Current Affairs Vaccinations (v2.0)

[tim cahill]

Cool, you can refuse to vaccinate you kid, but you have to keep them in solitary confinement.

Why should a parent's stupidity and unwillingness to believe facts, research and science to make an informed decision, impact on the health of others?

My kids are vaccinated, I just don’t see why others should be forced to do something to their children that they don’t agree with. Their kids shouldn’t be kept prisoner either obviously.

 

[BirkenheadBlue]

My kids are vaccinated, I just don’t see why others should be forced to do something to their children that they don’t agree with. Their kids shouldn’t be kept prisoner either obviously.

Ok, so imagine your kids WEREN'T vaccinated, even though you (as a sensible, thinking individual) want them to be...

This could be for a couple of reasons:

Your kid is immunocompromised (for any one of a variety of reasons)
The vaccine simply doesn't work for your child (happens to a certain % of kids)

Along comes kid B, whose parents, in their infinite wisdom, decided not to vaccinate their child. In fact, they and a bunch of their friends decided the same thing, because they watched a video on youtube you see, and that Jenny McCarthy lady seemed ever so kind and sincere...

Now one of these kids - someone your child doesn't know and has never met - has been on holiday recently. Lovely it was. 3 weeks in the Dominican Republic. Unfortunately while there, he picked up a bit of a cold. Nothing too serious, didn't even spoil the holiday. Came home and went right back to school. Week or so later, his friend (who's in your kid's class by the way) has a bit of a cold too. He stayed off school for a few days and was fine.

Problem is, it wasn't a cold, it was diphtheria, which in some people only shows up as a bit of a cold and they get over it no problem. The rest of your kid's class had their vaccinations and don't even get those symptoms.

You child, on the other hand becomes very sick. They develop a high temperature, feel really sick and their neck becomes visibly swollen. They have terrible trouble swallowing and you take them to the doctor. Now there's treatments available, but with your child's lack of immunity, it takes a while before the treatments work. The doctors eventually get things under control (unlike the ~10% of kids who die even with treatment), but your child is left with permanent damage to his heart muscle and kidneys.

Now obviously this is a very specific (and perhaps severe, but by no means impossible) example.

Vaccination (and the choice to do or not) is about more than the individual child. A certain % of children RELY on herd immunity to stay healthy.

 

[The binman chronicles]

Vaccination (and the choice to do or not) is about more than the individual child. A certain % of children RELY on herd immunity to stay healthy.

This really and exactly why it should be compulsory. It is for everyone's sake.

 

[tim cahill]

Ok, so imagine your kids WEREN'T vaccinated, even though you (as a sensible, thinking individual) want them to be...

This could be for a couple of reasons:

Your kid is immunocompromised (for any one of a variety of reasons)
The vaccine simply doesn't work for your child (happens to a certain % of kids)

Along comes kid B, whose parents, in their infinite wisdom, decided not to vaccinate their child. In fact, they and a bunch of their friends decided the same thing, because they watched a video on youtube you see, and that Jenny McCarthy lady seemed ever so kind and sincere...

Now one of these kids - someone your child doesn't know and has never met - has been on holiday recently. Lovely it was. 3 weeks in the Dominican Republic. Unfortunately while there, he picked up a bit of a cold. Nothing too serious, didn't even spoil the holiday. Came home and went right back to school. Week or so later, his friend (who's in your kid's class by the way) has a bit of a cold too. He stayed off school for a few days and was fine.

Problem is, it wasn't a cold, it was diphtheria, which in some people only shows up as a bit of a cold and they get over it no problem. The rest of your kid's class had their vaccinations and don't even get those symptoms.

You child, on the other hand becomes very sick. They develop a high temperature, feel really sick and their neck becomes visibly swollen. They have terrible trouble swallowing and you take them to the doctor. Now there's treatments available, but with your child's lack of immunity, it takes a while before the treatments work. The doctors eventually get things under control (unlike the ~10% of kids who die even with treatment), but your child is left with permanent damage to his heart muscle and kidneys.

Now obviously this is a very specific (and perhaps severe, but by no means impossible) example.

Vaccination (and the choice to do or not) is about more than the individual child. A certain % of children RELY on herd immunity to stay healthy.

That would be unfortunate but I wouldn’t hold it against anyone.

 

[dead_soft]

I completely disagree that parents shouldn’t have a choice. Children don’t belong to the state.

What do you mean by ‘everyone who can be vaccinated’? Who can’t?

A small proportion of children are unable to be vaccinated due to existing medical conditions. Anyone who doesn’t vaccinate their child is refusing to grant these children the right to health they deserve.

 

[Black Belt Jones]

That would be unfortunate but I wouldn’t hold it against anyone.

Aye right. Your kid is gravely ill, health damaged for life through a completely preventable illness and you'd be philosophical about the whole thing. Guarantee your ruminations on the Social Contract would be out the window in such circumstances, and this is the essence of why anti-vaccination parents should be thrown in a skip. Asserting their rugged individualism whilst poncing off the herd immunity.

 

[tim cahill]

Aye right. Your kid is gravely ill, health damaged for life through a completely preventable illness and you'd be philosophical about the whole thing. Guarantee your ruminations on the Social Contract would be out the window in such circumstances, and this is the essence of why anti-vaccination parents should be thrown in a skip. Asserting their rugged individualism whilst poncing off the herd immunity.

You presume to know a lot about me and how I would feel. You seem to be angry about it already. I’m not. Vaccinations are not something I think should be compulsory.

And what about those children whose health has been damaged for life by vaccines? Do they not matter because of the greater good?

