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.
On what could you possibly be basing that statement? It used to be COMMON for parents to lose a child due to childhood illness. My own mother had THREE siblings die in childhood. Two of them died two days apart. Can you even IMAGINE that happening to someone you know now? I could count on one hand the number of people I know, my age or younger, who have had a child die.
Thank god for vaccines, antibiotics, surgical procedures, cancer treatments, drugs, diagnostic tests, and so many other medical advances that have led to childhood deaths being quite a RARITY, and have led to a significantly longer average lifespan. In 1900, the average lifespan in the USA was 47 years!! Again, THANK GOD for medical advances!
My great-grand parents lost their oldest daughter (my grandmother's sister) and a son to diphtheria when she was 19.
My great-grand parents lost their oldest daughter (my grandmother's sister) and a son to diphtheria when she was 19.
MY g- grandparents lost three kids in three weeks to diphtheria. One of them was so thirsty, due to the membrane that forms over the throat, he tried to lap water like a dog.
Any person who has whooping cough deserves to be treated. Sure the parents can take the precautions you mention but then again, they are not doctors so until diagnosed... how are they to know it is indeed pertussis? How about the vaccinated child with pertussis, would you scream so fervently about their parents lack of responsibility in going to the doctor and infecting a baby?
This is also the case for the child (unvaccinated or vaccinated) that has pertussis not just babies. Also, in the above article, you can see that 1/3 of the cases were unvaccinated, 2/3 were vaccinated. Most were older children who suffered the same as the baby.
This presumption that an unvaccinated child harbors diseases (when they haven't been exposed) is preposterous. That is why schools send home the unvaccinated if someone comes down with these diseases they weren't vaccinated for.
Entitlement? How so? I, as a potential mother (not a mother yet but when I am I WILL be vaccinating my kids), am entitled because I don't want my child, who is too young to be vaccinated against whooping cough at the age of the child we are discussing, to be exposed to it at the doctor's office, by a sick child? That's entitlement?
Any person who has whooping cough deserves to be treated. Yes. I absolutely said this. I also said that if there's a possibility it is whooping cough, and the parents know this, they should warm the doctor ahead of time, requesting the child be placed in a room immediately to limit contact with other kids. Or, request a home visit. Or call a doctor who will do a home visit. We don't know the situation of the child who spread the infection to the young baby, but it's good advice either way. If you choose to not vaccinate your child against pertussis, your child has a higher chance of getting pertussis. If your kid has a terrible cough and gasps for breath at the end, it's probably pertussis. If it's probably pertussis, don't be an a**hole and bring the kid to the doctor's office without thinking of anyone else. It's selfish. It's not me being entitled, it's pure selfishness. Me, me, me attitude. Now, as I said, the mother may not have suspected whooping cough. The kid may have been showing early symtpoms, which mimic a cold (if so, who brings their child to the doctor for a suspected cold? ), and not have had the telltale cough yet. We don't know the situation. But it's good advice regardless. And, another but, had he been vaccinated, he probably would not have gotten whopping cough at all, and probably would not have spread it to a defenseless baby who was too young to receive the vaccination. It's simple. If you don't see it... well that's not my problem.
I understand that children who have whooping cough also suffer but we are talking about one particular case here. A specific baby mentioned by another poster. And when babies get it, I think it is especially sad, especially because the only way to prevent is in such young babies is herd immunity, not the vaccine itself quite yet. When a baby under the age of one gets it, that means he or she got it from an unvaccinated person. And to me that completely sucks because the baby's parents could not have done a thing to prevent it other than keeping their baby locked away. And that baby could die because someone else was an idiot. It happens way too often.
Not sure when I assumed or presumed that an unvaccinated child harbors disease. In case you haven't realized by now, I was/am referring to one specific case mentioned by another poster. In this case, the unvaccinated child had the disease. The unvaccinated child gave it to a defenseless baby at the doctor's office. Seems clear cut to me.
