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.
We only mandate vaccines because the absolute risk of serious harm from them is so small as to almost be impossible to calculate.
What "we" and what "mandate"?
I am fine with public schools deciding that vaccines are necessary for attendance. I am not fine with governments deciding everyone has to get vaccinated period. The prior is a natural consequence of enacting your parental right to reject vaccination for your children. The second is forcing government medical treatment. They are wildly different.
Quote:
We assume responsibility for that tiny few who are harmed by having a compensation system that does not rely on even proving the vaccine actually caused harm, only that it might have done so.
Again what "we"? Why do you think the government actually mandates vaccination for everyone? It does not.
When a parent chooses to vaccinate in order to put their child in school than it is their responsibility. When a government forces vaccinations on all of the children in their country that would be very different. That is not currently happening nor should it. YOU nor the government has any right to say X number of deaths of children are acceptable to lower someone one else's risk of disease.
If they were able to tell us the number of deaths from rotavirus pre vaccine then they can easily figure out the number of deaths post rotavirus vaccine. It's not hard. They just haven't bothered to do it. Why wouldn't they want to know how many lives their vaccine saved? There is no evidence that it has saved even one life in the US. None.
Who's this "they"? We've discussed this over and over and over again, MissTerri. Incidence of rotavirus is way down. It's rather ridiculous (ie, worthy of ridicule) to think the number of deaths has remained the same. That's elementary math.
Who's this "they"? We've discussed this over and over and over again, MissTerri. Incidence of rotavirus is way down. It's rather ridiculous (ie, worthy of ridicule) to think the number of deaths has remained the same. That's elementary math.
If you want people to get the rotavirus vaccine even though the risk of death was only 20- 60 (out of approximately 4 million babies born each year in the usa) each year pre vaccine and even though diarrhea is something that can be managed pretty easily, then prove that the vaccine has lowered the death rate significantly enough to warrant this to be in the category of "must get" vaccines.
Interesting source. The co-inventor of a rotavirus vaccine. He was a voting member of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices when they voted to add rotavirus vaccine to the schedule. He made a lot of money off of his "invention".
The US Government disagrees with your interpretation of the studies that have shown an increased risk of intussusception with the rotavirus vaccine.
Why did you feel the need to put invention in quotation marks? Yes, Dr. Offit made a lot of money. What is wrong with that? If you came up with a great "invention" would you give it away or would you expect to make money from it?
The risk of intussusception with the two newer versions of the rotavirus vaccine is lower than with the original one. As I previously showed you, the risk of death (since deaths are the only thing meaningful to you) from intussusception after the vaccine is about 2 in 43 million.
It's mystifying that you seem so fixated on the number of deaths from rotavirus. It does kill, whether you want to admit or not, even in the US.
Worldwide, Dr. Ofitt's vaccine has saved hundreds of thousands of lives and will eventually save millions as the years go by.
Have you ever done anything to save a life?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissTerri
That's pure speculation on your part. There is no proof. No evidence whatsoever of your claim.
Yes, a vomiting baby derives a lot of good from nursing. Maternal antibodies in those babies under the age of 3 months as well as hydration. Just because they are vomiting does not mean that they are not keeping some of the liquid down. Do you stop drinking fluids when you get a stomach bug?
It's not that hard a concept to understand. If the disease kills between 20 and 60 people per year and you cut the incidence in half, then you reduce the number of deaths proportionately. Lives saved in the US since the vaccine came out are in the hundreds; lives saved worldwide are in the hundreds of thousands.
If they have the disease, the antibodies did not do much good. Perhaps mom was not making very many of them.
My preference is for the child to not be sick at all, rather than proving how good a mom I am by nursing a severely ill baby 24 hours per day. Then there is the issue of whether mom can make enough milk to keep up with increasing demands.
I am fine with public schools deciding that vaccines are necessary for attendance. I am not fine with governments deciding everyone has to get vaccinated period. The prior is a natural consequence of enacting your parental right to reject vaccination for your children. The second is forcing government medical treatment. They are wildly different.
Again what "we"? Why do you think the government actually mandates vaccination for everyone? It does not.
When a parent chooses to vaccinate in order to put their child in school than it is their responsibility. When a government forces vaccinations on all of the children in their country that would be very different. That is not currently happening nor should it. YOU nor the government has any right to say X number of deaths of children are acceptable to lower someone one else's risk of disease.
