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.
You just endorsed a position, and unfortunately it's the wrong one. It may be a big business, but vaccination has DECADES of evidence by now across MILLIONS of people in terms of efficacy and safety. People who don't know a damn thing about science are now going to start blabbing about how credible it is that vaccines do more harm than good? Please.
No, I didn't endorse a position. I made a thoughtful comment that was intended as an oblique rap at your ridicule of certain groups of people.
Personally my kids were vaccinated. I had measles as a young boy, which resulted in a few, fortunately relatively minor, lifelong effects.
Skepticism of the medical community is one thing, the rejection of science is another. The vast majority of people rejecting vaccines are doing so due to a variety of pseudo-scientific beliefs.
I do not disagree at all. But made the statement I did because it is not easy for all people to be sophisticated and logical in understanding science. But it is quite easy for all people to fear established medical dogma, with good reason. Ridicule, as this OP served it up, serves no productive purpose.
Considering DisneyLAND is in Orange County- Reagan Country Safari- your assumption on proximity necessarily implicates idiot conservative parents. This is obviously the fault of third generation John Birchers who're convinced vaccinations are a UN plot. What else could we possibly expect from a class of fake breasted freaks who are convinced climate change is a hoax?
You are so hysterically partisan that you completely overlook the granola/Birkenstock crowd, many of whom I've known to be consistently "progressive" and obsessed over the tiniest amount of say, mercury, in their kids' vaccines. Such folks are all over.
You are so hysterically partisan that you completely overlook the granola/Birkenstock crowd, many of whom I've known to be consistently "progressive" and obsessed over the tiniest amount of say, mercury, in their kids' vaccines. Such folks are all over.
Now try reading my rebuttal in context. It reflects a desire to attribute an infectious outbreak on one group because of its ideological preference, based entirely on anecdotal evidence. IOW, it's just stupid.
I do not disagree at all. But made the statement I did because it is not easy for all people to be sophisticated and logical in understanding science. But it is quite easy for all people to fear established medical dogma, with good reason. Ridicule, as this OP served it up, serves no productive purpose.
What serves no productive purpose is coddling the idiots who decide to risk their children's health and the health of others over some false and long-discredited myths that have been spread into popular fads by people who know nothing about science. We've done enough of this already, which is why we have people thinking that vaccination is some fluffy personal choice like the color of shoes you like to wear. They deserve ridicule. And we should start with a debate around possibly banning, segregating, or at least having public access to the info of who is and isn't vaccinated in public schools. Vaccine deniers can get together to form their own private schools where their kids can swap measles, mumps, whooping cough, polio.
What serves no productive purpose is coddling the idiots who decide to risk their children's health and the health of others over some false and long-discredited myths that have been spread into popular fads by people who know nothing about science. We've done enough of this already, which is why we have people thinking that vaccination is some fluffy personal choice like the color of shoes you like to wear. They deserve ridicule. And we should start with a debate around possibly banning, segregating, or at least having public access to the info of who is and isn't vaccinated in public schools. Vaccine deniers can get together to form their own private schools where their kids can swap measles, mumps, whooping cough, polio.
Unless the measles spread came from the East Coast and Florida, you should request a title change to Disneyland.
Ridicule, as this OP served it up, serves no productive purpose.
I'm not so sure about that, ridicule is a pretty effective means of regulating social norms.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ambient
What serves no productive purpose is coddling the idiots who decide to risk their children's health and the health of others over some false and long-discredited myths that have been spread into popular fads by people who know nothing about science.
Not everyone that avoids vaccines is doing it due to myths, all the vaccines have risks associated with them and if the vast majority of the population is vaccinated the risk of an adverse outcome of the vaccines can be greater than the risk of contracting one of the diseases. Some kids, due to family history, may be more at risk for adverse outcomes than others.
Mine didn't get all their vaccines, but they did get Dtap and MMR in part because the vaccination rates of these are getting critically low so there is a serious risk of getting the diseases today. A lot of the vaccines given to infants aren't for highly contagious diseases.
What serves no productive purpose is coddling the idiots who decide to risk their children's health and the health of others over some false and long-discredited myths that have been spread into popular fads by people who know nothing about science. We've done enough of this already, which is why we have people thinking that vaccination is some fluffy personal choice like the color of shoes you like to wear. They deserve ridicule. And we should start with a debate around possibly banning, segregating, or at least having public access to the info of who is and isn't vaccinated in public schools. Vaccine deniers can get together to form their own private schools where their kids can swap measles, mumps, whooping cough, polio.
