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.
I responded directly to statements that you made. Instead of arguing or implying that I am "desperate" or that I "fail to comprehend" I suggest you re-read what you wrote. I stand by what I said.
The discussion was about vaccinated people spreading disease. You stated that I said vaccines work 100% of the time. I never said that. The original post you quoted had nothing in it at all about vaccines working 100% of the time.
Quote:
Whooping cough will continue to rise in our country due to mutations which will continue to decrease the current vaccines effectiveness. Or they will just give boosters to every man, woman and child on a semi regular basis since it's become clear that the vaccine does not protect people for very long. That mandate will extend to all adults. What will we coerce them with? No vaccine, no driver's license? No vaccine, no employment?
The current vaccine works even against the bacteria with the mutation. The factor driving current outbreaks is people who do not vaccinate their children for pertussis at all. Those outbreaks are located in geographic areas where vaccination rates are abysmally low and herd immunity has broken down.
No vaccine, no employment if you are in health care or close contact with children other than your own.
I like the idea of a tax on people who do not vaccinate that would be high enough to defray the costs of controlling outbreaks.
Australia has chosen to deny certain government payments to families with children if vaccine mandates are not met. Perhaps the US could deny the income tax exemption for each child not vaccinated who has no medical contraindication to it.
Quote:
We fundamentally disagree on this issue and clearly will never reach any kind of consensus. I don't believe that it is the government's role is to mandate vaccinations for everyone. I also can't see how you can prove that the failure to submit to a specific medical intervention that is not 100% foolproof nor is it risk free was the critical factor that led to someone else catching an illness. It seems childish to expect that you will never be exposed to illness in life.
What is childish is to expect everyone else to accept being exposed to preventable illness because you refuse to vaccinate your child.
If you do not vaccinate and your child gives another child the disease that vaccine could have prevented, it will often be very clear that your child was the source of the infection. If your kid comes to the pediatrician's office and gives measles to the babies in the waiting room for their newborn followup visit it's going to be pretty clear who gave it to them.
No one claims that vaccines will prevent all illness. That's absurd.
Quote:
Silly argument. Vaccine mandates interfere with the right to an education. If you get your way and we come to the point where vaccines are required to travel then it will also interfere with freedom of movement.
Sorry, the rights of others to not be exposed to VPDs trump your right to not vaccinate. Legal references provided by Katarina.
Requiring vaccination for travel to countries where vaccine preventable diseases are still circulating is a reasonable public health measure.
Pakistan has actually required evidence of polio vaccination in order to leave the country to avoid exporting the disease.
Quote:
Refusing vaccines is not the same thing as refusing lifesaving treatment for one's child.
Sadly, sometimes it is.
Quote:
Mandates do interfere when exemptions do not apply and people are being threatened with lawsuits (subject of this thread) as the right to decline. That is coercion.
You always have a choice to not vaccinate. You just do not want to accept that you cannot refuse vaccines and go your merry way and never have to deal with the consequences of that decision, including possibly being sued if the result of your decision ends up harming someone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by southwest88
Water is not poisonous - which is the meaning of toxin, as in - typically - the toxins produced by bacteria. Water may contain a toxin - that is, something may be mixed in with it. But the water itself is not a toxin.
Too much water may drown or asphyxiate someone - but again, that action is not poisonous. Someone may drink so much water that they upset their electrolyte balance, & sicken. (Not sure if someone can drink so much that they die as a result.) But again, it's not that water is toxic.
Is water itself defined as a toxin somewhere in law in the US? That would be interesting, in & of itself.
Yes, you can kill yourself my drinking too much water - due to the electrolyte imbalance you describe. It's actually called water intoxication.
There was even talk at one point of eliminating measles, the way that small pox has been eliminated. Measles hasn't been eliminated though and the number of cases has risen because of the unwillingness of a minority to vaccinate.
Just a small point, but with regard to vaccines elimination has a specific meaning. It refers to a situation in which the organism no longer circulates in the wild. Measles has been eliminated in the US and the entire western hemisphere, as has rubella. All cases now result from someone travelling from abroad and bringing the disease with them. WHO has a strategic plan for eliminating measles and rubella worldwide. Such universal elimination is called eradication, which so far has happened only with smallpox (and rinderpest, a cattle disease). Polio will be next, if religious fanatics in Afghanistan and Pakistan will allow it.
Just a small point, but with regard to vaccines elimination has a specific meaning. It refers to a situation in which the organism no longer circulates in the wild. Measles has been eliminated in the US and the entire western hemisphere, as has rubella. All cases now result from someone travelling from abroad and bringing the disease with them. WHO has a strategic plan for eliminating measles and rubella worldwide. Such universal elimination is called eradication, which so far has happened only with smallpox (and rinderpest, a cattle disease). Polio will be next, if religious fanatics in Afghanistan and Pakistan will allow it.