"We" is the entire community with which we have a social compact as part of living in the community.
"Mandate" in the context of vaccines is a requirement to take the vaccine in order to participate in certain aspects of society, like attending public school.
No one in this country is "forced" to vaccinate.
The fact is that fatal complications of vaccines are so rare as to be virtually uncountable. The idea otherwise is a fabrication from the anti-vaccinationists.
If you want people to get the rotavirus vaccine even though the risk of death was only 20- 60 (out of approximately 4 million babies born each year in the usa) each year pre vaccine and even though diarrhea is something that can be managed pretty easily, then prove that the vaccine has lowered the death rate significantly enough to warrant this to be in the category of "must get" vaccines.
You just do not get it. Rotavirus can cause severe illness even if it is not fatal. Preventing that makes the vaccine worth it. The risks from severe disease - even if not fatal - outweigh the risks of the vaccine, even when intussusception is taken into consideration. The risk of death from rotavirus in the US is not zero, even with good medical care.
I am fine with public schools deciding that vaccines are necessary for attendance. I am not fine with governments deciding everyone has to get vaccinated period. The prior is a natural consequence of enacting your parental right to reject vaccination for your children. The second is forcing government medical treatment. They are wildly different.
Again what "we"? Why do you think the government actually mandates vaccination for everyone? It does not.
When a parent chooses to vaccinate in order to put their child in school than it is their responsibility. When a government forces vaccinations on all of the children in their country that would be very different. That is not currently happening nor should it. YOU nor the government has any right to say X number of deaths of children are acceptable to lower someone one else's risk of disease.
State governments and the federal government do not have general vaccination laws.
However, your point apparently is that they lack the power to compel vaccination. You could not be more mistaken.
The Supreme Court decided Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 US 11 (1905) and Zucht v. King, 260 US 174 (1922). The two cases make it clear that state governments could mandate compulsory vaccination for their citizens under the police powers they possess to regulate the health, welfare, and safety of citizens within the community.
In Jacobson, an adult was ordered to obtain a small pox vaccination to help stop the spread of small pox in his community. He refused and was fined for not doing so. The Supreme Court upheld this decision. Zucht v. King dealt with the right of a state or city to exercise this power when a disease epidemic was not present.
States tend to shy away from such laws because most preventable diseases are best prevented by immunizing school age children. However, nothing prevents them from requiring the same from an adult population.
I sometimes ponder why some people get their minds wrapped around the mistaken idea that our system and Constitution allow people to do anything they want under the claim of "freedom". The Constitution and our laws are not about giving everyone freedom to do anything that they want. Its about striking a balance between freedom and the needs of society to protect its health, welfare, and safety. The courts have recognized that in a long series of decisions that actual predate the founding of the United States of America.
Last edited by markg91359; 04-25-2017 at 08:40 PM..
"Prospective cohort studies conducted in Canada6 and the United States7 showed no difference in the incidence of rotavirus gastroenteritis between infants up to 2 years of age who were breastfed and those who were not. Although differences were not found between either the incidence or the duration of rotavirus infections, these studies showed a significant decrease in the frequency of vomiting among breastfed infants. . . . Another US study showed that risk for rotavirus infection did not differ for infants who were exclusively breastfed, partially breastfed, or exclusively formula-fed.10 However, the breastfed infants were more likely to have milder symptoms." http://www.mdedge.com/jfponline/arti...tions-children
"Conclusions
Our study findings did not reveal breastfeeding as protective against rotavirus diarrhea in infants. This suggests searching for other complementary preventive methods such as rotavirus vaccination and zinc supplementation to reduce the problem of rotavirus diarrhea in infants irrespective of their feeding practices." https://bmcpediatr.biomedcentral.com...471-2431-11-17
Thank you, Kat. Some people lack an ability to understand basic statistical methodology and unfortunately many of them belong to the anti-vaccination camp.
That's pure speculation on your part. There is no proof. No evidence whatsoever of your claim.
That is untrue. Before the rotavirus vaccine, nearly all children had a rotavirus infection. If a vaccinated child goes through childhood without getting RV, that means it's overwhelmingly likely that the RV vaccine prevented infection.
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.
