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.
Goes to show that the experts don’t always know what’s best. Sometimes one has to use common sense. Anyone who’s honest and able to think critically can see that planning made more sense then not planning if one wanted to reduce risk in an era where 90% of people were getting the illness, no matter how hard they tried to avoid it. I don’t know why this is such a difficult thing for people to understand.
Again, you’re confusing lack of agreement with lack of understanding. You think if you just explain it again or with a different example or word it another way then the world will agree. That’s not how it works.
Again, you’re confusing lack of agreement with lack of understanding. You think if you just explain it again or with a different example or word it another way then the world will agree. That’s not how it works.
You think it’s smarter to just wing it. Even if it means that you greatly increase your risk of complications, including death because of it. You think planning is dumb. That makes no sense at all but whatever, it’s your choice.
My SIL had shingles at 32. My older daughter at 38. Too young to be vaccinated. My husband had shingles despite being vaccinated for it. He went to work with it on his back wearing a shirt. Who knew?
My SIL had it on his back. He's a NYC Teacher and went to work with it; again wearing a shirt. Who knew? He also had a Newborn son. His doctor said to wear a shirt (rash on his back) around his son and wash his hands before holding baby. Breathing the same air was not going to give the baby chicken pox. Doctor also said once the rash was crusted over it was no longer contagious for chicken pox.
My daughter had it all over her face. Her's did not look like their's. It looked like acne. She did go to work until it kept getting worse. Diagnosed as shingles. Unlike her BIL and Dad, the public could see it. She worked in a supermarket. It looked terrible having a employee looking like that. Customers weren't touching her face, but they certainly breathed the same air. I doubt they would have wanted to touch her face. lol
I suppose this is all irrelevant as well. Question? Should people with shingles be quarantined too? You like to talk about elderly with this, but can happen to younger people as well. Do you think shingles vaccines should be mandatory to prevent chicken pox in unvaccinated? For anyone who has ever had chicken pox regardless of age?
The itchy rash I had on my back looked more like my daughter's "acne", or prickly heat than husband's or SIL's. Never went to a doctor for diagnosis. It went away on it's own in a couple of weeks. None of this experience makes want to go out and spend $300 to get that vaccine. As a female, I certainly was not about to go out in public bare chested.
I have a feeling you've asked and been told the answer to this many times over. No, people with shingles do not have to be quarantined if they can cover up their shingles. https://www.cdc.gov/shingles/about/transmission.html "A person with active shingles can spread the virus when the rash is in the blister-phase. A person is not infectious before the blisters appear. Once the rash has developed crusts, the person is no longer infectious. . . Shingles is less contagious than chickenpox and the risk of a person with shingles spreading the virus is low if the rash is covered."
Plus more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissTerri
My case was mild and I have zero scars. Possibly because I was younger when I got it. A definite advantage. How was your DH’s sisters case as an adult? And why do you think her parents let her get to adulthood without catching it as a child? Do you think they were ignorant to the fact that it’s milder in kids?
You realize that Kara’s daycare kids are just as at risk of shingles as you and anyone else who had chicken pox in the pre-vaccine era. Not sure what mentioning that to her was about. That happened prior to a vaccine being available. Those kids were going to get it at one point or another and they were lucky to get it young. Sounds like the parents thought so as well.
Waiting until kids were older only served to increase the risk of complications. It was ignorance at best. The parents who exposed their kids early were actually the smart ones not the ignorant ones as some here have asserted.
My brother was young, probably about age 3, and he has scars, so your guess is incorrect.
The kids were not lucky. The parents might have had plans that their chickenpox disease interfered with. There is never a good time to get it. Something is always going on. Have your kids had chickenpox or are you "hiding in the herd"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo48
Actually I took the Pill in 1959 for bad heavy periods when I was 11. Took it again when I was 21 in 1969 for pregnancy prevention. It was available long time ago.
Measles vaccine in 1963. I was in HS. Majority of teens had already had it or been exposed to it. Why didn't they give it to us all anyway just to be safe???
1970's. I had my tithers done by my OB before I wanted to become pregnant. Why bother with that? Just vaccinate every woman of childbearing age since there was a vaccine then.Why bother to test for immunity?
