Whooping Cough Epidemic... But not in Africa

Drakares · 15-06-2014 12:53PM #1

Source

But in California! 3,458 whooping cough cases reported between January 1 and June 10...

This illness is deadly and there has been a vaccination around for years...

Should these parents be charged with child abuse? There has been dozens of studies performed that have proven absolutely no link to autism. Disgusting uneducated people.

caustic 1 · 15-06-2014 01:00PM

You say disgusting uneducated people but I think it is very hard to ascertain what is fact when both side are throwing figures at someone. It is your child you are going to administer injections to and when someone plants a seed of doubt in your head you want to be sure before you do this in order to protect them. I remember when there was an MMR scare years ago saying the same thing about children and I did think twice before going ahead. There is a fear there whether you are doing the right or wrong thing. Does that make me uneducated, perhaps, I'd say careful.

Mr. Incognito · 15-06-2014 01:03PM

Just a result of overuse of antibiotics and bacteria becoming immune.

Intensive Care Bear · 15-06-2014 01:28PM

I had Whooping cough about 6 years ago, it was proper nasty, i'd wake up in the middle of the night coughing and then almost pass out because i couldn't breath back in again. It took about 700 euros wasted on doctors trips and various medications before i was diagnosed (by google and then confirmed it via a blood test)

I was vaccinated against it as a child but it didn't stop me catching it.

steddyeddy · 15-06-2014 01:31PM

Yes without a doubt parents are responsible. Vaccines should be compulsory.

Turtwig · 15-06-2014 01:37PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Yes without a doubt parents are responsible. Vaccines should be compulsory.

No they shouldn't! Nothing is more important in society than the freedom to choose. Parents making stupid decisions need to be educated but it must ALWAYS be the individuals, or their legal guardians, choice.

wretcheddomain · 15-06-2014 01:38PM

It's called Pertussis for the rest of us...

ComputerKing · 15-06-2014 01:41PM

Turtwig wrote: »

No they shouldn't! Nothing is more important in society than the freedom to choose. Parents making stupid decisions need to be educated but it must ALWAYS be the individuals, or their legal guardians, choice.

Ya but without the 95% vaccination rate we all suffer. No one should be dying form a disease when there is a vaccine available because some people are completely misinformed and refuse to vaccinate their children.

RobertKK · 15-06-2014 01:48PM

Turtwig wrote: »

No they shouldn't! Nothing is more important in society than the freedom to choose. Parents making stupid decisions need to be educated but it must ALWAYS be the individuals, or their legal guardians, choice.

That argument fails on one count - if not enough people are vaccinated it put everyone included the vaccinated people at risk. So the non vaccinated person is therefore putting someone else's health at risk.

The MMR vaccine for example has saved countless lives, but with the scare it reduced the number of parents getting their children vaccinated and it did lead to measles outbreaks in society.

Last year a 25 year old in Wales got measles and died.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-23135464

He hadn't been vaccinated and the uptake in the area was not enough to offer 'herd immunity'.
So getting vaccinated is more than a choice, you are not just doing it for yourself but for society as a whole.

Wacker The Attacker · 15-06-2014 01:48PM

open up a can of whooping cough on their ass

Muise... · 15-06-2014 01:55PM

Turtwig wrote: »

No they shouldn't! Nothing is more important in society than the freedom to choose. Parents making stupid decisions need to be educated but it must ALWAYS be the individuals, or their legal guardians, choice.

Choose what? Choose not to put a seatbelt on your child in a car? Choose not to feed them? Choose to let them stay home from school whenever they want?

Nothing is more important in society than the realisation that it's not all about you.

wretcheddomain · 15-06-2014 02:12PM

Turtwig wrote: »

No they shouldn't! Nothing is more important in society than the freedom to choose. Parents making stupid decisions need to be educated but it must ALWAYS be the individuals, or their legal guardians, choice.

So people have the freedom to make stupid decisions but you advocate educating them away from making said stupid decisions. In other words, you're admitting they're doing the wrong thing only you advocate giving them the choice to do so.

Wouldn't it be better then, and even safer, to enforce the decision so that the consequences of said stupid decision are not realised; in this case, the death of a child?