In the cases you mention, btw, did the "vaccinated" children receive their booster? Or were they "vaccinated" just as an infant?
Entitlement? How so? I, as a potential mother (not a mother yet but when I am I WILL be vaccinating my kids), am entitled because I don't want my child, who is too young to be vaccinated against whooping cough at the age of the child we are discussing, to be exposed to it at the doctor's office, by a sick child? That's entitlement?
The tone of your post was that a vaccinating parent is entitled to have the non-vaccinating parent take extra steps to ensure the disease is not spread. I believe it is the responsibility of the susceptible child's parent (in this case the baby) to ensure their child is protected. In fact, it is each child's parent that is directly responsible for the health of their child, not the people around them. All this coming from a non-parent?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerseyGirl415
Any person who has whooping cough deserves to be treated. Yes. I absolutely said this. I also said that if there's a possibility it is whooping cough, and the parents know this, they should warm the doctor ahead of time, requesting the child be placed in a room immediately to limit contact with other kids.Or, request a home visit. Or call a doctor who will do a home visit.
However, you would also agree (I assume) that these parents are not medical doctors who can diagnose whooping cough (nor fully understand vaccines...). They are taking their precious child to the doctor because of a persistent cough. Should parents be required to have psychic abilities or be trained medical doctors prior to having kids?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerseyGirl415
We don't know the situation of the child who spread the infection to the young baby, but it's good advice either way. If you choose to not vaccinate your child against pertussis, your child has a higher chance of getting pertussis. If your kid has a terrible cough and gasps for breath at the end, it's probably pertussis. If it's probably pertussis, don't be an a**hole and bring the kid to the doctor's office without thinking of anyone else. It's selfish. It's not me being entitled, it's pure selfishness. Me, me, me attitude.
No it is actually more selfish for you (or others) to expect a parent to diagnose an illness then take precautions such as you suggest. Why was the mother of the baby so complacent as to let the baby be exposed? "If it's probably pertussis" then what? Every coughing child should be treated as if they have pertussis?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerseyGirl415
Now, as I said, the mother may not have suspected whooping cough. The kid may have been showing early symtpoms, which mimic a cold (if so, who brings their child to the doctor for a suspected cold? ), and not have had the telltale cough yet. We don't know the situation. But it's good advice regardless. And, another but, had he been vaccinated, he probably would not have gotten whopping cough at all, and probably would not have spread it to a defenseless baby who was too young to receive the vaccination. It's simple. If you don't see it... well that's not my problem.
Actually, the pertussis vaccine is notorious for being ineffective. Of the outbreak in CA (see link I previously posted) 1/3 were un-vaccinated, 1/3 were under-vaccinated, and 1/3 were fully-vaccinated. So there is a greater chance that a vaccinated child would contract the disease than non-vaccinated. BTW... tons of parents take their kids to the doctor over simple colds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerseyGirl415
I understand that children who have whooping cough also suffer but we are talking about one particular case here. A specific baby mentioned by another poster. And when babies get it, I think it is especially sad, especially because the only way to prevent is in such young babies is herd immunity, not the vaccine itself quite yet. When a baby under the age of one gets it, that means he or she got it from an unvaccinated person.
No it doesn't because the majority of people who get pertussis are vaccinated. This goes to show your bias.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerseyGirl415
And to me that completely sucks because the baby's parents could not have done a thing to prevent it other than keeping their baby locked away. And that baby could die because someone else was an idiot. It happens way too often.
But they could have. Some parents avoid clinics like the plague because they are full of sick people. Some cover their baby with a cloth while in the waiting room. It is the parents responsibility to protect the baby from inhaling pertussis germs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerseyGirl415
Not sure when I assumed or presumed that an unvaccinated child harbors disease. In case you haven't realized by now, I was/am referring to one specific case mentioned by another poster. In this case, the unvaccinated child had the disease. The unvaccinated child gave it to a defenseless baby at the doctor's office. Seems clear cut to me.
