U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 04-04-2019, 03:25 PM
 
8,978 posts, read 5,579,539 times
Reputation: 9375

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010 View Post
The ban is not due to the number of cases but because they have not been able to stop the outbreak after six months.

The "religious community" may stay mostly in the community but it shops in other areas of the county, too.

Not every child is banned, just those whose parents refuse to give them the measles vaccine.

Please provide your source that there have been "zero complications". Odds are one in four cases will be hospitalized.



You miss the point. The ban is not due to the idea that every unvaccinated person will be spreading measles. It is due to the fact that those unvaccinated children have a 90% chance of catching measles if exposed to it. In a crowd they could be exposed to someone who is incubating measles and does not know it.

People with autoimmune disease are immunocompromised, so it is unclear what you think the difference is.

Yes, the outbreak is ongoing. That is the entire point. People with family members with measles are refusing to talk to public health officials so that contacts can be traced and offered vaccination, immune globulin, or asked to stay home until they pass the incubation period.

The whole mess lies on the doorstep of the anti-vaxers.

What is needed is for the people with family members with measles to let the public health folks do their jobs and the people with children who have not been vaccinated to keep them out of school and public spaces.

The ones with kids who cannot go to school should be lobbying like crazy to get the ones with kids with measles to do the right thing.

Another option is to vaccinate your unvaccinated children.
So are you in favor of forcing those who are immunocompromised, including autoimmune disease to get vaccinated? As an immunocompromised person, I certainly do not expect others around me to have to get vaccinated to protect me or my family.

I was mixing up immune deficiency with immune compromised. My mistake.

 
Old 04-04-2019, 03:41 PM
 
21,459 posts, read 27,458,915 times
Reputation: 15703
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissTerri View Post
I
People have the right to make medical decisions for themselves. Thereís also no such thing as the right to never be exposed to germs, illness or disease. There needs to be a balance in terms in terms of community health and individual freedoms.
Reasonable people understand that during a disease outbreak, the decent thing to do is to keep their unvaxxed children out of public places. Again, responsibilities come with rights.
 
Old 04-04-2019, 03:43 PM
 
21,459 posts, read 27,458,915 times
Reputation: 15703
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissTerri View Post
So are you in favor of forcing those who are immunocompromised, including autoimmune disease to get vaccinated? As an immunocompromised person, I certainly do not expect others around me to have to get vaccinated to protect me or my family.

I was mixing up immune deficiency with immune compromised. My mistake.
I know you're asking this question of someone else, but I don't think the issue is "forcing vaccinations" on anyone, particularly those who can't have them due to existing medical conditions. This is about the lifestyle anti-vaxxers.
 
Old 04-04-2019, 03:54 PM
 
Location: Georgia, USA
22,559 posts, read 27,508,553 times
Reputation: 28168
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissTerri View Post
There are risks inherent in not vaccinating and there are risks inherent in vaccinating. Weíre not all perfect clones of one another and due to that fact, some peopleís bodies may react in different ways both to disease and to vaccines.

Iíve read a ton of scientific literature on vaccines, not pseudoscience junk, real peer reviewed scientific studies. I donít agree with those who claim that the science is settled or that there is only one right way to do things or even one correct pathway to health. Not even all of the experts are in agreement. I take issue with people wanting to take away informed consent.
The problem is that you refuse to accept that the risk of not vaccinating includes the risk of getting sick and having complications from a vaccine preventable disease. The reason your unvaccinated family does not get vaccine preventable diseases in the US is because other families do vaccinate. They accept the tiny (one in a million doses) risk of a serious adverse reaction to a vaccine. You get to hide in the herd and avoid that risk.

No one wants to "take away informed consent". Watching YouTube videos and reading anti-vax nonsense (like that generated by Obukhanych) is not the way to be informed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MissTerri View Post
So are you in favor of forcing those who are immunocompromised, including autoimmune disease to get vaccinated? As an immunocompromised person, I certainly do not expect others around me to have to get vaccinated to protect me or my family.

I was mixing up immune deficiency with immune compromised. My mistake.
People with certain immune deficiencies can and should be vaccinated. Some may not be able to take live virus vaccines, including measles vaccine. They benefit from herd immunity for those diseases. An immunocompromised woman died from measles in 2015. She was exposed at a health care facility.

https://vaxopedia.org/2019/01/20/but-did-anyone-die/

You may not care if others vaccinate in order to protect yourself. The parents of immune compromised children feel differently.
 
Old 04-04-2019, 03:57 PM
Status: "Spring has Sprung!" (set 19 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,352 posts, read 101,350,397 times
Reputation: 32752
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissTerri View Post
I believe there has to be a balance. Does it make sense for unvaccinated kids to stay home from school in the event of an outbreak at their school? Yes, absolutely. The risk is high. Does it makes sense to ban them from being in public in a county of 300,000 when there are a total of five active cases? No, I don’t think so, the risk is low.

People have the right to make medical decisions for themselves. There’s also no such thing as the right to never be exposed to germs, illness or disease. There needs to be a balance in terms in terms of community health and individual freedoms.

No, I wouldn’t support a lawsuit against someone who was not vaccinated if they got someone else sick unless that person went out of their way to expose that person and get them sick. Malicious intent.

Do you support parents of vaccine injured kids ability to sue vaccine makers? Something they are not allowed to do?
It doesn't really matter what you think the "balance" should be. It's what the epidemiologists at Rockland County think. The "individual freedom" thing was decided by the Supreme Court, a long time ago, 114 years ago, actually. Public health trumps.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/197/11/
"It is within the police power of a State to enact a compulsory vaccination law, and it is for the legislature, and not for the courts, to determine in the first instance whether vaccination is or is not the best mode for the prevention of smallpox and the protection of the public health. . . The highest court of Massachusetts not having held that the compulsory vaccination law of that State establishes the absolute rule that an adult must be vaccinated even if he is not a fit subject at the time or that vaccination would seriously injure his health or cause his death, this court holds that, as to an adult residing in the community, and a fit subject of vaccination, the statute is not invalid as in derogation of any of the rights of such person under the Fourteenth Amendment."