"In 2015, 189 people from 24 states and the District of Columbia were reported to have measles. In 2014, the United States experienced a record number of measles cases, with 667 cases from 27 states reported to CDC's National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases (NCIRD); this is the greatest number of cases since measles elimination was documented in the U.S. in 2000."
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?
As far as I'm aware, there is no law holding parents of non-vaccinated children financially responsible for an outbreak of preventable diseases, however that does not mean they cannot be sued.
The current vaccine works even against the bacteria with the mutation. The factor driving current outbreaks is people who do not vaccinate their children for pertussis at all. Those outbreaks are located in geographic areas where vaccination rates are abysmally low and herd immunity has broken down.
The team of experts, led by UNSW PhD candidate Connie Lam, have looked into cases of whooping cough from across Australia and have found out that roughly 80 percent of the cases in 2012 were due to strains of the bacterium that do not have pertactin.
"The fact that they have arisen independently in different countries suggests this is in response to the vaccine. More studies are needed to better understand the effects of vaccination on the evolution of the organism," Lan added.
The findings are consistent with other studies conducted in other countries such as the United States and France so the threat of pertussis cough is not limited in Australia.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010
No vaccine, no employment if you are in health care or close contact with children other than your own.
They already have these types of mandates. A lot of healthcare workers are against them. I suspect that we'll lose a lot of great childcare providers if this type of mandates comes to fruition on a large scale. I also doubt that the mandates would stop there as outbreaks would continue. Next up it would be college professors, store clerks, etc. But that's what you want so this would likely please you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010
I like the idea of a tax on people who do not vaccinate that would be high enough to defray the costs of controlling outbreaks.
Of course you do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010
Australia has chosen to deny certain government payments to families with children if vaccine mandates are not met. Perhaps the US could deny the income tax exemption for each child not vaccinated who has no medical contraindication to it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010
What is childish is to expect everyone else to accept being exposed to preventable illness because you refuse to vaccinate your child.
A person's refusal to vaccinate for everything on the schedule does not cause everyone to be exposed to preventable illness. Contrary to your line of thinking, people who are not vaccinated do not spontaneously create disease in their bodies and are not walking around exposing people to illness. I've been exposed to flu, for example, from more vaccinated people then I have been exposed from unvaccinated people. I didn't get mad at them for exposing me I accepted it as I had gone out of the house during flu season. In spite of not having the vaccine I never caught it anyway but wouldn't have been mad at anyone if I did. It is childish to expect that one will never get sick from a certain list of illnesses simply because a vaccine that may or may not work exists.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010
If you do not vaccinate and your child gives another child the disease that vaccine could have prevented, it will often be very clear that your child was the source of the infection. If your kid comes to the pediatrician's office and gives measles to the babies in the waiting room for their newborn followup visit it's going to be pretty clear who gave it to them.
One child cannot be the source since they caught it form someone and that person caught it from someone else and so on and so forth. A pediatricians office should have "well" and "sick" areas in the waiting room. They should also have an area exclusively for newborns and babies and a policy to let people who are sick in the back door into a special room just reserved for sick patients. Shall we sue the pediatrician's office who have not done these things? A part of their job is to see sick patients so it should be expected that if you go to the pediatricians office you may come into contact with illness and disease. More could be done to prevent exposure. Has it in all cases?
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010
You always have a choice to not vaccinate. You just do not want to accept that you cannot refuse vaccines and go your merry way and never have to deal with the consequences of that decision, including possibly being sued if the result of your decision ends up harming someone.
No one has ever been sued for not vaccinating. I think that has been established in this thread. The source of the illness is either a virus or a bacteria, not a person. You could trace it back and back and back (and find vaccinated folks along the way as well as unvaccinated folks) and never get to the original source because there isn't one person who spontaneously created it in their body.
"No vaccine, no employment if you are in health care or close contact with children other than your own."
You mean for private businesses like Disney, McDonald's, or Toys R US?
"I like the idea of a tax on people who do not vaccinate that would be high enough to defray the costs of controlling outbreaks."
Tax Social Security too for not getting vaccinations?
Coercion by means of dire consequences? Not enough for parents of young children being denied public school education as a consequence? Now you want to push this to deny people earning a living, including many with very low wages to begin with? Sorry, Gramps, you didn't get your Flu Shot (or Tdap) this year so your Social Security check is going DOWN?
OMG, this crazy. Good thing your aren't a Legislator.
Miss Terri, 30+ years ago my kids doctors had both Well and Sick Waiting Rooms. I have now 2 month and 23 month old Grandsons.