The defenseless baby had parents... that is the baby's defense. Also, your bias shows that you think all unvaccinated children to be harboring some disease which is why they need to take extra steps when visiting a doctor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerseyGirl415
In the cases you mention, btw, did the "vaccinated" children receive their booster? Or were they "vaccinated" just as an infant?
In the article I mentioned, 1/3 were not vaccinated at all, 1/3 were under vaccinated, and 1/3 were fully vaccinated (notice that the vaccine is ineffective).
As a non-parent... what do you think about your future precious baby being subjected to surgery or drugs without your approval? Would that be okay or do you think you would want to know the risks of any medical procedure your baby would have?
This is the stance of most "anti-vaxxers" because it is not about the vaccine as much as it is about informed consent and freedom of medical intervention.
The tone of your post was that a vaccinating parent is entitled to have the non-vaccinating parent take extra steps to ensure the disease is not spread. I believe it is the responsibility of the susceptible child's parent (in this case the baby) to ensure their child is protected. In fact, it is each child's parent that is directly responsible for the health of their child, not the people around them. All this coming from a non-parent?
Ok. One - so because I am not a parent I cannot have an opinion on vaccines? I have been vaccinated. As an adult, I continue to be vaccinated. That pretty much puts that to rest.
Two - considering how widespread vaccines are, how highly recommended they are (nearly unanimous by reputable doctors and researchers, and pretty much by schools, too), and how effective they are, I don't think the mother of the vaccinated child should have to bend over backwards for the mother of an unvaccinated child, like you apparently do. No entitlement for/from the majority.
Three - if the child is too young to receive the vaccine, what exactly is the mother supposed to do? Not take her baby to the doctor for the other vaccines he can get? Not take him when he's sick? Not take him anywhere, because some kid who is not vaccinated might get him sick? If you think this, your logic is so flawed I don't even have anything further to say to you. The correct answer is this: everyone else should be vaccinated. Again - herd immunity. You vaccinate to protect not only yourself, but others. Like the babies who are too young to be vaccinated for pertussis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by katjonjj
However, you would also agree (I assume) that these parents are not medical doctors who can diagnose whooping cough (nor fully understand vaccines...). They are taking their precious child to the doctor because of a persistent cough. Should parents be required to have psychic abilities or be trained medical doctors prior to having kids?
If you don't fully understand vaccines, you research it before having a kid, while you're pregnant, or when the kid is very young. That is the responsible thing to do. Not knowing about vaccines is not an excuse to not vaccinate. That's why we have doctors, other medical/research professionals, and reputable websites on the internet. And medical journals.
"Persistent cough" - sure, but with a characteristic "whoop" at the end. Please. More often than not, especially in children, the whoop is heard and the child cannot breathe. Sometimes, they even turn blue or vomit. It's not a "persistent cough" - it's a very serious condition. And it is quite obvious.
People are actually most contagious before the cough starts - all the more reason to vaccinate, since the early symptoms look like the common cold. Meanwhile, you're actually carrying a disease that is especially deadly to babies too young to be immunized.
Quote:
Originally Posted by katjonjj
No it is actually more selfish for you (or others) to expect a parent to diagnose an illness then take precautions such as you suggest. Why was the mother of the baby so complacent as to let the baby be exposed? "If it's probably pertussis" then what? Every coughing child should be treated as if they have pertussis?
"Let the baby be exposed." How did she let the baby be exposed? Again, by taking him there? It's airborne. If the kid coughed too close to the baby, or sneezed or otherwise got droplets on him, how is that the mother or the baby's fault? She should just know this kid might be unvaccinated even though it's more uncommon than not? Perhaps the child's mother should keep her sick kid away from others, or teach him to cover his damn mouth. If the kid touched something the baby's mother then touched, not knowing he touched it (because the poster didn't even say whether or not the baby and sick unvaccinated child were in the same room at the same time), touched it herself then touched her baby right after, how is that her fault? So, suddenly, mothers should not touch things then touch their babies or touch things that touch their babies? By your logic babies would be living in actual bubbles and mothers would obsessively clean everything them themselves before touching their kid. Come on. You can't protect your kid forever. You can't put them in a bubble.
