Measles: Debunked theory, er, stupidity is not an excuse.

[fromderinside]

For fun and games since some are talking about UK rights to prohibit military wings as parties.

Is there a right for parents to stand in the way of everybody's health because they are just F-ing stupid. Specifically should people have rights to oppose public safety to violate another's right to secure safe educations by sending their children to school unvaccinated against disease, specifically measles. Let's be clear. The science is in. Vaccinations for measles are safe.

Here's is how The New Yorker writer Masha Gessen writes it in "Why Measles Is a Quintessential Political Issue of Our Time" https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-...-a-quintessential-political-issue-of-our-time

Vaccination is a basic political issue, because it is the subject of community agreement. When a high-enough percentage of community members are immunized, a disease can be effectively vanquished. In epidemiological terms, this is known as “herd immunity,” which cannot be maintained below a certain threshold. When enough people reject the community agreement, they endanger the rest. Willfully unvaccinated adults and children can spread diseases to those who cannot be vaccinated or haven’t been vaccinated, such as infants and people with a compromised immune system; these vulnerable populations would probably be safe in conditions of herd immunity. Vaccination and the refusal to vaccinate are political acts: individual decisions that affect others and the very ability of people to inhabit common spaces

It becomes a political issue because some shoulder sweatered crusties wear the 'right' to choose against science and public health. This is not a RR or RW issues unless one talks about 'rights'. \this is about willfully uninformed liberals, mainly, taking up kishe against those who disagree that vaccine caused their kid's ADHD.

I have an inlaw who makes a living guiding the effected children of those poor modern, generally in 'merica mainly, lost souls bellowing with their dollars and personal 'stories' to legislators who had the good sense to enact public health policy against contagious diseases. Now liberal places like marine county, Oregon, and Washington are having measles outbreaks where there had been none for decades. Now conservatives are jumping on board to broaden their fight against government overreach because of science. in places like Texas-ah.

OK.

I've had my say.

What's yours. Is there a right for citizens to endanger others by being stupid, gullible, naysayers about settled science. Do the stupid have the 'right' to enable mass extinctions?

 

[Harry Bosch]

For fun and games since some are talking about UK rights to prohibit military wings as parties.

Is there a right for parents to stand in the way of everybody's health because they are just F-ing stupid. Specifically should people have rights to oppose public safety to violate another's right to secure safe educations by sending their children to school unvaccinated against disease, specifically measles. Let's be clear. The science is in. Vaccinations for measles are safe.

Here's is how The New Yorker writer Masha Gessen writes it in "Why Measles Is a Quintessential Political Issue of Our Time" https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-...-a-quintessential-political-issue-of-our-time

[FONT=&]Vaccination is a basic political issue, because it is the subject of community agreement. When a high-enough percentage of community members are immunized, a disease can be effectively vanquished. In epidemiological terms, this is known as “herd immunity,” which cannot be maintained below a certain threshold. When enough people reject the community agreement, they endanger the rest. Willfully unvaccinated adults and children can spread diseases to those who cannot be vaccinated or haven’t been vaccinated, such as infants and people with a compromised immune system; these vulnerable populations would probably be safe in conditions of herd immunity. Vaccination and the refusal to vaccinate are political acts: individual decisions that affect others and the very ability of people to inhabit common spaces [/FONT]

It becomes a political issue because some shoulder sweatered crusties want toe 'right' to choose against science and public health. This is not a RR or RW issues unless one talks about 'rights'. \this is about willfully uninformed liberals, mainly, taking up kishe against those who disagree that vaccine caused their kid's ADHD.

I have an inplaw who makes a living guiding those poor modern, generally in 'merica mainly, lost souls bellowing with their dollars and personal 'stories' to legislators who had the good sense to enact public health policy against contagious diseases. Now liberal places like m=arine county, Oregon, and Washington are having measles outbreaks where there had been none for decades. Now conservatives are jumping on board to broaden their fight against government overreach because of science. in places like Texas-ah.

OK.

I've had my say.

What's yours. Is there a right for citizens to endanger others by being stupid, gullible, naysayers about settled science. Do the stupid have the 'right' to enable mass extinctions?

No, they do not. Their wacky religion doesn't give them the right to put others in danger.

 

[laughing dog]

Perhaps the solution is to make those parents liable for all medical expenses for any child at their school who gets measles.

 

[Keith&Co.]

the right to put others in danger.

I think that's the sticking point.
They keep insisting that their choice only puts their kid in danger.
It's not true, and even if it were, they don't exactly have a RIGHT to endanger a minor that is their responsibility to protect. When M. Jackson held his kid over the balcony, people did not say, "Well, he's only putting his own kid in danger..."

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Perhaps the solution is to make those parents liable for all medical expenses for any child at their school who gets measles.

There must be some kind of compromise but I cannot point to one.

To another question as to whether those parents have the right to refuse vaccinations, the answer is yes, obviously, because it is happening.

Look at it this way, that anti-vaxers are proof that vaccinations work. Liberal and Conservative doesn't matter. When something works people lose their fear and can move on. This is what is presently happening. I have three siblings who rail against big government and who are all receiving government pensions and healthcare.

Polio, TB and Pertussis are the biggies in my way of thinking. MMR we also did with our children but I had all those as a youngster because there were no vaccinations for those at the time.

 

[dismal]

No, they do not. Their wacky religion doesn't give them the right to put others in danger.

But can't others avoid the danger by getting the vaccine?

 

[HelixSpiral]

No, they do not. Their wacky religion doesn't give them the right to put others in danger.

