No vaccination? No school!!!!

That's quite an assumption. Please tell me more about what I think about that study.

I must be ignorant. Please quote the paragraph in that article that tells me the vaccination rate of the 60 cases claimed in the OP.

 

I don't think it's a belief/value question. It's more like saying that if you want to drive a car, you have to do it on the street and not the sidewalk because that's what's safer for everyone. You may believe that you can drive on the sidewalk or through someone's house, and who knows, maybe you're technically right. Doesn't mean you should be allowed to do so.

I'm not saying that I'm in favor of this mandatory vaccination push. I just don't think it can be framed as the imposition of a belief or a value.

 

So in other words you can't dispute anything in his claim that the CDC withheld information about the detrimental effects of vaccines?

- - - Updated - - -

If someone feels as though those vaccines are a danger and there is evidence for both sides then how is it not a belief issue?

 

Since the study was wholly and completely discredited I merely assumed you rejected it like everyone else has. Was I wrong?

Well, if you weren't ignorant why would you ask the question in the first place?

I misunderstood your intent. Apparently you were actually looking for an exact number as opposed to understanding something of the epidemiology of measles.

 

"Published CDC data" is not a complete sentence. What are you talking about?

Are you talking about this?

www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6348a2.htm

Probably not. That must be more ignorance from some buffoon.

 

They withheld nothing.

The authors excluded a number of subjects based on not having birth certificates, since this information was also necessary in the evaluation of results PERIOD. apparently there is a dispute amongst some scientists as to whether that constitutes a breach of protocol. It had nothing to do with withholding information about any detrimental effects.

And HE DID NOT CLAIM THAT THE CDC WITHHELD INFORMATION.
He claimed that certain data that was omitted for what others considered valid reasons shouldn't have been.

 

I can relate here since my wife works at a private school. Can the parents of a kid(3 yrs old) oozing snot, sneezing and coughing be forced to get their kid out of the class for the duration or should every other kid be infected, because they're too inconsiderate?

 

Let's see, first you said: "I assume you are not disputing the original wholly discredited study"

And now you say, " I merely assumed you rejected it like everyone else has"

I have to agree that you were wrong at least once. Ball's in your court to clarify exactly what it is that I think.

I asked the question for the same reason a trial lawyer asks a question. He already knows the answer will re-enforce his argument. The OP blames the entire outbreak on "one unvaccinated child at Disneyland" That blame is clearly misplaced. The increase in VPD has less to do with a kid at Disney than it does with the efficacy of the medications being touted as 100% effective. The CDC says so after all, but apparently they are ignorant.

 

mea culpa.

So, in the interests of clarity, do you reject the original false study?

Ah, so it was about the claim that a single child was the source. Okay, its a good point.

The medication is NOT touted as 100% effective. epidemiologists claim that after two vaccinations it is 99 +/-% effective. IOW it is extremely rare that a person having rec'd two vaccinations will contract measles.

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/measles/faqs-dis-vac-risks.htm

Since we don't know the ages or vaccination status of those infected, one can surmise that some % were unvaccinated, some % had only received 1 shot and perhaps some % had rec'd two (considering the rarity of that occurrence).

 

Well, then there's no rational basis for a belief one way or the other ... okay, I sort of see what you're saying.

I do think everyone should get vaccinated. I don't think the government should force anyone, though. And there will always be people who opt out, for good reasons and bad reasons, and they have to be allowed to do so, also for everyone's good (think of them as an inoculation against inevitable vaccine mishaps). If too many people are opting out, then maybe society should have thought of that before it decided to be all corrupt and untrustworthy with needles.

 

Wakefield's study has nothing to do with my position or my personal choices. I don't believe there's any causal link established between autism and vaccines. In the circle of people I know who have chosen to alter their child's vaccine schedule, not one of them mentions his study as a determining factor.