It gets a little tiresome to have to discuss the same old, same old, over and over.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MissTerri View Post
So are you in favor of forcing those who are immunocompromised, including autoimmune disease to get vaccinated? As an immunocompromised person, I certainly do not expect others around me to have to get vaccinated to protect me or my family.

I was mixing up immune deficiency with immune compromised. My mistake.
I know you're not talking to me, but why do you keep asking the same questions over and over, on vaccine thread after vaccine thread? No one expects people with valid medical exemptions to be vaccinated. And yes, it is up to the immunocompromised person to protect his/her health. My husband's doctor told him not to go to church because people go to church sick. (It was music to his ears.) It's not going to stop because some members of the congregation are immunocompromised. But there is a general expectation that just being "out in public" should be safe, e.g. going to a restaurant and sitting with your spouse/family at a table, or going to the grocery store, or Target, etc.
 
Old 04-04-2019, 04:23 PM
 
8,978 posts, read 5,579,539 times
Reputation: 9375
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metlakatla View Post
Reasonable people understand that during a disease outbreak, the decent thing to do is to keep their unvaxxed children out of public places. Again, responsibilities come with rights.
This move is unprecedented and controversial. I donít agree with you that itís reasonable.
 
Old 04-04-2019, 04:27 PM
 
21,459 posts, read 27,458,915 times
Reputation: 15703
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissTerri View Post
This move is unprecedented and controversial. I donít agree with you that itís reasonable.
I don't think you even understood what I said.
 
Old 04-04-2019, 04:33 PM
 
8,978 posts, read 5,579,539 times
Reputation: 9375
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010 View Post
The problem is that you refuse to accept that the risk of not vaccinating includes the risk of getting sick and having complications from a vaccine preventable disease. The reason your unvaccinated family does not get vaccine preventable diseases in the US is because other families do vaccinate. They accept the tiny (one in a million doses) risk of a serious adverse reaction to a vaccine. You get to hide in the herd and avoid that risk.
You’re wrong though. The people in Rockland County who are refusing to cooperate with public health officials, who are close to the outbreak and who refuse to vaccinate are 100% accepting the risk of measles. People just can’t seem to accept their decision. They are not trying to hide in the herd.

Quote:
No one wants to "take away informed consent". Watching YouTube videos and reading anti-vax nonsense (like that generated by Obukhanych) is not the way to be informed.
That’s really ridiculous and kind of rude to insinuate that most people make major medical decisions based on YouTube videos and “anti-vax” nonsense. Also kind of suspicious that you assert that even the experts are considered uninformed if their point of view is not 100% in line with “vaccines are the best thing ever” mentality. Not in my experience. Sorry that you hold these terrible types of assumptions about people. I wouldn’t care except for the fact that people like you are actively trying to take away all choice in the matter.

Last edited by MissTerri; 04-04-2019 at 04:55 PM..
 
Old 04-04-2019, 04:36 PM
 
8,978 posts, read 5,579,539 times
Reputation: 9375
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katarina Witt View Post
It doesn't really matter what you think the "balance" should be. It's what the epidemiologists at Rockland County think. The "individual freedom" thing was decided by the Supreme Court, a long time ago, 114 years ago, actually. Public health trumps.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/197/11/
"It is within the police power of a State to enact a compulsory vaccination law, and it is for the legislature, and not for the courts, to determine in the first instance whether vaccination is or is not the best mode for the prevention of smallpox and the protection of the public health. . . The highest court of Massachusetts not having held that the compulsory vaccination law of that State establishes the absolute rule that an adult must be vaccinated even if he is not a fit subject at the time or that vaccination would seriously injure his health or cause his death, this court holds that, as to an adult residing in the community, and a fit subject of vaccination, the statute is not invalid as in derogation of any of the rights of such person under the Fourteenth Amendment."
I don’t think you truly understand that case. You seem to use it for justification about everything.


Quote:
I know you're not talking to me, but why do you keep asking the same questions over and over, on vaccine thread after vaccine thread? No one expects people with valid medical exemptions to be vaccinated. And yes, it is up to the immunocompromised person to protect his/her health. My husband's doctor told him not to go to church because people go to church sick. (It was music to his ears.) It's not going to stop because some members of the congregation are immunocompromised. But there is a general expectation that just being "out in public" should be safe, e.g. going to a restaurant and sitting with your spouse/family at a table, or going to the grocery store, or Target, etc.
Do you consider an immunocompromised person with autoimmune disease to be eligible for a valid exemption?

Last edited by MissTerri; 04-04-2019 at 04:55 PM..
 
Old 04-04-2019, 04:42 PM
Status: "Spring has Sprung!" (set 19 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,352 posts, read 101,350,397 times
Reputation: 32752
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissTerri View Post
This move is unprecedented and controversial. I donít agree with you that itís reasonable.
Unprecedented? No. See: https://www.historyofvaccines.org/co...nty-quarantine
"This is not the first time that a local or state authority orders someone to stay home or stay away from public places. In the early 1900s, all of Chinatown in San Francisco was quarantined out of fear of the bubonic plague spreading. More recently, in 2004, the state of Iowa ordered several people to stay home after they were exposed to measles and found not to be immune."

Controversial? Only among the people who think they know more than all the health experts in the world.
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.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. | Please obey Forum Rules | Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top