Pertussis has quite obvious symptoms. It's why it's called whooping cough. If the child is exhibiting early symptoms, which as I said mimic a cold, then no one would know without a test... but personally I would not take my child to the doctor if I thought he or she had a cold. Colds are minor. If my child had a cough with a telltale whoop at the end, I would be concerned. And I would know what it probably is (pertussis) because I am an educated person.
Again, we don't know the situation the sick child and mother was in. It's possible he was not showing obvious symptoms of pertussis quite yet. BUT AGAIN - had he been vaccinated, the chances of him getting it would be much lower. For all we know, there could have been an outbreak in the child's school or daycare, or if the family had recently traveled, an outbreak in that location. In a situation like that, the mother would have known the risks and possibility was there - especially for her unvaccinated child. We don't know the circumstance, but you seem to be giving her the benefit of the doubt while I'm exploring many options - all of which seem to end in, well she should have vaccinated the kid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by katjonjj
Actually, the pertussis vaccine is notorious for being ineffective. Of the outbreak in CA (see link I previously posted) 1/3 were un-vaccinated, 1/3 were under-vaccinated, and 1/3 were fully-vaccinated. So there is a greater chance that a vaccinated child would contract the disease than non-vaccinated.
Ok. If you are "under-vaccinated" I assume that means you have been vaccinated but did not receive the booster. This actually means you are unvaccinated. The booster exists for a reason. This means ⅔ of the people who got the disease were unvaccinated. This means your analysis and conclusion is totally wrong. Next.
I'll just leave this here, by the way: "In general, childhood whooping cough vaccines (called DTaP) are effective for 8 or 9 out of 10 children who receive them. Among children who get all 5 doses of DTaP vaccine on schedule, effectiveness is very high within the year following the 5th dose — nearly all children (98 out of 100) are fully protected. There is a modest decrease in effectiveness in each following year. About 7 out of 10 of children are fully protected 5 years after getting their last dose of DTaP vaccine and the other 3 are protected against serious disease."
No it doesn't because the majority of people who get pertussis are vaccinated. This goes to show your bias.
Source? Other than the one I just disproved because of your conveniently faulty logic?
Quote:
Originally Posted by katjonjj
But they could have. Some parents avoid clinics like the plague because they are full of sick people. Some cover their baby with a cloth while in the waiting room. It is the parents responsibility to protect the baby from inhaling pertussis germs.
Just like we don't know the child's situation, we don't know the baby's. Like I said - it may not have been direct contact. It could have been something the kid touched before leaving the room, then the baby's mother touched it, having no clue a kid with potential pertussis touched it previously. It could have been in an infected exam room that wasn't sanitized or medical equipment or the own doctor's hands. Or, since sneeze particles travel like 10 feet, it could have been the kid sneezing from across the room. Who knows.
What we DO know is, an unvaccinated child infected a defenseless baby. And you are blaming the victim. The victim here is the unvaccinated baby who was too young to be vaccinated. You are blaming the baby and its mother, while ignoring the simple fact that this just may have all been avoided had the 5 year old been vaccinated, properly - this means getting the booster on time. At the age of 5, the vaccination would have been extremely effective if the dosages had ben administered properly and on time. That is a fact supported by evidence/the link provided above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by katjonjj
The defenseless baby had parents... that is the baby's defense. Also, your bias shows that you think all unvaccinated children to be harboring some disease which is why they need to take extra steps when visiting a doctor.
So if my kid gets a stomach virus... it's my fault? If my kid touched something at Target that a sick kid touched 20 minutes ago, and gets the flu, it's my fault? If my kid breathed the air after someone with the flu sneezed in public, within 15 feet of him, and got the flu, it's my fault?
