Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Which vaccinations would you say are necessary for all in order to eliminate any potential danger to society? Which ones do you think people should be forced to have due to the threat to the public at large? Which vaccines should be optional?
You mean you don't know? LOL
That was determined close to 50 years ago and 150 million kids have not had to worry about disease for a very long time because of it. Until now. All because of some crack pots who think they know better, but can only defend their absolute self centered view with fallacy, distraction, and just pure nonsense.
Which vaccinations would you say are necessary for all in order to eliminate any potential danger to society? Which ones do you think people should be forced to have due to the threat to the public at large? Which vaccines should be optional?
I'm not qualified to say nor I have I done much research. A statistical risk cost-benefit analysis could helpful, weight how contagious a disease is combined with how dangerous the disease. I haven't gotten a flu vaccine so perhaps it shouldn't mandatory, or maybe that's a good reason it should be (I have a strong belief that disease and accidents happen to other people, though I'm a bit sick right now, just a cold, but hey that's my belief!).
You actually did not respond to any point that I made. I made no commentary on its effectiveness. I said that you are not supposed to wait until exposed to get vaccinated. It's a stupid move that puts not only your kids in danger, but other kids in danger too.
You responded to Miss Terri's statement:
"You do realize that you can vaccinate and supplement with Vitamin A if you are exposed?"
With
"You don't wait until after you are exposed to get a vaccination. That part is more pseudo science nonsense. It's just another fallacious excuse for not getting kids vaccinated."
I pointed out that vaccination after exposure is indeed possible, and it works pretty well if done soon enough (within 72 hours). It is not pseudoscience.
I also agreed that it is not the best way to do it.
"You don't wait until after you are exposed to get a vaccination. That part is more pseudo science nonsense. It's just another fallacious excuse for not getting kids vaccinated."
I pointed out that vaccination after exposure is indeed possible, and it works pretty well if done soon enough (within 72 hours). It is not pseudoscience.
That's what is done with rabies, though I assume neither of you had rabies in mind.
That was determined close to 50 years ago and 150 million kids have not had to worry about disease for a very long time because of it. Until now. All because of some crack pots who think they know better, but can only defend their absolute self centered view with fallacy, distraction, and just pure nonsense.
There are a lot more vaccines now then there were 50 years ago. I'm asking you which VPD pose the greatest risk to society that they would warrant mandatory vaccinations.
I grew up in a community where vaccination was not the norm, so in our cluster, the "childhood diseases" were the commonplace. It seemed like every year there was something going around, and every so often a child would come out of it with permanent hearing loss or brain damage, and that's not even counting those born with birth defects. I thought nothing of it then, since that was normal to me, but later on when we moved away it occurred to me that I grew up with a disproportionately higher number of disabled children. That's the problem with endemic diseases: they don't discriminate between the healthy children brimming with vitamin a, and those whose health is more fragile. And the longer a disease is able to circulate unchecked, the more likely it will leave permanent damage its wake.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010
Very nice, Mark.
It would be interesting to see what happens in the situation where all the yellow dots are clustered together. The simulation assumes that the yellow dots (susceptible people) are somewhat randomly distributed among the protected people.
This is a mathematical simulation of the effect of clustering:
[URL="http://rsif.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/5/29/1505"]The effect of opinion clustering on disease outbreaks | Journal of The Royal Society Interface[/URL]
"The problem of susceptibility clusters is a problem that affects all societies equally, as susceptibility clusters allow an infection to persist for long periods of time during which it can be exported to other susceptibility clusters."
"Our results show that the effect of opinion formation is strongest when the vaccination coverage is close to or at the level required to provide herd immunity under the assumption of random mixing (homogeneous herd immunity; figure 1c). Given that susceptibility clustering effectively reduces herd immunity, this is not surprising: when vaccination coverage is below homogeneous herd immunity, susceptibility clustering has little effect since an infection can spread relatively easily even in the absence of clustering. Conversely, if vaccination coverage is clearly above homogeneous herd immunity, susceptibility clusters are not only hard to form, but also some of the protection offered by the high vaccination coverage remains. However, if vaccination coverage is approximately at the level of homogeneous herd immunity, susceptibility clustering will have a strong relative effect because it easily breaks the full but fragile protection caused by homogeneous herd immunity. Countries that have over time managed to increase the vaccination coverage to the level where herd immunity would be expected might thus feel the full force of susceptibility clustering. In summary, our results suggest that the current estimates of vaccination coverage necessary to avoid outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases are probably too low."