Nodin · 15-06-2014 02:31PM

Drakares wrote: »

Source

But in California! 3,458 whooping cough cases reported between January 1 and June 10...

This illness is deadly and there has been a vaccination around for years...
..............

Is it known that non-up-take of the vaccine is to blame?

Drakares · 15-06-2014 02:39PM

1210m5g wrote: »

I was vaccinated against it as a child but it didn't stop me catching it.

That's because This vaccine needs to be refreshed every 10 years.

Guy:Incognito · 15-06-2014 02:45PM

Turtwig wrote: »

No they shouldn't! Nothing is more important in society than the freedom to choose. Parents making stupid decisions need to be educated but it must ALWAYS be the individuals, or their legal guardians, choice.

What about others right to choose not to have their kids infected with preventable diseases? Not everyone can be vaccinated or be immune with them. Those people have no choice but to have their lives put in danger by diseases that really should be long since erradicated

Turtwig · 15-06-2014 02:53PM

RobertKK wrote: »

That argument fails on one count - if not enough people are vaccinated it put everyone included the vaccinated people at risk. So the non vaccinated person is therefore putting someone else's health at risk.

A non vaccinated person is generally an inconsiderate ignoramus but that doesn't mean the argument fails. Vaccination requires injecting a substance into someone else's body. Now, most people abhor the idea of force feeding. Yet, on this thread, some seem ok with injection of substances that may have potentially more adverse effects than most foods do. For example, the most effective polio vaccine will give less than .01% of the vaccinated people polio. For this reason, unless there's an outbreak that vaccine is usually avoided with preference to a less effective but generally safer one. The flu vaccine could be a trigger for nacrolepsy. It makes sense too, the flu itself can cause nacrolepsy so there's nothing to say the vaccine can't. In every case of vaccination the risks of adverse effects are incredibly low and offset by the risks from non vaccination, but adverse events do happen. Just like people win the lottery, people also get very bad side effects from vaccinations and medications. When it comes to practically all forms of surgery and medicine the patient, or their guardians, have to give consent. I don't see why vaccinations should be any different. I'm ok with a system whereby the a parent has to 'opt out' of vaccination. But I'm not ok with a system where any individual has no choice in the matter. What are you going to do? Restrain them?
To use the greater good argument, if you're pro-life you can argue that restraining women who want to commit abortion is the right thing to do. You're saving lives. If you're human, you can point out how barbaric such an action is. Compulsory vaccinations against an individuals expressed wishes is barbaric. Anyone who suggests greater good or otherwise needs to get their empathy checked. I'd rather die from lack of herd immunity than live knowing the only reason I'm alive is because a the herd was inoculated against their wishes.

Society, should wherever possible, restrain from compulsion.

Sheldons Brain · 15-06-2014 02:59PM

Turtwig wrote: »

No they shouldn't! Nothing is more important in society than the freedom to choose. Parents making stupid decisions need to be educated but it must ALWAYS be the individuals, or their legal guardians, choice.

Freedom to choose? Can parents refuse to educate their children? Can they refuse to allow them out of the house?

Flippyfloppy · 15-06-2014 02:59PM

It speaks volumes about a parent when they would be willing to risk their child catching a life threatening disease and dying so they won't 'get' autism.

Muise... · 15-06-2014 03:02PM

Turtwig wrote: »

A non vaccinated person is generally an inconsiderate ignoramus but that doesn't mean the argument fails. Vaccination requires injecting a substance into someone else's body. Now, most people abhor the idea of force feeding. Yet, on this thread, some seem ok with injection of substances that may have potentially more adverse effects than most foods do. For example, the most effective polio vaccine will give less than .01% of the vaccinated people polio. For this reason, unless there's an outbreak that vaccine is usually avoided with preference to a less effective but generally safer one. The flu vaccine could be a trigger for nacrolepsy. It makes sense too, the flu itself can cause nacrolepsy so there's nothing to say the vaccine can't. In every case of vaccination the risks of adverse effects are incredibly low and offset by the risks from non vaccination, but adverse events do happen. Just like people win the lottery, people also get very bad side effects from vaccinations and medications. When it comes to practically all forms of surgery and medicine the patient, or their guardians, have to give consent. I don't see why vaccinations should be any different. I'm ok with a system whereby the a parent has to 'opt out' of vaccination. But I'm not ok with a system where any individual has no choice in the matter. What are you going to do? Restrain them?
To use the greater good argument, if you're pro-life you can argue that restraining women who want to commit abortion is the right thing to do. You're saving lives. If you're human, you can point out how barbaric such an action is. Compulsory vaccinations against an individuals expressed wishes is barbaric. Anyone who suggests greater good or otherwise needs to get their empathy checked. I'd rather die from lack of herd immunity than live knowing the only reason I'm alive is because a the herd was inoculated against their wishes.