And again - how does "my bias" suggest that I think any unvaccinated kid is harboring a disease? Please show me where I insinuated that? Since you've said it twice now, you better give me a quote that directly says that. I am talking as if the unvaccinated children in question actually get the illness, then spread it to others, as is the situation in the story we are discussing. I'm not assuming that every unvaccinated kid carries whatever they are unvaccinated for.
Quote:
Originally Posted by katjonjj
In the article I mentioned, 1/3 were not vaccinated at all, 1/3 were under vaccinated, and 1/3 were fully vaccinated (notice that the vaccine is ineffective).
In the quote from the CDC's website I just provided you... you're proven wrong. Notice that the vaccine is NOT ineffective when administered properly and on time. In fact, it is 80-90% effective after the proper doses, administered on time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by katjonjj
As a non-parent... what do you think about your future precious baby being subjected to surgery or drugs without your approval? Would that be okay or do you think you would want to know the risks of any medical procedure your baby would have?
Again - me not being a parent yet means nothing. Sorry that I am 22 years old and don't yet have children because I decided to not be an irresponsible moron and have kids while I'm living at home and in college. It doesn't mean I'm not an intelligent, informed person with an opinion. So that's first.
Next, what does my kid being subjected to surgery or drugs without my approval have to do with vaccines? Are you insinuating your child is forced to receive vaccines against your will? Are you insinuating the research revealed about vaccines is all wrong and no one should trust it? Because I certainly disagree. And IMHO I think you're reckless for not protecting your child and others, most importantly. You don't want to put your kid "at risk," whatever, that's on you, but you'd put innocent people, some of them immunocompromised or allergic to the vaccine or for whatever reason, otherwise unable to receive it, at risk just because you believe in disproved evidence or have your own thoroughly valid (because you're a researcher, right? ) opinions on vaccines? If so, and you can sleep at night, I commend you. Because I sure as hell could not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by katjonjj
This is the stance of most "anti-vaxxers" because it is not about the vaccine as much as it is about informed consent and freedom of medical intervention.
Fine. You have your "freedom." Meanwhile, I'll not have smallpox.
The tone of your post was that a vaccinating parent is entitled to have the non-vaccinating parent take extra steps to ensure the disease is not spread. I believe it is the responsibility of the susceptible child's parent (in this case the baby) to ensure their child is protected. In fact, it is each child's parent that is directly responsible for the health of their child, not the people around them. All this coming from a non-parent?
...
As a non-parent... what do you think about your future precious baby being subjected to surgery or drugs without your approval? Would that be okay or do you think you would want to know the risks of any medical procedure your baby would have?
This is the stance of most "anti-vaxxers" because it is not about the vaccine as much as it is about informed consent and freedom of medical intervention.
You SO don't get it.
What I don't appreciate is my child being subjected to a disease that YOUR child carries because you're too selfish to vaccinate. You better believe I want your unvaccinated kid kept away from those that are at risk.
We have already "taken extra steps to ensure the disease is not spread". We vaccinated (yes, blah blah blah it's not perfect, it's a lot better than you and your voodoo herbs and veggies).
When do you do anti-vax people do their part? At some point I realize that unfortunately your child or one close to you is going to have to get seriously ill or die from a preventable illness for you to see how unbelievably foolish the anti-vax stand is.
I for one am glad for the doctors that are refusing to treat unvaccinated kids. Take whatever chances with your own kid's life, disregard the general risk to mine, but when your kid gets sick don't expect me to accommodate you.
Posts like this are SO helpful to those of us that support mandatory vaccination. It's SO ironic that someone who doesn't care at all about other people's kids thinks we should worry about you when you ignore the science and fail to do your part.
This is why mandatory vaccinations to at least protect other peoples' children at school are needed, because of entitled, absolutely uninformed views like yours.
