June 18, 2013 |
See complete forecast
Copy and paste the link:
Depends on the disease; we don't need any anti-social disease carrying vectors out there spreading their cargo.
I'm really torn on this issue. On one hand I'm a libertarian leaning conservative that believes government should be limited and that the ends never justify the means. On the other hand I know what diseases have done to the world population time and time again, and herd immunity is much more effective than immunizations alone.
Look at what we've done as a society with Smallpox.
The last case was in 1977. It's fatal in about 1/3 of it's victims.
Do you really want to take health advice from a D-list actress?
That is no way to talk about Michelle Bachmann!
Superstitious people who, despite overwhelming medical evidence to the contrary, persist in thinking that vaccinations are harmful should have to homeschool their walking microbe breeders.
It's not fair to all the other children, some of whom could be immunodeficient, to have to be exposed to risk because of the nonsensical beliefs of the willfully ignorant. The anti-vaccine contingent would probably be better off homeschooling their kids, anyway, as they likely believe in creationism too.
It seems that more people on the far left of the political spectrum avoid vaccinations than the far right... you know, people stupid enough to listen to Hollywood celebrities who became famous by posing nude in Playboy.
Seriously. If these whackadoos want an exception from vaccinating their kids, I want an exemption from their kids being within 50 feet of my kid.
That people are now making a choice to allow their child to not be vaccinated seems to be an indicator of how important vaccines are. Prior to the to the polio vaccine I doubt this would be a question.
This question is too vague. People? Do you mean adults or children? No exception for health issues, like egg allergies or cancer?
Should parents be allowed to exclude otherwise healthy children from vaccines and then send them to public school? No. I don't care what your religious or philosophical views are on the issue. Homeschool if it means that much to you.
Some years ago I read an article that stated that Thimerosal, the preservative used in vaccines settled to the bottom of the bottle, and if the bottle wasn't shaken to distribute it, the people getting the last few vaccinations could be getting excessive doses of it. The author seemed to think this might be related to the high incidence of autism supposedly occurring after childhood vaccinations. I have no idea of the validity of this opinion.
From the FDA website: "Thimerosal is a mercury-containing organic compound (an organomercurial). Since the 1930s, it has been widely used as a preservative in a number of biological and drug products, including many vaccines, to help prevent potentially life threatening contamination with harmful microbes. . . . Thimerosal has been removed from or reduced to trace amounts in all vaccines routinely recommended for children 6 years of age and younger, with the exception of inactivated influenza vaccine . . . . A preservative-free version of the inactivated influenza vaccine (contains trace amounts of thimerosal) is available in limited supply at this time for use in infants, children and pregnant women."
This site gives more information both on the safety of preservatives in vaccines and the necessity for preservatives. I suspect that a lot of the objection to childhood vaccines is based on misinformation or lack of information, but if it is your child there is reason to question them. I'm not advocating one way or the other---it's not a decision I will have to make.
If you don't want to get vaccinated, then don't. For those of you who do (like me), get vaccinated.
I mean, really, isn't that the point? You get vaccinated so that people who have XYZ disease, obviously a person who is not vaccinated from said sickness or one who refuses to get vaccinated from said sickness, can't spread it to you?
Until it mutates, that is.
Sometimes people can't get vaccinated and have to rely on herd immunity. Babies do not have all of their shots at birth. This is why we have to get everyone vaccinated.
More complicated than this, unfortunately. A lot of people are immunosuppressed or -deficient. To those people (including infants and others), exposure to whatever unvaccinated individuals are spreading can lead to illness or death.
Want your kid in the public schools? At public universities? On community youth sports teams? In Boy/Girl Scouts?
If so, then immunize your kids.
If not, then make your kids forgo such opportunities/activities, and in addition to being some kind of whacko libertarian conspiracy-theory nut you can be bad parent, too.
I have a question for those who are advocating for mandatory separation of children who have not been vaccinated:
What do you propose to do with the children who cannot receive the vaccine due to medical reasons, not because of a decision their parents make?
Should we lock them away to protect your child? They are, after all, just as big of a medical risk to your child as someone who doesn’t get vaccinated by choice.
Those children are the reason we encourage herd immunity through vaccinations. Those are the ones that suffer when people who choose not to have their otherwise healthy vaccinated.
As I said earlier, those are the only children who should be exempted. They have no choice. Herd immunity is there for those children, not for freeloaders.
I understand the concept of herd immunity, but you both avoided the question.
A child who is not immunized represents the same medical risk to others; such as infants, elders and the immune-deficient, no matter the reason they have not received the immunization.
So, should we have mandatory separation for those that cannot receive the immunization for a medical reason, like some on here have advocated for those not immunized by choice.
Freeloader is a strange term to apply to these people, do you also use that term for anyone who makes any other sort of unhealthy lifestyle choice?
I directly answered your question. Try reading for comprehension. If children with health conditions are exempted, that means they're allowed to attend school. They are not more danger to other children. In most cases, other children are more danger to them, since they are children with compromised immune systems and the most likely to die or suffer serious complications from the diseases we immunize against.
Freeloader is not at all a strange term. They think they can avoid even the minuscule risk of a vaccine reaction (one in a million in most cases, but still a risk) while getting all the benefits of having immunized children around them to prevent them from getting sick. Freeloaders. And they're the ones that truly endanger us all.
chootspa (anonymous) replies…
“Try reading for comprehension.”
I would suggest you do the same.
You are beating the drum for herd immunity, but you are not answering the question I asked.
If you go back and read it for comprehension instead of reading it to mean what you want to pontificate about, you will find that you are indeed answering a question, but you are not answering my question.
My question was posed to those who advocate locking away unvaccinated (by choice) children because they feel that child is a threat to their (vaccinated) children. I questioned if they supported locking away the other unvaccinated (for medical reasons) children, since they are an equal medical risk.
Because we've been vaccinating things for so long now havent we? Pass on the vaccine if its not really needed. Try teaching your children how to wash their hands instead.
the point is moot really because guess what?
my kid is un-vaccinated and is attending school with all your blessed children. Now you can go back to blaming Obama or something.
Commenting has been disabled for this item.
Find more businesses on Marketplace
Arts & Entertainment ·