But can't others avoid the danger by getting the vaccine?

Did you even read the OP?

 

[laughing dog]

No, they do not. Their wacky religion doesn't give them the right to put others in danger.

But can't others avoid the danger by getting the vaccine?

Not people who have legitimate reasons to remain unvaccinated - infants, those allergic to a particular vaccine, and those with compromised immune systems.

 

[bilby]

No, they do not. Their wacky religion doesn't give them the right to put others in danger.

But can't others avoid the danger by getting the vaccine?

I don't believe I should have to pay attention while driving. I am only risking my own and my family's lives, after all, so it's my free choice.

If other people are worried that I pose a danger, can't they just avoid the danger by paying attention and swerving out of my way?

 

[Toni]

No, they do not. Their wacky religion doesn't give them the right to put others in danger.

But can't others avoid the danger by getting the vaccine?

Some cannot get the vaccine. A child in my son's kindergarten class had leukemia and nearly died from contracting chickenpox, which was not among the diseases which we could vaccinate against at that time. He survived the leukemia but missed weeks of school because of chickenpox and had nasty scars as a result. He nearly did die. It was pretty awful.

Today, we can prevent chickenpox by vaccination (as well as subsequent shingles outbreaks among adults) by vaccination. In today's current climate, a child with a compromised immune system--compromised for any medical reason, genetic or because they have some other illness--can be placed needlessly at risk of death or serious illness due to someone else's determination that their child will do just fine with herd immunity.

 

[Lion IRC]

...To another question as to whether those parents have the right to refuse vaccinations, the answer is yes, obviously, because it is happening.

You mean because they haven't been through the jury selection process, right?

 

[Harry Bosch]

No, they do not. Their wacky religion doesn't give them the right to put others in danger.

But can't others avoid the danger by getting the vaccine?

No. For several reasons: first there are some people who can't take shots for medical reasons. Secondly, there are some people with compromised immune systems (chemo patients and etc.) Finally, in a small tiny fraction of cases, the vaccine doesn't work. However, if a large enough people get vaccinated, the population is covered with what is called a "herd immunity". Deciding to not vaccinate your child puts other people at danger.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Not that it's going to matter to folks who are inclined to believe in bigfoot and space ghosts, but yet another study has just emerged debunking the autism vaccine claim. The article also goes on to discuss the initial debunked study that started the whole thing. All in all a good article.

MMR vaccine does not cause autism, another study confirms

The biggest contribution of the study was the inclusion of children at risk of autism, said Dr. Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, who was not involved in the new research. He hopes the latest piece of evidence will reassure families with young children at risk of developing autism spectrum disorder that the vaccine will not increase that risk.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Not that it's going to matter to folks who are inclined to believe in bigfoot and space ghosts,

Great. And now the afternoon will be dedicated to the Space Bigfoot theme song...

The biggest contribution of the study was the inclusion of children at risk of autism, said Dr. Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, who was not involved in the new research. He hopes the latest piece of evidence will reassure families with young children at risk of developing autism spectrum disorder that the vaccine will not increase that risk.

Nice thought, but as you say, they're going to filter out studies that do not support what they already know to be true...

 

[thebeave]

Just came across this. Freakin' hilarious:

https://www.acsh.org/news/2019/03/04/top-10-pro-vaccine-or-anti-anti-vaxxer-memes-internet-13853

In the science wars, some positions are so well-supported by mountains of data ("vaccines are safe and effective"), that every literate adult should embrace them. Alas, they do not. For people who reject facts, an appeal to emotion might work. Hence, the meme. It's simply a matter of reality that memes with funny pictures and clever text go viral, while the latest research paper from the Journal of the American Medical Association does not.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

No, they do not. Their wacky religion doesn't give them the right to put others in danger.

But can't others avoid the danger by getting the vaccine?

No. For several reasons: first there are some people who can't take shots for medical reasons. Secondly, there are some people with compromised immune systems (chemo patients and etc.) Finally, in a small tiny fraction of cases, the vaccine doesn't work. However, if a large enough people get vaccinated, the population is covered with what is called a "herd immunity". Deciding to not vaccinate your child puts other people at danger.

Any person who uses that "well, you can just get vaccinated" argument exposes themselves as being completely unqualified to talk about vaccinations.

 

[barbos]

I have a practical question. It seems they vaccinate children against measles (And I was). This implies it should last forever but wikipedia says "The vaccine's effectiveness lasts many years" Kinda less assuring.
.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I have a practical question. It seems they vaccinate children against measles (And I was). This implies it should last forever but wikipedia says "The vaccine's effectiveness lasts many years" Kinda less assuring.
.

All immunity fades with time. The more intense the original exposure the higher the original levels and thus the longer it takes before the resistance fades below that which provides protection.

Also, the only way to confirm that immunity lasts for a lifetime would be to follow a bunch of people for a lifetime. There hasn't been enough time for that.

 

[barbos]

I have a practical question. It seems they vaccinate children against measles (And I was). This implies it should last forever but wikipedia says "The vaccine's effectiveness lasts many years" Kinda less assuring.
.

All immunity fades with time. The more intense the original exposure the higher the original levels and thus the longer it takes before the resistance fades below that which provides protection.

Also, the only way to confirm that immunity lasts for a lifetime would be to follow a bunch of people for a lifetime. There hasn't been enough time for that.

They could have said "So far it seems it lasts lifetime"

 

[Keith&Co.]

I have a practical question. It seems they vaccinate children against measles (And I was). This implies it should last forever t.

What implies 'forever?'

If nothing else, the disease mutates and evolves after you get the shot.