[Just a note, I posted this after JerseyGirl who said it even better than I did!]
Last edited by tlvancouver; 07-08-2015 at 10:27 PM..
Reason: edit: added "just a note" at end
The tone of your post was that a vaccinating parent is entitled to have the non-vaccinating parent take extra steps to ensure the disease is not spread. I believe it is the responsibility of the susceptible child's parent (in this case the baby) to ensure their child is protected. In fact, it is each child's parent that is directly responsible for the health of their child, not the people around them. All this coming from a non-parent?
That is hogwash! So if one chooses NOT to vaccinate, NOT to participate in herd immunity, there is no correlation of responsibility? No. That doesn't stand. If one is not willing to follow vaccination protocols, the onus for alternative ways to protect the "herd" must fall to the outlier, the one who is putting the herd at risk. So, if you choose not to vaccinate your child/ren, why would you not then take precautions to ensure a potential communicable disease outbreak doesn't occur? If there is an assumption, it should be that a child is vaccinated. If yours is not, behave accordingly. Why on earth wouldn't you?
Ok. One - so because I am not a parent I cannot have an opinion on vaccines? I have been vaccinated. As an adult, I continue to be vaccinated. That pretty much puts that to rest.
Two - considering how widespread vaccines are, how highly recommended they are (nearly unanimous by reputable doctors and researchers, and pretty much by schools, too), and how effective they are, I don't think the mother of the vaccinated child should have to bend over backwards for the mother of an unvaccinated child, like you apparently do. No entitlement for/from the majority.
Three - if the child is too young to receive the vaccine, what exactly is the mother supposed to do? Not take her baby to the doctor for the other vaccines he can get? Not take him when he's sick? Not take him anywhere, because some kid who is not vaccinated might get him sick? If you think this, your logic is so flawed I don't even have anything further to say to you. The correct answer is this: everyone else should be vaccinated. Again - herd immunity. You vaccinate to protect not only yourself, but others. Like the babies who are too young to be vaccinated for pertussis.
We already discussed this. The baby's parents have the responsibility to shield them from diseased spittle. Herd immunity will never be achieved by vaccination. Why? Because vaccine immunity is SHORT term not long term. The child that is vaccinated will become an unvaccinated adult.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerseyGirl415
If you don't fully understand vaccines, you research it before having a kid, while you're pregnant, or when the kid is very young. That is the responsible thing to do. Not knowing about vaccines is not an excuse to not vaccinate. That's why we have doctors, other medical/research professionals, and reputable websites on the internet. And medical journals.
So did your doctor test you for allergies for all the ingredients in vaccines? Are you allergic to human albumin or bovine albumin or injected sorbitol or... all of those combined? These are legitimate concerns that parents have. Are you saying they are not legitimate concerns?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerseyGirl415
"Persistent cough" - sure, but with a characteristic "whoop" at the end. Please. More often than not, especially in children, the whoop is heard and the child cannot breathe. Sometimes, they even turn blue or vomit. It's not a "persistent cough" - it's a very serious condition. And it is quite obvious.
Actually the older the kid/person the less the "whoop". and even so... if a 5 year old child is "whooping" in the seat next to me, I would cover my baby!
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerseyGirl415
People are actually most contagious before the cough starts - all the more reason to vaccinate, since the early symptoms look like the common cold. Meanwhile, you're actually carrying a disease that is especially deadly to babies too young to be immunized.
Yet you are assuming that parents are able to diagnose whooping cough before the go to the doctor.... The reason they go to the doctor is because they are not sure why their child has a persistent cough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerseyGirl415
"Let the baby be exposed." How did she let the baby be exposed? Again, by taking him there? It's airborne. If the kid coughed too close to the baby, or sneezed or otherwise got droplets on him, how is that the mother or the baby's fault? She should just know this kid might be unvaccinated even though it's more uncommon than not? Perhaps the child's mother should keep her sick kid away from others, or teach him to cover his damn mouth. If the kid touched something the baby's mother then touched, not knowing he touched it (because the poster didn't even say whether or not the baby and sick unvaccinated child were in the same room at the same time), touched it herself then touched her baby right after, how is that her fault? So, suddenly, mothers should not touch things then touch their babies or touch things that touch their babies? By your logic babies would be living in actual bubbles and mothers would obsessively clean everything them themselves before touching their kid. Come on. You can't protect your kid forever. You can't put them in a bubble.