Ah. So, you think ridiculing people for the cars they drive and exercise routines they prefer and politics they tend to will correct their points of view with regard to entirely unrelated, highly charged issues that threaten their families? Especially when none of the behaviors / preferences you attacked have anything to do with the science of the threat? Entirely irrelevant. When, exactly, was the last time you won an argument or effected social change using this methodology?
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id
I'm not so sure about that, ridicule is a pretty effective means of regulating social norms.
See above comment. Tell me if it fits what you describe. No, on second thought, don't bother. It doesn't but you'll argue it does just to indulge your hobby of arguing anything with anybody anytime.
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id
Not everyone that avoids vaccines is doing it due to myths, all the vaccines have risks associated with them and if the vast majority of the population is vaccinated the risk of an adverse outcome of the vaccines can be greater than the risk of contracting one of the diseases. Some kids, due to family history, may be more at risk for adverse outcomes than others.
Mine didn't get all their vaccines, but they did get Dtap and MMR in part because the vaccination rates of these are getting critically low so there is a serious risk of getting the diseases today. A lot of the vaccines given to infants aren't for highly contagious diseases.
Ah. So, you think ridiculing people for the cars they drive and exercise routines they prefer and politics they tend to will correct their points of view with regard to entirely unrelated, highly charged issues that threaten their families? Especially when none of the behaviors / preferences you attacked have anything to do with the science of the threat? Entirely irrelevant. When, exactly, was the last time you won an argument or effected social change using this methodology?
See, and therein is a reflection of your bias. You seem to regard vaccination on par with a personal choice akin to politics, cars, or exercise routines as opposed to a highly safe, important, and effective medical procedure necessary to safeguard not just yourself but other people from historically very contagious and dangerous diseases. And you seem to imply that behaviors / preferences regarding vaccination have "nothing to do with the science of the threat," which would be a pretty ballsy statement, if that's what you mean. What this really is on par with is those cases where you hear parents foregoing medical treatment for their kid's life-threatening illness because they are religious and were going to trust in God to heal it...and then the kid of course dies due to their neglect.
I know there are some people who can't take vaccines, and I think you know as well as I do that those are a drop in the bucket compares with the well-to-do families in $2.5M homes in places like Marin who don't vaccinate their kids because Jenny McCarthy spread some discredited BS about MMR and autism. That's where the real problem is.
And speaking of those who cannot vaccinate, do you know who puts those people at risk? Precisely those well-to-do types who refuse vaccination in favor of some voodoo arguments. If people around those who unfortunately can't vaccinate DO vaccinate, they improve the safeguards for those people as well.
I realize that I can't fix stupid people. But it would be nice to at least be able to safeguard myself from them, since their selfish actions endanger not just their own kids, but others as well. The vaccine doesn't work equally well in everyone, and the greater the number of unvaccinated people around, the greater the risk to everyone. Why should I and my family members take on more unnecessary risk due to others' selfishness?
What's next - a bunch of rich people start a fad where they forego modern water sanitation because of some arguments about the pipes, etc...and then we get malaria and tuberculosis back as well? Sounds ridiculous? Well, so does what's going on now, with the result of previously eliminated things like measles whooping cough making epidemic comebacks. We know who we have to thank for that.
Over a certain age they were vaccinted with the killed virus vaccine, As the aricle stated, back in the 60s when they vaccinated previously exposed in their time period to measles, some came down with an Atypical strain. Their bodies had just enough antibodies to keep them from catching the disease, but when they were vaccinated, it produced a mutant strain of meases; some but not all. I do remember as a child they came to our school and asked who had measles and who didn't. Kids who had measles were not given the vax. Kids who never had measles, but had obviously been exposed to it in back then, were given the vax. Did this create that Atypical Measles in them?
Older adults vaccinated with the killed virus vaccine might today come in contact with measles from the Disney outbreak and not only get measles, but maybe that Atyplical strain as others did in the past? Will they even admit these older adults got the mutant strain of measles today?
The 70 year old man? Did he actually have a full blow case of measles, or simply had been exposed to it and never caught it himself? Similar to the other older adults with the killed virus vax? Produce just enough antibodies for a time but when exposed later in life, did not have enough antibodies to ward off the measles?
Point. The new MMR is a live virus, but not enough of the virus to cause a full blow case of measles. As such over time, may wane. Why more boosters may be needed? Actual Measles? Far more of the virus than the smaller live virus vaccination. Produce more antibodies from the disease itself. While even the greater antibodies from the actual disease might decrease over time, maybe are still enough to ward off being exposed and catching meases from either the killed vax, small virus vax, or being exposed to the disease in the past.
Does all of this may you think, and question, universal vaccinations for everyone? If someone had measles before and has antibodies to it, would giving them that MMR vax of live virus, just cause their antibodies to just kill off the virus in the vaccine? Wouldn't be pointless?
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.
