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.
First I'm accused of having the flu and not even knowing it. Then I'm accused of my family members not really having the flu when they really did.
To answer your question...Because the flu symptoms are pretty darn distinct and flu was going around and in the case of my daughter, other kids she had been around had the flu. I don't know why you feel the need to argue this point. You should be happy that not everyone rushes to the doctor to get tested for the flu. We kept out germs at home.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Informed Info
Seeing as how you have taken care of multiple family members with the flu and never ended up with it? Apparently it's not that easy to spread around. So no need to worry about folks who have the flu sitting in a doc's office.
Do you know anything about the flu at all? Your argument is ridiculous.
Quote:
The flu is serious. Most people who aren't clueless go to the doctor/bring their kids to the doctor when they need to. Like when they think they might have the flu.
Most of the time the flu is not serious. If a person is not recovering, ie. getting worse rather then getting better then it's time to call the doctor. Going to the doctor at the first sign of flu is completely unnecessary in the vast majority of cases and puts others at risk.
Last edited by MissTerri; 04-21-2016 at 07:19 AM..
Has any law been established regarding non-vaccinated children who become the center of an epidemic?
If polio, mumps, rubella, whooping cough, etc begin to claim lives again, can the parents of the children who began spreading the disease be held liable to pay financial restitution to the families of those they made ill?
I haven't paid much attention to this anti-vaxxing phenomenon until a couple days ago Robert Deniro mentioned that his wife noticed their child develop autistic symptoms overnight after receiving a vaccine with mercury as a basic ingredient in it.
Robert Deniro is a fairly level-headed man.
Perhaps some children in very rare cases really are developing autism after vaccination.
As for my kids, they've all been 100% vaccinated with no problems. I'm pro-vaccination.
If indeed some children are developing autism over this, I hate to say it but isn't it better to have a rare child here & there with autism than an epidemic outbreak of horribly crippling, deadly diseases?
They are not. This "link" has been disproven and the doctor who claimed it has lost his license.
This claim, perpetuated by some celebrities with influence like Jenny McCarthy, has been extremely damaging to recent generations and can be partially blamed for the resurgence of measles and other diseases that had formerly been under control or even unheard of anymore up to that point.
There may be the occasional bad reaction to a vaccine that can cause permanent damage to a child. I know someone whose child had a reaction to a vaccine and is now disabled. But this is RARE and the pros of vaccinating outweigh the cons in the long run to the vast majority of society. There will always be people who have adverse reactions to certain meds or treatments. Always. There will always be people who can die from eating peanut butter or a strawberry, too.
Have you ever heard of Stevens-Johnson Syndrome? It is a very rare immune response linked to, usually, antibiotics or other meds that causes your skin to essentially burn and blister painfully. It is very painful and damaging, and very dangerous. Can be fatal. Next time your kid has strep throat, something he or she can die from if untreated (I know someone whose dad died from untreated strep throat that went into his heart and killed him in 3 days), would you really say no to the antibiotic just in case they have this reaction? You would risk death because of the small chance of a reaction? I would not. The chance of that reaction is SO SMALL that it's barely worth even considering. This is how I view vaccines, too.
They are not. This "link" has been disproven and the doctor who claimed it has lost his license.
This claim, perpetuated by some celebrities with influence like Jenny McCarthy, has been extremely damaging to recent generations and can be partially blamed for the resurgence of measles and other diseases that had formerly been under control or even unheard of anymore up to that point.
There may be the occasional bad reaction to a vaccine that can cause permanent damage to a child. I know someone whose child had a reaction to a vaccine and is now disabled. But this is RARE and the pros of vaccinating outweigh the cons in the long run to the vast majority of society. There will always be people who have adverse reactions to certain meds or treatments. Always. There will always be people who can die from eating peanut butter or a strawberry, too.
Have you ever heard of Stevens-Johnson Syndrome? It is a very rare immune response linked to, usually, antibiotics or other meds that causes your skin to essentially burn and blister painfully. It is very painful and damaging, and very dangerous. Can be fatal. Next time your kid has strep throat, something he or she can die from if untreated (I know someone whose dad died from untreated strep throat that went into his heart and killed him in 3 days), would you really say no to the antibiotic just in case they have this reaction? You would risk death because of the small chance of a reaction? I would not. The chance of that reaction is SO SMALL that it's barely worth even considering. This is how I view vaccines, too.
Exactly! In the "Vaccine Court" there is about 1 award for vaccine injury per every million doses of vaccines given, and many of those are "no-fault".
If polio, mumps, rubella, whooping cough, etc begin to claim lives again, can the parents of the children who began spreading the disease be held liable to pay financial restitution to the families of those they made ill?
Hardly...maybe we aught to make the CDC held liable when their vaccine doesn't work?
I mean....families don't get ill do they???..when they're all vaccinated???
Lets put the responsibility for vaccine failure where it really belongs.
There are different case numbers for different diseases.
All I can tell you is what happens in the districts in my local area. Most of my experience is with pertussis. Our local schools/day cares send the parents a letter saying there is pertussis in the school. They don't even say what grade/classroom. Parents are recommended to call their physician's office. AFAIK, kids aren't sent home if unvaxed. My oldest was in kinder during the big measles epidemic of 1989-91. Kids were sent home then. Also, shots were offered at school.