Yet you would say that an un-vaccinated child must be kept in a bubble...
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerseyGirl415
Pertussis has quite obvious symptoms. It's why it's called whooping cough. If the child is exhibiting early symptoms, which as I said mimic a cold, then no one would know without a test... but personally I would not take my child to the doctor if I thought he or she had a cold. Colds are minor. If my child had a cough with a telltale whoop at the end, I would be concerned. And I would know what it probably is (pertussis) because I am an educated person.
Yet you don't have any children and aren't a parent... so really you have no say. Amongst those who ARE parents and who DO have a say... They take their child to the doctor for a... DIAGNOSIS. Once diagnosed then the take the appropriate steps, vaccinated or not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerseyGirl415
Again, we don't know the situation the sick child and mother was in. It's possible he was not showing obvious symptoms of pertussis quite yet. BUT AGAIN - had he been vaccinated, the chances of him getting it would be much lower.
Actually no... the article I posted said that 2/3rds of the kids were vaccinated. Therefore, the chances are higher for a vaccinated child to get it than an un-vaccinated child.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerseyGirl415
For all we know, there could have been an outbreak in the child's school or daycare, or if the family had recently traveled, an outbreak in that location. In a situation like that, the mother would have known the risks and possibility was there - especially for her unvaccinated child. We don't know the circumstance, but you seem to be giving her the benefit of the doubt while I'm exploring many options - all of which seem to end in, well she should have vaccinated the kid.
yet even if they were vaccinated it seems they would still be infected. 2/3rds of the infected were vaccinated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerseyGirl415
Ok. If you are "under-vaccinated" I assume that means you have been vaccinated but did not receive the booster. This actually means you are unvaccinated. The booster exists for a reason. This means ⅔ of the people who got the disease were unvaccinated. This means your analysis and conclusion is totally wrong. Next.
Actually it means that the vaccine is not effective. Do you think that adding more shots of an ineffective vaccine makes the vaccine more effective? It does not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerseyGirl415
I'll just leave this here, by the way: "In general, childhood whooping cough vaccines (called DTaP) are effective for 8 or 9 out of 10 children who receive them. Among children who get all 5 doses of DTaP vaccine on schedule, effectiveness is very high within the year following the 5th dose — nearly all children (98 out of 100) are fully protected. There is a modest decrease in effectiveness in each following year. About 7 out of 10 of children are fully protected 5 years after getting their last dose of DTaP vaccine and the other 3 are protected against serious disease."
Source? Other than the one I just disproved because of your conveniently faulty logic?
What did you disprove? The pertussis vaccine is ineffective. It's that simple.
J
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerseyGirl415
ust like we don't know the child's situation, we don't know the baby's. Like I said - it may not have been direct contact. It could have been something the kid touched before leaving the room, then the baby's mother touched it, having no clue a kid with potential pertussis touched it previously. It could have been in an infected exam room that wasn't sanitized or medical equipment or the own doctor's hands. Or, since sneeze particles travel like 10 feet, it could have been the kid sneezing from across the room. Who knows.
Pertussis is spread by direct contact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerseyGirl415
What we DO know is, an unvaccinated child infected a defenseless baby. And you are blaming the victim. The victim here is the unvaccinated baby who was too young to be vaccinated. You are blaming the baby and its mother, while ignoring the simple fact that this just may have all been avoided had the 5 year old been vaccinated, properly - this means getting the booster on time. At the age of 5, the vaccination would have been extremely effective if the dosages had ben administered properly and on time. That is a fact supported by evidence/the link provided above.
