarteners are not immunized. In the Orange County community where Sears practices, almost 10 percent of kindergarteners were not vaccinated.
    The Centers for Disease Control says public health is compromised when more than 8 percent of students are not immunized.
    Sears does not feel he's a part of the problem.
    "Fortunately my patients are scattered all over Orange County and Southern California," he said.

    Dr. Margaret Van Blerk, who is also a pediatrician in Orange County, takes exception to Sears' perspective.
    "I completely disagree," she said. "The research shows that if we don't vaccinate children, they're more likely to get sick and potentially get diseases that can kill them."
    Highly contagious diseases like measles are on the rise. California has seen 61 cases so far this year, the highest in two decades. Twenty-two of those cases are in Orange County.
    When Brook Olsen last came to Dr. Van Blerk's office "there was a sign on the door saying there's an outbreak of measles. It freaked me out," she said. "In Orange County!"
    "I tell parents that you don't necessarily have to live in fear of these diseases," Sears said. "You have to respect them, you have to understand them, but they're fairly unlikely to happen to any child."
    Dr. Sears says he's not anti-vaccine, but people need to know about the risks.
    "Parents don't want their baby or their child to have a bad side effect. They don't want to be a victim of a very severe vaccine reaction," he said.
    But Van Blerk countered: "If you don't vaccinate your child, then you're taking a risk," she said. "You're gambling, and usually at gambling, you lo
    se.




  • gvn wrote: »
    Nope.

    The idea of The State forcing an individual to receive a vaccination against his or her will (or against the will of his or her parents in the case of a child) makes me queasy. My view stems not from a distaste for or distrust in vaccinations, but from a belief in individual liberty.

    This is an old comment I know but this "individual liberty" thing seems to crop up quite often in these discussions.

    Is it not the case that the individual in question being a child doesn't have any autonomy in that regard to make the decision themselves ? So whether its the parent or the state they are at the mercy of the will of others.

    Given both the parent and the state have an obligation to the child to ensure its not being put at unnecessary risk or its well being compromised I see no problem with state enforced vaccinations no more than there's a problem with state enforced anything if a child is deemed to be at risk.




  • This is an old comment I know but this "individual liberty" thing seems to crop up quite often in these discussions.
    There's a simple solution.

    Many dangerous things are permitted in our society. Some like cars are so dangerous that you must have a license to use them and the risk of harm is so high that you get third party insurance, and in any event you risk being sued or even arrested for putting others in harms way.

    Apply the same rules to vaccination for diseases that are preventable, communicable and fatal.




    There is a theory that if everyone else is vaccinated then you don't need to expose yourself to any possible risk from a vaccine.

    This is of course complete horseshít. There was an outbreak of Measles in April in NUI Galway. Most of those infected weren't vaccinated.

    The theory only works for diseases we've already eradicated. No one worries about the health risks of the smallpox vaccine because no one ever needs to take it ever again , because , at just one point in time, everyone took the vaccine.

    There is an argument that you don't need to take a vaccine if you aren't exposed to likely carriers. Good luck with that one. We live in a multicultural society and international travel has never been so affordable. And then there are illegal immigrants coming from areas where public health spending is practically zero.


    Until we eradicate these diseases you are better off taking vaccines.

    IMHO one of the most selfish things a parent can do is to force their grandchildren to live in a word full of disease. Which is more or less what they are doing if they don't vaccinate their children.


Advertisement