I have a friend who works in the health room at a local elementary school. She said all her exemptions last year were "personal belief". No medical, as there really are very few reason for medical exemptions. No religious, although this is an option here in CO.
California pulled it off. Eventually, I think all or almost all states will.
Oregon requires either a vaccine education certificate from a medical provider, or proof of watching this video.
My Dad (born 1919) had a saying, "You cannot get blood from a stone." Renter, no car, no bank accounts, no job, on Social Security and Medicare. What would you get from a suing a person like that? Dad used to smile when he said that. Jail time in compensation for spreading a contagious disease at 65 or 70 years old?
I do not think you can sue the Federal Government to take away Social Security payments for the elderly for punitive damages. I haven't heard of Medicare or Medicaid proposing anything like this.
Do you think they SHOULD to penalize all the unvaccinated people who spread disease (flu? whooping cough?), whatever their financial status or age? "You cannot get blood from a stone". Assume nothing. Anti vaxxers are affluent, cluster together, young parents. Fine with me. Go on believing that.
There are other penalties that don't involve a fine or a lawsuit. Denying their children access to public education is one. How about mass transit? No vaccination certificate, no airline boarding pass. No basketball game tickets, no theater tickets, no access to any place that groups of people gather. Of course, there could be a religious exemption allowing people to go to church.
If they are affluent, let them be affluent pariahs.
Most of the time the flu is not serious. If a person is not recovering, ie. getting worse rather then getting better then it's time to call the doctor. Going to the doctor at the first sign of flu is completely unnecessary in the vast majority of cases and puts others at risk.
There are some who would like to shorten the duration of illness with flu by taking medication for it. The medication works best when it is started early in the course of the disease. Treatment also may reduce the risk of complications such as pneumonia, ear infections in children, and the risk of severe disease requiring hospitalization.
As with any infectious disease, coordination with the physician's office can enable you to avoid exposing other people to the flu.
Causing spread of the flu having little or no symptoms. Moral? EVERYONE needs flu shots! Reading the last paragraph.
THE best part of this article?
Disclaimer: Several authors have disclosed financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry.
Called me SHOCKED. Not. I guess you got your work cut out for you identifying the person who gave you or your child the flu in order to sue.
Guess what! There are asymptomatic cases of Ebola, too.
People who are asymptomatic are by definition not coughing and sneezing, so they are less likely to spread the disease. Your article also confirms that people who are vaccinated are less likely to get sick, even if they are infected. Since not everyone who is vaccinated becomes infected, vaccination remains the best way to prevent sickness and reduce transmission of the disease.
Moderator cut: Off Topic/Orphaned - Quoted post has been deleted
Quote:
Originally Posted by purehuman
Hardly...maybe we aught to make the CDC held liable when their vaccine doesn't work?
I mean....families don't get ill do they???..when they're all vaccinated???
Lets put the responsibility for vaccine failure where it really belongs.
The CDC does not make or own vaccines. It does help to negotiate contract prices for vaccines purchased by some public programs, such as public health departments. Why should the CDC be held liable?
You know full well that vaccines do not work for everyone, so your snark falls flat on its face.
Since vaccines work for the majority of people who take them, the reasons for failure have to do with the inability of some people to respond to them, not with the vaccines themselves. It would be nice if we could predict who will be a non-responder, but we cannot. There is no one to hold responsible for failure of a vaccine.
Causing spread of the flu having little or no symptoms. Moral? EVERYONE needs flu shots! Reading the last paragraph.
THE best part of this article?
Disclaimer: Several authors have disclosed financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry.
Called me SHOCKED. Not. I guess you got your work cut out for you identifying the person who gave you or your child the flu in order to sue.
They really will have their work cut out for them looking for the source of their illness since it's not actually a person but a virus or bacteria that is to blame.
It's ironic that those who are so worried and most vocal about anti-vaxxers exposing others in doctor's waiting rooms are the first one's running out of the house to the nearest waiting room with the flu while contagious just so they can get a test to confirm what they already know. It's very hypocritical.
They really will have their work cut out for them looking for the source of their illness since it's not actually a person but a virus or bacteria that is to blame.
It's ironic that those who are so worried and most vocal about anti-vaxxers exposing others in doctor's waiting rooms are the first one's running out of the house to the nearest waiting room with the flu while contagious just so they can get a test to confirm what they already know. It's very hypocritical.
The virus or the bacterium is the cause of the illness. The source is where the virus or bacterium came from. For flu the source is often unknown. For the childhood VPDs it can be and often is identifiable.
" ... propagated (progressive source) epidemic in which one or more of the first wave of cases serves as a source of infection for subsequent cases and those subsequent cases, in turn, serve as sources for later cases."
As another example, the source of a norovirus outbreak is usually an infected food handler. Another person could be infected either by direct contact with the food handler or from food he contaminated.
Some people want to be treated for flu. There is no need for them to expose anyone in the waiting room if they simply call their doctor's office first and arrange to bypass the waiting room altogether.
The other value in testing is that some facilities are part of the surveillance system for flu and report their results to the CDC.
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.