Society, should wherever possible, restrain from compulsion.

A kid I knew died of measles. It was awful. I was a kid at the time too, but if you want an empathy test, my feelings go with his family and not someone who is being a total drama queen about a simple jab that stops other people dying of preventable diseases. Barbaric? Histrionic, I think.

Turtwig · 15-06-2014 03:14PM

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

Freedom to choose? Can parents refuse to educate their children? Can they refuse to allow them out of the house?

Already explained that wherever possible people should have the freedom to choose. Though obviously it can't be an absolute. For example, calling 'bomb' in a crowded area. Or freedom to choose to stab someone because they're annoying you.

Muise... · 15-06-2014 03:17PM

Turtwig wrote: »

Already explained that wherever possible people should have the freedom to choose. Though obviously it can't be an absolute. For example, calling 'bomb' in a crowded area. Or freedom to choose to stab someone because they're annoying you.

In this instance, many people think you shouldn't have the freedom to turn your kid into a potential germ-bomb.

Turtwig · 15-06-2014 03:17PM

Muise... wrote: »

A kid I knew died of measles. It was awful. I was a kid at the time too, but if you want an empathy test, my feelings go with his family and not someone who is being a total drama queen about a simple jab that stops other people dying of preventable diseases. Barbaric? Histrionic, I think.

Very sorry to read that but, why should empathy only go one way? Would you be ok with forcibly vaccinating one of these so called 'drama queens'? Vaccinations, aren't always just a 'simple' jab either. Declaring them so betrays the complexities that can often arise with decisions to vaccinate.

Muise... · 15-06-2014 03:25PM

Turtwig wrote: »

Very sorry to read that but, why should empathy only go one way? Would you be ok with forcibly vaccinating one of these so called 'drama queens'? Vaccinations, aren't always just a 'simple' jab either. Declaring them so betrays the complexities that can often arise with decisions to vaccinate.

Empathy for the wilfully thick? Empathy for those who think their own delusions are more important than the health of their children and other people's children. No.

What complexities (apart from the well-known common side effects)? Cognitive dissonance? Feeling like you have betrayed all your special snowflake pals?

I would be OK with a system where access to all state services is conditional on vaccination. This would save a lot of unpleasant and unnecessary scuffles in the clinics.

RobertKK · 15-06-2014 03:27PM

Turtwig wrote: »

A non vaccinated person is generally an inconsiderate ignoramus but that doesn't mean the argument fails. Vaccination requires injecting a substance into someone else's body. Now, most people abhor the idea of force feeding. Yet, on this thread, some seem ok with injection of substances that may have potentially more adverse effects than most foods do. For example, the most effective polio vaccine will give less than .01% of the vaccinated people polio. For this reason, unless there's an outbreak that vaccine is usually avoided with preference to a less effective but generally safer one. The flu vaccine could be a trigger for nacrolepsy. It makes sense too, the flu itself can cause nacrolepsy so there's nothing to say the vaccine can't. In every case of vaccination the risks of adverse effects are incredibly low and offset by the risks from non vaccination, but adverse events do happen. Just like people win the lottery, people also get very bad side effects from vaccinations and medications. When it comes to practically all forms of surgery and medicine the patient, or their guardians, have to give consent. I don't see why vaccinations should be any different. I'm ok with a system whereby the a parent has to 'opt out' of vaccination. But I'm not ok with a system where any individual has no choice in the matter. What are you going to do? Restrain them?
To use the greater good argument, if you're pro-life you can argue that restraining women who want to commit abortion is the right thing to do. You're saving lives. If you're human, you can point out how barbaric such an action is. Compulsory vaccinations against an individuals expressed wishes is barbaric. Anyone who suggests greater good or otherwise needs to get their empathy checked. I'd rather die from lack of herd immunity than live knowing the only reason I'm alive is because a the herd was inoculated against their wishes.

