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.
Well stated. We are back to some of us seeing shades of gray on this issue, not everything as black or white. When we hear "virtually" or a "small few" are affected negatively by something, in this case vaccines, those are just stats.....until it happens to a close loved one. Then it's reality and personal. I think some of the pro gov/pro vaccine cult here have trouble grasping that.
But then again I think there are a few on this thread that are so stubborn on their views and can't see even a bit of gray, they might not budge, just for the sake of "being right". I think most of us know a person or 2 in our lives that fit into such a mold. Or at least see it now in plain view on this thread.
True. That grey area is why parents should be allowed to choose what medical procedure will benefit their child. An unvaccinated child without infection is not a threat to a vaccinated child. A vaccinated child without infection is no threat to an unvaccinated child. It is only those, whether vaccinated or unvaccinated, that are a threat to others. Singling out the healthy unvaccinated child as the source of all infection is wrong, IMO.
You know, I've seen that statement made dozens of times over the years but I have never been able to track down a verifiable source for that estimate. Do you have one?
Quote:
Originally Posted by katjonjj
It's not a random fact. I personally have a relative that had an adverse reaction. According to the CDC, only 10% of reactions are reported to VAERS yet over 39,000 reports have been made. That is quite a lot of people (390,000) plus their friends and family that could have a personal reason for being against mandatory vaccination so it is not a random fact that I made up.
While those of us that support mandatory vaccinations are willing to acknowledge the science and data of 1 in a million serious adverse reactions, anti vaxers cling to their factually flawed, Jenny MaCarthy fueled opinions even as the single study supporting their view has been exposed as completely fraudulent.
Everyone here who supports vaccines has stated numerous times that they don't always work, don't protect against everything, are not the only illnesses, are valuable for more than just school children.
I will not lend credence to fictional theories as if "feelings" are equal to proven science. There is no debate about the benefits vs the risk of childhood vaccines, only a debate about the right of parents to expose their kids (and others) to risks based on a those irrational beliefs.
So no, I don't respect your view or your "choice" to put society's most vulnerable at risk.
Good job California in mandating vaccines for schoolchildren.
That small percentage of people who had a reaction are also vulnerable since they cannot be vaccinated, yet you would say their parents have irrational beliefs?
yes, the more serious side effects are not common, but they do occur. The issue the poster was bringing up wasn't about reactions being widespread, but the fact that they do indeed happen in some cases and it's a personal choice(or at least should be) in how to respond to these side effects.
Why are you so defensive about someone's view on choice in the not so likely event that a child has a bad reaction to a vaccine?
Odds of a serious vaccine reaction are 1 in a million. Less than the odds of your kid becoming a billionaire. Very few anti-vaxers have a child with a serious reaction. Again, pesky statistics.
Fact is, if your kid was the one in a million they'd be at the doctors office and be able to receive medical care instead of the vastly higher odds of contracting a preventable illness.
That small percentage of people who had a reaction are also vulnerable since they cannot be vaccinated, yet you would say their parents have irrational beliefs?
Those few would be medically exempt. You know that. They'd be protected by the herd immunity that the mandate supports.
Although I respect your opinion (as the above obviously is), not all those against vaccinations are anti-science nor do they have an overinflated ego.
Most parents against vaccinating have personal experience with adverse reactions. If your child had a serious reaction to a vaccine, wouldn't you want to speak out? In fact, if your child had a serious reaction to prescribed medicine, wouldn't you speak out? Not all people can tolerate vaccines. There is a risk involved with any medical procedure.
Recently, a free vax clinic gave expired shots and the wrong vaccine to children. They were shut down but this is also a fear of those against mandatory vaccination.
Others oppose mandatory vaccination because it opens the door for the schedule to increase the amounts and for new vaccines to be added at will. It also challenges the requirement of "informed consent" that allows patients to refuse medical procedures. What if the government wants to require everyone to undergo a procedure and uses these same things to justify it. Where are our rights as parents and citizens to choose?
All these reasons and more are why parents struggle with the issue of vaccination. I respect that struggle and whatever choice they make. We all want what is best for our children.
Well, I don't respect the belief in junk science. Can't do it. What adverse effects are we talking about? Swelling, soreness, a slight fever? Those are ALL better than the diseases they help prevent. Why is fear of adverse reaction so much higher than fear of the illnesses themselves? They only reason they are not prevalent is because our population has been protected by vaccines.