Then why didn't the baby's mother take precautions?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerseyGirl415
So if my kid gets a stomach virus... it's my fault? If my kid touched something at Target that a sick kid touched 20 minutes ago, and gets the flu, it's my fault? If my kid breathed the air after someone with the flu sneezed in public, within 15 feet of him, and got the flu, it's my fault?
First... you don't have any kids. Second, it is always a risk to take kids out into the public. Whose fault is it....
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerseyGirl415
And again - how does "my bias" suggest that I think any unvaccinated kid is harboring a disease? Please show me where I insinuated that? Since you've said it twice now, you better give me a quote that directly says that. I am talking as if the unvaccinated children in question actually get the illness, then spread it to others, as is the situation in the story we are discussing. I'm not assuming that every unvaccinated kid carries whatever they are unvaccinated for.
Then why would you assume that an unvaccinatedd child was responsible for the baby being sick.. it could have been a vaccinated child.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerseyGirl415
In the quote from the CDC's website I just provided you... you're proven wrong. Notice that the vaccine is NOT ineffective when administered properly and on time. In fact, it is 80-90% effective after the proper doses, administered on time.
The pertussis vaccine?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerseyGirl415
Again - me not being a parent yet means nothing. Sorry that I am 22 years old and don't yet have children because I decided to not be an irresponsible moron and have kids while I'm living at home and in college. It doesn't mean I'm not an intelligent, informed person with an opinion. So that's first.
Yet I have a 22 year old in college that is married and yet had to be vaccinated for college. She did get the vaccinations and is fine. However, there is speculation that if the same vaccination were given when she was a child, there would have been adverse reactions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerseyGirl415
Next, what does my kid being subjected to surgery or drugs without my approval have to do with vaccines? Are you insinuating your child is forced to receive vaccines against your will? Are you insinuating the research revealed about vaccines is all wrong and no one should trust it? Because I certainly disagree. And IMHO I think you're reckless for not protecting your child and others, most importantly. You don't want to put your kid "at risk," whatever, that's on you, but you'd put innocent people, some of them immunocompromised or allergic to the vaccine or for whatever reason, otherwise unable to receive it, at risk just because you believe in disproved evidence or have your own thoroughly valid (because you're a researcher, right? ) opinions on vaccines? If so, and you can sleep at night, I commend you. Because I sure as hell could not.
Because vaccination is invasive. It needs to be evaluated the same as any medical procedure. I am not responsible for any other person than the child I raised. If my kid is immunocompromised or allergic then I would be worried about their safety. As it is... I think all parents should have the right to object to medical procedures, including vaccinations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerseyGirl415
Fine. You have your "freedom." Meanwhile, I'll not have smallpox.
katjonjj, My children are 10 years older than yours. They did not have any reactions either. However, the 1980 vaccination schedule was about half the quantity as today's. Newborns certainly were not given any vaccinations when they were only one day old.
Pregnant women weren't given vaccinations either. Quantity and timing major differences today. This is probably why many young women, who do choose to vaccinate, want them spread out so their babies are older and are not given them all at once.
My Grandson was vaccinated for Hep. B, but not when he was only a day old. He got it at one month old. That was my daughter's CHOICE. Whether parents choose all according to schedule, delayed schedule, some, or not at all, it should be their choice and nobody else's.
Last edited by Jo48; 07-09-2015 at 06:26 AM..
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.
), and not have had the telltale cough yet. We don't know the situation. But it's good advice regardless. And, another but, had he been vaccinated, he probably would not have gotten whopping cough at all, and probably would not have spread it to a defenseless baby who was too young to receive the vaccination. It's simple. If you don't see it... well that's not my problem. 
). They are taking their precious child to the doctor because of a persistent cough. Should parents be required to have psychic abilities or be trained medical doctors prior to having kids?
:coo l: