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.
katjonjj, My children are 10 years older than yours. They did not have any reactions either. However, the 1980 vaccination schedule was about half the quantity as today's. Newborns certainly were not given any vaccinations when they were only one day old.
Pregnant women weren't given vaccinations either. Quantity and timing major differences today. This is probably why many young women, who do choose to vaccinate, want them spread out so their babies are older and are not given them all at once.
My Grandson was vaccinated for Hep. B, but not when he was only a day old. He got it at one month old. That was my daughter's CHOICE. Whether parents choose all according to schedule, delayed schedule, some, or not at all, it should be their choice and nobody else's.
There's no medical evidence (I know you don't care about science but others reading this might) to support the benefit of ignoring the CDC / medical recommendations around scheduling vaccinations.
As the link sets out delaying increases risk of infection, results in more doctors visits etc.
It's just foolishness that anti-vax advocates sell to parents to sell their ideas and books.
At some point if the risk is only to your kid, go ahead. However, I wouldn't take my child to a daycare that allowed kids who are able to be vaccinated to attend without their full vaccinations (good God, I can't even leave our DOG at a kennel without proving she's fully vaccinated).
My hope is that this type of mandate legislation that CA just passed for schools increases the safety of day cares as well, as its made many pro-science parents who vaccinate ask better questions about the risks anti-science (anti-vax) oarents are creating.
EDIT: Just to clarify - "many" are not choosing to ignore science and not vaccinate on schedule, most follow all the medical evidence and vaccinate fully. However, the CA legn makes sure these numbers are maintained at the school level.
Last edited by tlvancouver; 07-09-2015 at 07:49 AM..
Reason: Edited as above
The tone of your post was that a vaccinating parent is entitled to have the non-vaccinating parent take extra steps to ensure the disease is not spread. I believe it is the responsibility of the susceptible child's parent (in this case the baby) to ensure their child is protected. In fact, it is each child's parent that is directly responsible for the health of their child, not the people around them. All this coming from a non-parent?
Yes. There is no defensible reason for a coughing five year old to be anywhere near a baby in a doctor's office, regardless of immunization status or presumptive diagnosis.
However, you would also agree (I assume) that these parents are not medical doctors who can diagnose whooping cough (nor fully understand vaccines...). They are taking their precious child to the doctor because of a persistent cough. Should parents be required to have psychic abilities or be trained medical doctors prior to having kids?
"Regardless of presumptive diagnosis". A cough in a small child almost always signifies a contagious disease. It seems almost instinctual to keep such kids away from babies.
No it is actually more selfish for you (or others) to expect a parent to diagnose an illness then take precautions such as you suggest. Why was the mother of the baby so complacent as to let the baby be exposed? "If it's probably pertussis" then what? Every coughing child should be treated as if they have pertussis?
No one is expecting a parent to diagnose beyond "cough = contagious disease".
Actually, the pertussis vaccine is notorious for being ineffective. Of the outbreak in CA (see link I previously posted) 1/3 were un-vaccinated, 1/3 were under-vaccinated, and 1/3 were fully-vaccinated. So there is a greater chance that a vaccinated child would contract the disease than non-vaccinated. BTW... tons of parents take their kids to the doctor over simple colds.
You can talk all you want about the ineffectiveness of the vaccine (and I could give you a pretty good argument about how you're wrong; even in the above example, 2/3 were either unvaccinated or only partially vaccinated) but the fact of the matter is the child in the example was unvaccinated.
No it doesn't because the majority of people who get pertussis are vaccinated. This goes to show your bias.
The child who transmitted the pertussis was unvaccinated. The vaccine status of everyone who gets pertussis is irrelevant. Unvaccinated people tend to have more serious, ie more contagious, disease.
But they could have. Some parents avoid clinics like the plague because they are full of sick people. Some cover their baby with a cloth while in the waiting room. It is the parents responsibility to protect the baby from inhaling pertussis germs.
So now the parents of the baby shouldn't access health care? Covering with a cloth probably provides some small measure of protection; how do you know the parents of the baby who got pertussis didn't do that?
The defenseless baby had parents... that is the baby's defense. Also, your bias shows that you think all unvaccinated children to be harboring some disease which is why they need to take extra steps when visiting a doctor.
The five year old obviously had parents who were morons. Sick, coughing five year olds should be isolated from little babies in a doctor's office. Droplets usually travel about three feet. Keeping the sick, coughing child away from the baby can minimize exposure. Parents of sick kids, regardless of immunization status, need to take extra steps when taking their child to the doctor.
In the article I mentioned, 1/3 were not vaccinated at all, 1/3 were under vaccinated, and 1/3 were fully vaccinated (notice that the vaccine is ineffective).
Which is totally irrelevant to the case we were discussing.
As a non-parent... what do you think about your future precious baby being subjected to surgery or drugs without your approval? Would that be okay or do you think you would want to know the risks of any medical procedure your baby would have?
This is the stance of most "anti-vaxxers" because it is not about the vaccine as much as it is about informed consent and freedom of medical intervention.
Oh, it's not about the vaccine, eh? A vaccine information sheet is to be given out with each vaccination. The physician provides vaccine information. The person giving the IZs provides information. You're not supposed to sign permission until you've had all your questions answered. It's the vaccine.
katjonjj, My children are 10 years older than yours. They did not have any reactions either. However, the 1980 vaccination schedule was about half the quantity as today's. Newborns certainly were not given any vaccinations when they were only one day old.
Pregnant women weren't given vaccinations either. Quantity and timing major differences today. This is probably why many young women, who do choose to vaccinate, want them spread out so their babies are older and are not given them all at once.
My Grandson was vaccinated for Hep. B, but not when he was only a day old. He got it at one month old. That was my daughter's CHOICE. Whether parents choose all according to schedule, delayed schedule, some, or not at all, it should be their choice and nobody else's.
I have two friends whose early 80s babies had Hib meningitis, for which there was no vaccine at the time. They were hospitalized, and both have permanent sequelae from it. I don't get the significance of the fact that there were fewer vaccines in the 80s, or the 60s, or whenever. That just means there were fewer diseases a kid could be protected against.
I have two friends whose early 80s babies had Hib meningitis, for which there was no vaccine at the time. They were hospitalized, and both have permanent sequelae from it. I don't get the significance of the fact that there were fewer vaccines in the 80s, or the 60s, or whenever. That just means there were fewer diseases a kid could be protected against.
The more there are the more adverse reactions there will be. I also see that you did not comment about the CDC link posted that the newer version of the Pertussis (Dtap) in not as effective as the (DPT) and wanes quicker than the older version. If that is so, then the booster (Tdap) maybe also. I also posted a link from Scientific America saying the same in more detail than the CDC article.
I am bringing up this point to show the comparison between the measles outbreaks (100's) and the whooping cough (39,000).
Anti-vaxers vaccinating for measles but not whooping cough? Why is one so much higher? That appears to me that one vaccine is far more effective and longer lasting (MMR) than the other (Dtap/Tdap).
Not all pediatrician's offices have separate areas for "sick" and "well" patients. That is the fault of the office. Parents who bring their child to the doctor because they are sick and have a cough are not "morons". They are taking their sick child to see the doctor because that's what normal people do.
The more there are the more adverse reactions there will be.
Every single disease that vaccinations are provided for has a higher likelihood and impact than the 1 in a million serious adverse reaction to a vaccine.
No conspiracy, just advancing public health. Which for MOST rational people is a good thing.
There's no medical evidence (I know you don't care about science but others reading this might) to support the benefit of ignoring the CDC / medical recommendations around scheduling vaccinations.
As the link sets out delaying increases risk of infection, results in more doctors visits etc.
It's just foolishness that anti-vax advocates sell to parents to sell their ideas and books.
At some point if the risk is only to your kid, go ahead. However, I wouldn't take my child to a daycare that allowed kids who are able to be vaccinated to attend without their full vaccinations (good God, I can't even leave our DOG at a kennel without proving she's fully vaccinated).
My hope is that this type of mandate legislation that CA just passed for schools increases the safety of day cares as well, as its made many pro-science parents who vaccinate ask better questions about the risks anti-science (anti-vax) oarents are creating.
EDIT: Just to clarify - "many" are not choosing to ignore science and not vaccinate on schedule, most follow all the medical evidence and vaccinate fully. However, the CA legn makes sure these numbers are maintained at the school level.
Again, we go round and round. ONLY one State. California is not the entire country. I am not going to post any more links where California's similar legislation FAILED in other states. Cocoon your kids in California.
The only thing I have left to say to you katjonjj is YES, really, it is cool that I can't get a disease as terrible as smallpox because it has been eradicated thanks to vaccines. If you don't think so, let's isolate you and your kids on an island and give you some smallpox right now. Good luck. May the odds be ever in your favor.
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.
). They are taking their precious child to the doctor because of a persistent cough. Should parents be required to have psychic abilities or be trained medical doctors prior to having kids?
:coo l: