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.
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.
Did you read your own links about the quarantines? Can you really not see how different these cases were from what’s happening in Rockland County?
Now I'm starting to feel like I need a full course of shots just to ride public transit
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo48
Seriously? Born before 1957? Don't need that MMR.
Only if you were "lucky" enough to catch measles as a child. Best to have your doctor check your titers.
Used to be that travel to third world countries meant you needed boosters for Tdap,& MMR , HAV+HVB, and for Asia add Japanese encephalitis (JE) and an MMR booster (because of the prevalence of mumps).
Now I'm starting to feel like I need all those just to ride public transit.
You’re wrong though. The people in Rockland County who are refusing to cooperate with public health officials and those very close to the outbreak and 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.
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. People are actively trying to take away informed choice.
Perhaps you could document this 100% acceptance. With primary sources, please.
If that stuff didn't work, people wouldn't produce it. If you've ever been in vaccine discussions on facebook and the like, you see people posting youtube videos made by people who haven't taken a science course since high school (if then, Jim Carrey didn't even graduate HS) and all sorts of nonsense from antivaccine websites such as "Whale", "Natural News" and the like.
What do you mean by "suspicious" and "people like you"? I don't think you understand "informed choice". As for suspicious, it's well known that people opposed to vaccines tend to believe in other conspiracy theories as well. https://khn.org/morning-breakout/vie...ng-screenings/
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissTerri
I don’t think you truly understand that case. You seem to use it for justification about everything.
Do you consider and immunocompromised person with autoimmune disease to be a valid exemption?
"Jacobson" fits perfectly here. I understand just fine.
Depends on the degree of immunocompromise and the vaccine. The CDC has a whole list of contraindications and precautions, and invalid contraindications. Immune compromise is not a contraindication/precaution for HPV or Tdap. Autoimmune disease is not a contraindication/precaution for Hepatitis B. Immunocompromised family member is not a contraindication/precaution for LAIV flu (flu mist), MMR, rotavirus, varicella, zoster (shingles). Contact with immunocompromised patients as a health care worker is not a contraindication/precaution for LAIV flu or zoster. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/aci...dications.html
Did you read your own links about the quarantines? Can you really not see how different these cases were from what’s happening in Rockland County?
No. Why don't you tell me? I think it all fits just fine, and even if not, you said "unprecedented". I only needed one example of a similar quarantine to show it was not unprecedented. Every case is going to be a bit "different". You can't pull the "that's different" stuff for every example given.
Do you support parents of vaccine injured kids ability to sue vaccine makers? Something they are not allowed to do?
You are quite aware that this statement is not true. Claims for adverse reactions to vaccines must first go through the vaccine court (where compensation is generous and there is no requirement to prove causation unless it is a new, previously unknown reaction). However, if a claimant is not satisfied with the vaccine court decision it is possible to sue.
"The special master's decision may be appealed and petitioners who reject the decision of the court (or withdraw their petitions within certain timelines) may file a claim in civil court against the vaccine company and/or the health care provider who administered the vaccine."
Don't you think it is time to stop claiming that you cannot sue a vaccine maker?
Also, keep in mind that a reaction that happens to one person out of a million and not the other 999,999 who take it is not due to a defect in the vaccine. It is due to the physiology of the person who has the reaction. In the highly unlikely event that a vaccine were to be defective you would not have to go through vaccine court to sue the manufacturer. Suing over a reaction to a vaccine that is not defective would be like suing the farmer whose peanuts caused your kid to have an allergic reaction.
(a) General rule
Except as provided in subsections (b), (c), and (e) State law shall apply to a civil action brought for damages for a vaccine-related injury or death.
(b) Unavoidable adverse side effects; warnings
(1) No vaccine manufacturer shall be liable in a civil action for damages arising from a vaccine-related injury or death associated with the administration of a vaccine after October 1, 1988, if the injury or death resulted from side effects that were unavoidable even though the vaccine was properly prepared and was accompanied by proper directions and warnings.
The vaccine court is a long, tedious drawn out process and the person has to meet a very narrow set of criteria.
This move is unprecedented and controversial. I don’t agree with you that it’s reasonable.
It is entirely reasonable. It would not even be necessary if people with family members with measles would just cooperate with the authorities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissTerri
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.
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.
Some, not all, may be accepting the risk of measles for themselves. The problem is that they have given it to other people who may not be so accepting. They cannot hide in the herd. The vaccination rate is too low to produce herd immunity. That is why there are so many cases.
I am not insinuating anything. It is a fact. Most people listen to their doctors to get information about vaccines. Anti-vaxers use anti-vax sources. To them every YouTube video claiming a child is "vaccine damaged" is proof of "vaccine damage". Any "expert" who denies vaccines are safe and effective is not an expert.
They have a choice. Vaccinate or keep the kids at home until the outbreak is controlled.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissTerri
I don’t think you truly understand that case. You seem to use it for justification about everything.
Do you consider an immunocompromised person with autoimmune disease to be eligible for a valid exemption?
The case goes to show that there are things that can be done to promote public health. That includes requiring unvaccinated kids to stay home during a measles outbreak.
People with autoimmune disease are encouraged to vaccinate.
"Vaccines are generally safe and effective for persons with AD [autoimmune disease] and are recommended by standard vaccination guidelines. Some studies have found mildly impaired immune responses to vaccines among patients receiving long-term immunosuppressive therapy, but postvaccination antibody titers are usually sufficient to provide protection for the majority of immunized individuals. The accumulated data on the safety and effectiveness of vaccines warrant immunization with the majority of vaccines for patients with AD, especially vaccination against influenza and pneumococcal disease."
Precautions must be used with live virus vaccines. See the link.
(a) General rule
Except as provided in subsections (b), (c), and (e) State law shall apply to a civil action brought for damages for a vaccine-related injury or death.
(b) Unavoidable adverse side effects; warnings
(1) No vaccine manufacturer shall be liable in a civil action for damages arising from a vaccine-related injury or death associated with the administration of a vaccine after October 1, 1988, if the injury or death resulted from side effects that were unavoidable even though the vaccine was properly prepared and was accompanied by proper directions and warnings.
The vaccine court is a long, tedious drawn out process and the person has to meet a very narrow set of criteria.
Note the part that I have bolded. The manufacturer is protected:
"... if the injury or death resulted from side effects that were unavoidable even though the vaccine was properly prepared and was accompanied by proper directions and warnings."
Such injuries happen because of differences in individual responses to vaccines. It would be wonderful if there were some test we could do that would identify people who should not take vaccines, but those tests do not (yet) exist.
Have you ever been involved in any litigation? I guarantee that a suit against a pharmaceutical company over a vaccine would be an enormously longer and more tedious drawn out process than vaccine court. By the way, delays are often on the part of the claimant. The court wants things to move quickly and efficiently.
In vaccine court all you have to have is an event known to be an adverse reaction to a vaccine. The event has to happen within a time frame that it is known to be attributable to the vaccine. You do not even have to prove that the vaccine caused the event, only that it might have. That means the burden of proof is less and the claimant is more likely to prevail. You also do not have to give a big chunk of the award to lawyers. Their fees are paid separately.
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.
Now I'm starting to feel like I need a full course of shots just to ride public transit