It's about our current vaccine strategy, and the false understanding of the potential for herd immunity that strategy creates. We obviously don't have the resources to vaccinate the entire population. Instead we focus on the most vulnerable: children, the infirmed, and the elderly. This strategy is based on the initial introduction of vaccines which relied on natural immunity among adults created by an epidemic of an endemic disease. What this means to us today, is that there's an entire population of adults running around with little to no vaccine created immunity because their artificially created antibodies have already disappeared. The difference is that adult immune systems are fully developed. They can crunch through a measles infection and not even realize they have it; never report it. Couple that with low efficacy vaccines, and we have a problem that we're just beginning to see the effects of.

The reason children are so susceptible is that their immune system is not completely developed. Some doctors believe it's not completely developed until well after the teen years. I don't believe the only answer is to administer the schedule earlier and earlier to defend against adults that are spreading the diseases. These vaccines do have serious side effects in children, among them high fevers, joint pain, infections, etc. Things that their bodies are not well developed enough to easily cope with.

That said, I'm not here to tell you what the answer is. I know what it is for me, and my child. But I do want to make sure we weed out the noise that muddies this issue. We're not going to solve the problem of infectious disease by shouting down those skeptical of the current strategy with charges of being anti-science, or hanging scarlet "autism" signs around their necks.

 

When did you receive your last MMR dose?

 

For starters, some of us have jobs and can't sit in front of a computer all day. Nice that you have so much leisure time though.

Vaccines aren't about what's right for one child, they are about what's right for the population. You want to believe conspiracy theory crap you go right ahead but vaccines are a public health issue. Either vaccinate your child or face the consequences.

 

If your kid is vaccinated, who cares, they wont get sick, only the unvaccinated will get sick.

 

Then so is a child that is sick. If you send your child to school sick where he could give other children his cold you should be punished right?

I'm an equity trader. I work from 930-11 and 2-430. And I use this as a way to keep from over trading. So in fact I'm making money by pwning you in a debate.

By the way I want fries with my burgers. And no salt!!

And bestviewed had a great point. If your kid is vaccinated what's the problem? Only the ones not vaccinated will get sick.

 

I dont know if the shot can cause autism in some children as claimed. What I do know is people worldwide die of measles, mumps, and rubella. So if I have the choice of a VERY small chance of a negative side effect from a vaccine and a chance of my child dying without it. I choose the vaccine.

 

Science has determined that it doesn't.

 

Arrogance will not solve the issue of infectious disease. It's the current strategy that is proving to be failing, not the people who choose to reject it.

Perhaps you should rethink this whole idea of how to implement a herd immunity.

Are you relying on your vaccine from 20 years ago to protect society from pertussis, and diphtheria, mumps, polio, rubella etc?

 

Yes, you should keep a sick child home from school.

The point is children or adults with compromised immune system that either can't get the vaccine, or that it is ineffective for can get sick. Plus there is always that one moron who didn't get their kid vaccinated. You want their blood on your hands?

BTW Sitting in my office finishing up year-end reports.

 

fair enough.

OTOH, I have no problem with adjusting a child's vaccination schedule even if the parent isn't qualified to make such a judgment. I have a problem with parents who refuse vaccinations for their children based on junk science.

You are right. A real discussion about vaccination strategies is not the same as arguing with junk science anti-vaccination advocates.

I believe that side effects such as fevers, joint pain and infections are typically less severe than the disease itself and suffered by only a small % of recipients.

are there any vaccinations that result in higher infection rates or more severe symptomatic consequences?

So what do you think is wrong with the current measles vaccination strategy, if anything?

 

People rejecting the strategy is what's causing it to fail. And yes, until something better comes along we have to rely on the same vaccines.

 

But they would/should only being putting at risk other people who are not vaccinated?

 

Not according to the study I provided you.

Did you, as you put it, even look at the link?

 

Parents/guardians of children who have not been vaccinated, should be prepared to comfort their crying kids, when they come home upset that nobody wants to play with them, or be anywhere near them.

Personally, imho, their parents/guardians are idiots... putting others at risk.

 

If most children are vaccinated against measles then I am assuming if exposed to the measles they won't get it. The ones that don't get vaccinated and get the measles then its the child's parents who are going to suffer for making the wrong decision. Either way what public risk is there for the majority that got vaccinated against the measles? None!