I have been to their Pediatricians offices. My daughter's first Pediatrician (man in his 70's), when her older son was a newborn, did not have those either. However, the Newborns we went straight to the Exam room because they did not want them sitting in the Waiting Room with other kids, even if those kids weren't sick.
Her second Pediatrician did neither. Newborns and all children sat in one Waiting Room. When we took the baby, bringing along his older brother, for his one month check up, there was another Newborn and several other children there, in addition to the Moms, an Aunt, and me. The little girls were all coming up to the babies. Who was sick? Who was up to date on their vaccinations, including all the Adults? While I suppose the practice would know the children's vaccination status, they certain couldn't know that for any of the adults. Just assume that all the Moms, and their relatives with them, are up to date on vaccinations? Really?
Hospitals. Children, relatives, coming and going to see Newborns. Nothing asked for visitors. Years ago, they used to make visitors, including Dads, don masks and gowns before they could hold Newborns. Children under 6 were allowed in at all.
My toddler Grandson went to see his baby brother in the hospital. That very same night he was up crying and vomiting. He was not sick during the daytime. Norovirus, which he gave to everyone who came into contact with him, exception being his Newborn brother. No vaccination for Norovirus. Was he contagious being in the hospital few hours before he starting vomiting?????
It's changed a lot since my kids were children. Back then, "physical" precautions (separation, masks, etc.) were used instead of vaccinations for all.
Yah, it's called water intoxication - but living here in the US Southwest, most people grasp that you can drink too much water. Although the Wikipedia article I glanced @ noted that you have to drink enormous amounts of water in a short timespan, & something needs to suppress/override your normal sense of having drunk enough water - sickness, stress, poor judgment. The URLs you posted also note that some of the poor judgment is spurred by the (recent sports) exhortation to drink enough water to replace what you lose by exercise - even if that's hard to judge.
The key concept there should be enough - not to flood the system. We probably need to talk about the possibility of drinking too much water, Gatorade, what-have-you in school, especially @ football, baseball, soccer, basketball, tennis - any sport that involves prolonged vigorous physical activity, especially if out in sunny/hot weather. Our coaches & physical trainers need to know symptoms & treatment.
It's an unreasonable expectation on the parents part to think that one can go out into public and not be exposed to illness or disease.
Not if everyone's fully vaccinated (and said disease is one of those vaccinated against), it's not. That's kind of the whole point. If the disease isn't present in a population then the population won't have to worry about the disease. Ironically, it's exactly this fact that makes folks think they can get away with not vaccinating- nobody's had to worry about measels or smallpox or polio in any real way since vaccines became the norm, so folks think they're not something they have to worry about. But the less folks vaccinate, the more likely it is that folks will be exposed.
Safe? Not getting into safety factor, but how about does not work, or just plain wanes after a few(or one) years? Flu shot best example. Of course, the new 2005 Tdap is not working out as planned either. Waning after only about 5 years. You can search your own scientific journals on that one. My child, or in the case of this CHILDREN, are up to date on their shots. Isn't this supposed to protect them IF they come into contact with whooping cough? Answer? Blame the unvaccinated for something their vaccinations are supposed to protect against? This is not "safety" issue, but as I said, FAILED PRODUCT. It is happening too much to put the blame on "unvaccinated" either child, or adult.
You can bring back a "failed" toaster or car. You cannot bring back a "failed" vaccine, or sue the manufacturer if you either catch the disease, or experience adverse reactions from it. "It may not work, but get it anyway." Media push from 2014 Flu Shots. Would anyone say the same with a CAR?
Flu virus mutates rapidly- that is the beauty behind that beast. They develop new vaccines to counter the new strains almost annually. That's been known for decades upon decades. They're RNA viruses.
Other nasties like rubella and smallpox don't mutate as fast as influenza. They are DNA viruses. That's why they were almost ELIMINATED when vaccination rates were over 95% or more. Now that those vaccination rates are falling- the nasties are finding fresh hosts and will have time to mutate, rendering the old vaccinations useless. Herd immunity goes right out the window.
It's not a failed product. It's a failed policy expecting close to 100% vaccination rates. They assumed most people would agree to vaccinate, not succumb to half-truths and conspiracy theories. Boy were they wrong.
So net/net- not getting your children vaccinated allows those nasties the opportunity to infect and become more difficult strains, rendering prior vaccinations less effective.
Anti-vaxxers indifference to the science and public health benefits to our society is tantamount to willfull negligence, therefore why should they NOT be held liable?
Your 'choice' cannot come at 'my cost'.
Last edited by Threerun; 04-18-2016 at 12:45 PM..
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.
Going with the flow