Mark and I are concerned not just for our vaccinated selves but for those who are too young or who have medical contraindications to vaccination, in other words, the entire community, something those who do not vaccinate seem not to care about. It's an ethics thing. You find that disgusting? I see.
No one is forcing you to vaccinate.
There should be no exemptions for vaccinations, the way Mississippi and West Virginia do it. People who choose not to vaccinate would still be able to do that. If they think being able to attend public school is more important than not vaccinating, I would say their objections to vaccinating were not very strong in the first place.
Rather than jumping in solely to express your unhappiness, would you like to comment on the simulation in Mark's link and how it demonstrates what happens with high rates of vaccine refusal? Or comment on the math in my link? The topic of the thread is why outbreaks happen the way they do. Mark's link and mine show how it happens and why clusters of unvaccinated people allow outbreaks to spread.
I'm not qualified to say nor I have I done much research. A statistical risk cost-benefit analysis could helpful, weight how contagious a disease is combined with how dangerous the disease. I haven't gotten a flu vaccine so perhaps it shouldn't mandatory, or maybe that's a good reason it should be (I have a strong belief that disease and accidents happen to other people, though I'm a bit sick right now, just a cold, but hey that's my belief!).
That's the thing. When we put the decision to pick and choose into the hands of the government, eventually we'll be faced with being forced into getting vaccines for something we may not agree with. A lot of people are very much in favor of most vaccines but may be against the flu vaccine for example. I know some who are extremely outspoken in favor of vaccines but they don't believe in the HPV vaccine to give another example. Or some who don't want the Hep B vaccine for their newborns but may consider it when their children are older and actually more at risk. I just think it's a dangerous idea to consider giving final authority on what we must get to the government. I think people should be able to decide for themselves. It would be interesting to see which vaccines people think that the government can mandate. I suspect some would say, "all of them", while others might agree to a few and others would say none.
Hmm. That wasn't really what I meant. The only reason I don't get a flu vaccine is laziness, as long as I didn't have to pay for it, I wouldn't object for it being mandatory. I wasn't thinking in terms of "agree with", it's obviously better to have the flu vaccine than not, it's just a time and maybe money cost but it would have a public health benefit if required (not saying enough to be required).
There are plenty of things that are dangerous in government hands. But I'm not seeing much downside with vaccines, as long as the government is properly informed by the relevant public health authorities:
I'm not qualified to say nor I have I done much research. A statistical risk cost-benefit analysis could helpful, weight how contagious a disease is combined with how dangerous the disease. I haven't gotten a flu vaccine so perhaps it shouldn't mandatory, or maybe that's a good reason it should be (I have a strong belief that disease and accidents happen to other people, though I'm a bit sick right now, just a cold, but hey that's my belief!).
Cost benefit calculations are done with all vaccines. The costs of treating the disease can be compared to the cost of the vaccine plus treatment of any complications from the vaccine.
"Our study shows that the current 2-dose MMR vaccination program results in substantial cost savings (∼$3.5 billion and ∼$7.6 billion from the direct cost and societal perspectives,respectively) and high BC ratios: For every dollar spent, the program saves >$14 of direct costs and >$10 of additional costs to society. Because of the success of the 2-dose vaccination program, measles, mumps, and rubella are no longer major health threats in the United States. Although not reflected in this analysis and difficult to quantify, the dramatic decrease in pain and suffering to family and friends of the patient with measles, mumps, or rubella is a direct result of the achievement. The MMR vaccination program in the United States compares very favorably with other medical interventions because not only does it achieve significant public health benefit in terms of reduction in morbidity, hospitalization, and mortality from measles, mumps, and rubella, but it achieves these benefits at a substantial cost savings. This is a key component of the successful vaccination program in the United States."
That's what is done with rabies, though I assume neither of you had rabies in mind.
Well, I thought of it, but decided not to introduce another disease into the discussion. It's done with people at risk for tetanus who have not been vaccinated, too.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's done with people at risk for tetanus who have not been vaccinated, too.