 

[tim cahill]

A small proportion of children are unable to be vaccinated due to existing medical conditions. Anyone who doesn’t vaccinate their child is refusing to grant these children the right to health they deserve.

Unfortunately these days people are generally selfish don’t care about strangers very much. Otherwise the country wouldn’t have so much homelessness and food bank usage. However, while there are risks that come with vaccines it would be wrong to make them compulsory. Vaccine damage isn’t a conspiracy, it may be rare but it does happen.

 

[PhilM]

Unfortunately these days people are generally selfish don’t care about strangers very much. Otherwise the country wouldn’t have so much homelessness and food bank usage. However, while there are risks that come with vaccines it would be wrong to make them compulsory. Vaccine damage isn’t a conspiracy, it may be rare but it does happen.

There are risks of vaccination and that's not being questioned, but ultimately it boils down to the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few - simple.

Yes people may suffer some side effects, which unfortunate yet in the mainstay minor, compared with the potential harm that may occur without vaccinations.

We're talking about potentially a much larger number of people being seriously unwell or dying. Like I said, it's the needs of majority versus the minority.

You talk about being generally selfish and I agree, hence why it should be the requirement of the state to ensure the best interest of the masses is protected.

For example, some people can use heroin in a sensible, appropriate way which doesn't harm others; however, most can't and it hampers society as a whole.

Should we legalise the choice for people to purchase heroin because of how criminalising it hurts the minority, or should we look at how it effects the majority?

 

[tim cahill]

Should we legalise the choice for people to purchase heroin because of how criminalising it hurts the minority, or should we look at how it effects the majority?

That’s a completely separate debate but for the record I think a lot of problems could be solved if drugs were decriminalised. I believe this has been done with a lot of success in other countries.

Regarding vaccines: Allowing the state that much control over children would be pretty terrifying in my opinion. That would require a lot of trust being put into those in charge. Do you trust them to have the best interests of you and your children at heart? I don’t. Our government has spent the last 9 years deliberately making the poor, poorer.

Freedom is important. We’re dictated to enough in our lives already without giving away the freedom to decide what goes into our bodies or our childrens bodies as well.

 

[SteveSC]

That’s a completely separate debate but for the record I think a lot of problems could be solved if drugs were decriminalised. I believe this has been done with a lot of success in other countries.

Regarding vaccines: Allowing the state that much control over children would be pretty terrifying in my opinion. That would require a lot of trust being put into those in charge. Do you trust them to have the best interests of you and your children at heart? I don’t. Our government has spent the last 9 years deliberately making the poor, poorer.

Freedom is important. We’re dictated to enough in our lives already without giving away the freedom to decide what goes into our bodies or our childrens bodies as well.

You realise the governments of most countries don't act without the advise of experts and have groups and committees to oversee the likes of vaccines.

In the US the FDA and CDC have committees to decide the testing from subsequent research. They are in communication with international bodies including the JCVI which is the committee in the UK in control of Vaccines.

The JCVI is part of the NHS so yes there is someone somewhere who is part of the government assigned to the oversight and monitoring of the group but the British and American governments would not likely make snap decisions without conference.

Same goes for any other country. Any EU member would have their own committee as well as the joint group in the EU.

So no matter who is running the government these group stays somewhat independent.

 

[tim cahill]

You realise the governments of most countries don't act without the advise of experts and have groups and committees to oversee the likes of vaccines.

In the US the FDA and CDC have committees to decide the testing from subsequent research. They are in communication with international bodies including the JCVI which is the committee in the UK in control of Vaccines.

The JCVI is part of the NHS so yes there is someone somewhere who is part of the government assigned to the oversight and monitoring of the group but the British and American governments would not likely make snap decisions without conference.

Same goes for any other country. Any EU member would have their own committee as well as the joint group in the EU.

So no matter who is running the government these group stays somewhat independent.

I don’t think any of these organisations should have the right to remove anyone’s freedom to choose what goes into their bodies.

 

[canuckblue]

There is inherent risk in almost everything we do. Like air travel -- every once in a blue moon, one crashes. But the chances of having a vaccine do damage are far, far less than the chances of contracting -- and possibly spreading -- a serious or potentially fatal disease through not being vaccinated. if you as a parent are willing to risk the latter, fine, but you do not have the right to jeopardize others.

 

[SteveSC]

I don’t think any of these organisations should have the right to remove anyone’s freedom to choose what goes into their bodies.

So you don't believe experts/doctors and you hate governments interfering.

You think it should be a free for all then?

These groups are the experts who understand the types of viruses that are out there and do so much research on the potential outbreaks because of mutations in viruses. Without intervention and continuous research and subsequent vaccines it would likely be the case that a strain of something would kill most of us off. That's really what the guts of it is.

You seemingly are ok ignoring them and putting millions at risk just so a few thousand uneducated ignorant folk choose to risk their children's lives because of their freedoms....

The reason we have these groups is too stop the massive outbreaks we have seen in this worlds history.

Some nations and regions in the world still suffer from viruses and they struggle to contain them because of poor decisions by governments, wars and poverty.

 

[tim cahill]

There is inherent risk in almost everything we do. Like air travel -- every once in a blue moon, one crashes. But the chances of having a vaccine do damage are far, far less than the chances of contracting -- and possibly spreading -- a serious or potentially fatal disease through not being vaccinated. if you as a parent are willing to risk the latter, fine, but you do not have the right to jeopardize others.

I agree with the first part, i’m not anti-vaccine, I’ve always had vaccines and my kids have been vaccinated.

I just think people’s consent is important.

I’m not anti-sex either but I’m quite uncomfortable with someone being forced to have sex against their will. Aren’t you?