Let's demand that all those elderly who had measles in their childhood be required to get vaccinated for measles anyway to be SAFE!What does the CDC say about this?Are they being too LAX in their standards?Only vaccines give immunity?
Another one of these questions asked and answered a million times over. You didn't get the vaccine BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T NEED IT! You'd had the disease. What about this don't you get that you ask this over and over and OVER again?
Sarcasm.
To avoid vaccinating people who didn't need it. Another question asked a zillion times over. Please process this information this time around.
More sarcasm.
The CDC says it's unnecessary to vaccinate anyone born before 1957. You know that too.
No, the CDC is not being too lax. These are not the people getting measles.
Who (besides you in these inane questions) ever said that?
Yes, but it's irrelevant. UNC4Me gave you the rate for the affected area. That's the "herd" that is of concern.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissTerri
Goes to show that the experts don’t always know what’s best. Sometimes one has to use common sense. Anyone who’s honest and able to think critically can see that planning made more sense then not planning if one wanted to reduce risk. I don’t know why this is such a difficult thing for people to understand.
"What's best"? Who are you to decide what's best? It's never best for people to get sick.
You think it’s smarter to just wing it. Even if it means that you greatly increase your risk of complications, including death because of it. You think planning is dumb. That makes no sense at all but whatever, it’s your choice.
Yes, I think planning to infect anyone with a disease is dumb. It was dumb in 1960 with chickenpox and it’s extremely dumb in 2019 with measles.
That is why many obstetricians will do a titer for varicella antibodies if a patient is considering pregnancy and offer the vaccine if she is not immune, before she gets pregnant. They do that with rubella, too, not waiting until someone is already pregnant to test.
And if there are no antibodies for varicella in a woman who desires to get pregant, than what should she do, go to a "pox party" or get the vaccination?
Let's demand that all those elderly who had measles in their childhood be required to get vaccinated for measles anyway to be SAFE! What does the CDC say about this? Are they being too LAX in their standards? Only vaccines give immunity?
Why do you keep repeating this? You know that anyone born before 1957 is presumed to be immune to measles and does not need to take the vaccine. Having measles provides immunity. You just have to get sick and take on the risks associated with the infection, including one or two chances in 1000 of dying from it.
If anyone is living in an area where there is now a measles outbreak wants to take a booster, that is fine, too.
That is not the rate in the areas with the ongoing outbreaks. If it were that high in those areas the outbreaks would have been smaller and quickly over.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo48
Of course I know the concept of herd immunity. It means that the majority of the population cannot catch the disease or give it to others. This also includes people who are immune from natural immunity having had those diseases. Every person who has caught measles in these outbreaks is now immune and also part of Herd Immunity. DUH???? What YOU do not get is that people are doing this on purpose catching these diseases without vaccination. They are now part of unvaccinated Herd Immunity as well. This was the original concept of Herd Immunity.
Edit: You have also accused me of "hiding in the herd" for immunity. For WHAT? Not getting my Tetanus, Flu, Pneumonia, or Shingles vax? Yes, I get it. Cradle to GRAVE vaccinations. You are never too old.
There is no such thing as "unvaccinated" herd immunity. There is just herd immunity, period. It consists of everyone who is immune to a disease, whether by having had it or by being vaccinated. If you cannot understand that, perhaps you should consider just not posting about herd immunity at all.
Parents who are deliberately exposing their children to vaccine preventable diseases in 2019 are asinine.
There is no herd immunity for tetanus or shingles because they are not spread person to person. There is no way I accused you of hiding in the herd for those. If you do not take the Tdap you are trying to hide in the herd, you could still catch pertussis and possibly give it to others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissTerri
The part you missed was that planning decreased the odds of complications vs not planning (worse odds and bigger risks!). I was also talking about chicken pox, not measles. You just can’t accept that I’m right. Moving on.
Decreased is not the same as eliminated. The possibility of unintended consequences has been explained to you. You just refuse to consider it and refuse to accept that not every doctor advocated deliberate exposure. There would be no way to control how far an outbreak that was started on purpose extended.
The fact that people had pox parties in the past is not a reason to refuse the vaccine in 2019.
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.