I had an adverse reaction as an infant. A serious one, one that almost killed me. I couldn't get the full pertussis series, but (after much thought and research) my parents elected to have me vaccinated for everything else. Of course, they are of an age when deaths from many of these now preventable diseases were more common, so they decided they would like it if I didn't die. I have some underlying immunity issues, but am able to get regular vaccines, including flu shots. My family is fully vaccinated. I am now fully vaccinated. As much for ourselves as for the good of those around us. If I chose not to vaccinate my children, not to get them flu shots, I would take a very serious look at my responsibility to limit any potential exposure to a communicable disease my child or self carried. If that means my responsibility extends to keeping them out of public school, that would be my choice. You have choice, but no choice is without consequences. In what world does that happen? So I have no problem telling those that opt out of the public health program that they in turn are not able to send children to physically attend public school. There are alternatives they will need to take advantage of. You know that saying "freedom is not free"? Well, it's true. You are free to choose. Now pay the consequence.
People die from many of these diseases. People can have serious long lasting effects from these diseases. I had a friend who had polio as a child. It was terrible. I was in the hospital for the flu--it's not a "nothing" illness. It's something that can--and does --kill.
You know, I've seen that statement made dozens of times over the years but I have never been able to track down a verifiable source for that estimate. Do you have one?
I don't have the link... Here is what it says on the VAERS site (run by FDA and CDC): "Underreporting" is one of the main limitations of passive surveillance systems, including VAERS. The term, underreporting refers to the fact that VAERS receives reports for only a small fraction of actual adverse events. https://vaers.hhs.gov/data/index
Those few would be medically exempt. You know that. They'd be protected by the herd immunity that the mandate supports.
Yet they are anti-vaxers if they were to have a conversation with you saying that their doctor still recommends they get vaccinated slowly but they refuse. The vaccine inserts say they should not receive the vaccine if they have ever had a serious reaction to the vaccine or any of it's ingredients. Can they claim medical exemption if their doctor still recommends getting vaccinated?
^ My great-uncle, who died a few years ago, had polio as a child. He suffered lifelong effects of the disease. From then on, he always needed to walk with a cane, then as he got older, a walker. If he wasn't such a stubborn man, he'd probably had opted for a wheelchair in the later years. His feet were visibly deformed. He suffered his whole life. He'd wanted to join the service like both his brothers (other great-uncle and grandpa) but was unable to. I always felt so bad for him. I don't wish that on anyone.
And because of vaccines - we don't have to worry about anyone getting that anymore in this country.
While those of us that support mandatory vaccinations are willing to acknowledge the science and data of 1 in a million serious adverse reactions, anti vaxers cling to their factually flawed, Jenny MaCarthy fueled opinions even as the single study supporting their view has been exposed as completely fraudulent.
Everyone here who supports vaccines has stated numerous times that they don't always work, don't protect against everything, are not the only illnesses, are valuable for more than just school children.
I will not lend credence to fictional theories as if "feelings" are equal to proven science. There is no debate about the benefits vs the risk of childhood vaccines, only a debate about the right of parents to expose their kids (and others) to risks based on a those irrational beliefs.
So no, I don't respect your view or your "choice" to put society's most vulnerable at risk.
Good job California in mandating vaccines for schoolchildren.
Not sure what Jenny McCarthy has to do with my post/nor do I know much about her nor do I care who she is. Back to the topic at hand....As for the 1 in a million adverse reaction stat you quoted, there are more potential reactions with far less than a 1 in a million chance of happening that are in other categories that aren't very pleasant/can be dangerous.
Seizure (jerking or staring) caused by fever (about 1 out of 3,000 doses)
Temporary pain and stiffness in the joints, mostly in teenage or adult women (up to 1 out of 4)
Temporary low platelet count, which can cause a bleeding disorder (about 1 out of 30,000 doses)"
Since you sidestepped the intent of my previous post and went into your talking points, let's play reality. Though I think I know what your answer is to save face on your views that you've stated in 5 different ways in what seems like a few hundred posts. Let's say you have a child who was one of the 1 out of 30k who got a the temporary low platelet count and had some bleeding disorder, was hospitalized for it, etc. This can be a serious condition. Would you be willing to give your child, without question, another vaccine down the line with the same risk profile with no questions/concerns? Again, I'm sure your answer will be yes, "gov tell me what to do and I'll do it because the world has no gray in it and my belief should spread to everyone as a result", but I figure I'll ask anyways.
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.
Back to the topic at hand....As for the 1 in a million adverse reaction stat you quoted, there are more potential reactions with far less than a 1 in a million chance of happening that are in other categories that aren't very pleasant/can be dangerous.
. Let's say you have a child who was one of the 1 out of 30k who got a the temporary low platelet count and had some bleeding disorder, was hospitalized for it, etc. This can be a serious condition. Would you be willing to give your child, without question, another vaccine down the line with the same risk profile with no questions/concerns? Again, I'm sure your answer will be yes, "gov tell me what to do and I'll do it because the world has no gray in it and my belief should spread to everyone as a result", but I figure I'll ask anyways.