Society, should wherever possible, restrain from compulsion.

Sometimes people have to think wider than themselves and what they want.IN terms of vaccinations, freedom for one person in not having it, could be a death sentence for someone else, if enough people decide not to vaccinate.
I am pro-life and I know it will not stop change the opinion of those who want abortion and I can't stop them, but I also know an abortion will not lead to an outbreak of measles, rubella or whatever which affects others. One has to put it into perspective.
People who vaccinate are doing something not just for themselves but for society and we should be thankful to all who do the right thing.
There shouldn't be a freedom that allows disease outbreaks.

Greenmachine · 15-06-2014 03:31PM

Muise... wrote: »

Empathy for the wilfully thick? Empathy for those who think their own delusions are more important than the health of their children and other people's children. No.

What complexities (apart from the well-known common side effects)? Cognitive dissonance? Feeling like you have betrayed all your special snowflake pals?

I would be OK with a system where access to all state services is conditional on vaccination. This would save a lot of unpleasant and unnecessary scuffles in the clinics.

What a disgusting vulgar proposition. Why not force people on welfare to be sterilized. It would reduce the number of people living in poverty. Sound good on the surface, but it ignore the needs, wants and wishes of individuals. Why not ban the marketing of any foodstuff, chemical or medicine that has the potential to cause an allergy. Pretty sure ever medicine out there has the potential to cause a negative reaction.

Renegade Mechanic · 15-06-2014 03:33PM

Muise... · 15-06-2014 03:35PM

Greenmachine wrote: »

What a disgusting vulgar proposition. Why not force people on welfare to be sterilized. It would reduce the number of people living in poverty. Sound good on the surface, but it ignore the needs, wants and wishes of individuals. Why not ban the marketing of any foodstuff, chemical or medicine that has the potential to cause an allergy. Pretty sure ever medicine out there has the potential to cause a negative reaction.

Wow. You just went to 11.

Turtwig · 15-06-2014 03:36PM

People so far on this thread seem to be dodging the crux of the issue:

Would you be ok with administering someone with a substance against their will? That's what compulsory vaccination entails.

RobertKK wrote: »

.
There shouldn't be a freedom that allows disease outbreaks.

So what freedoms are you willing to restrict to ensure this isn't the case?

Muise... · 15-06-2014 03:39PM

Turtwig wrote: »

People so far on this thread seem to be dodging the crux of the issue:

Would you be ok with administering someone with a substance against their will? That's what compulsory vaccination entails.

So what freedoms are you willing to restrict to ensure this isn't the case?

I'm ok with it.

Remember that in most vaccinations, the infant/child isn't at all happy about it, so the parents and doctors have to soothe them. If the parent is acting like a baby, treat them like one.

But as I said, I prefer the more carrot approach of access to schools and public services depending on vaccination. This protects all other users of the services too.

MagicMarker · 15-06-2014 03:40PM

RobertKK wrote: »

There shouldn't be a freedom that allows disease outbreaks.

So sex should be illegal unless performed in a strict controlled environment?

RobertKK · 15-06-2014 03:43PM

Turtwig wrote: »

People so far on this thread seem to be dodging the crux of the issue:

Would you be ok with administering someone with a substance against their will? That's what compulsory vaccination entails.

So what freedoms are you willing to restrict to ensure this isn't the case?

Yes.

If someone is being unreasonable about vaccinations, the problem isn't the vaccine, it is the person who refuses.

Having outbreaks of measles and people dying in this day and age is ridiculous when totally avoidable.
California has had two young children die of Whooping cough/Pertussis this year.
Now all pregnant women in California are being told to get vaccinated so their unborn can have protection.

Being intentionally irresponsible and putting lives at risk shouldn't be allowed.

Whooping Cough Epidemic... But not in Africa

Comments