Slashdot Mirror


Measles Outbreak In NYC

sandbagger writes "New York City may have to deal with a measles problem. New Yorkers are being urged to make sure all household members, including young children, are vaccinated. To date, there have been 16 confirmed cases and four hospitalizations. This follows news from the CDC in December that 2013 saw triple the average number of yearly measles cases. 2014 is off to an even worse start; there have been cases recently in the Boston metropolitan area and more than a dozen in the Bay Area as well. Vaccinations seem to be a victim of their own success — people look around and see no polio or measles and wonder why they should bother. Others repeat bogus claim about vaccines causing autism. How do you think we can get through to the anti-vaxxers?"

81 of 747 comments (clear)

  1. Thanks Jenny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Thanks a lot you dumb bitch.

    1. Re:Thanks Jenny by RockClimbingFool · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Its a bit crass, but seriously? How is this post off topic? It is exactly on topic.

    2. Re:Thanks Jenny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I see her as a mass murderer. People have died as a direct result of her bullshit. She ought to be put through the justice system in the same way that someone impersonating a doctor would be tried for a death resulting from his or her false medical advice. Except in her case, it's not just one death, it's a whole lot of deaths. Sure, it's not solely her fault, but it doesn't have to be (nor should it need to be) in our justice system.

    3. Re:Thanks Jenny by hrvatska · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Jenny McCarthy couldn't have done it without news and talk shows presenting her views as being just as valid as real medical experts. It isn't so much 'Thanks Jenny' as 'Thanks Oprah for being more interested in ratings than public health'.

    4. Re:Thanks Jenny by slapout · · Score: 2

      It's also popular with people who don't agree with you. Although they tend to use "Troll" more.

      --
      Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
    5. Re:Thanks Jenny by interkin3tic · · Score: 2

      I'd say ONLY blame the media for promoting it. It will happen again if the media continues to equate "how famous is this person" with "does this person know what they are talking about?" So there's real importance to blaming the media. There is none for blaming a former playboy model for unscientific views.

      Well, I suppose you get to feel smarter than one individual person. Maybe validate some opinions about attractive blonde famous celebrities if that's your thing. I guess one could consider those worthy goals. If so, please, keep it to yourself. Yes yes, you're much smarter than somone who used to have an MTV show, congrats. Now shut up and focus on what's important.

    6. Re:Thanks Jenny by operagost · · Score: 5, Funny

      In other news, scientists have found that everyone you disagree with is, in fact, just as bad as Hitler.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    7. Re:Thanks Jenny by dwillden · · Score: 4, Informative

      But she's never retracted her position, even though the Dr has been stripped of his license, the study has been retracted and she still continues to preach her message and to gain new followers. For example from Fox News today http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2014/03/14/kristin-cavallari-defends-decision-not-to-vaccinate-her-son/?intcmp=features

      Do we blame her by being misled by the study? No. But once the study was refuted and the findings retracted she refused to change her tune. And so we blame her for using her celebrity status to push a dangerously misguided position that is leading to increased deaths and illnesses that would never have happened had she not pushed her cause and refused to change her position when the study was proven false.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    8. Re:Thanks Jenny by roc97007 · · Score: 2

      Line the makers of Gardisil up on the firing line first. And if you feel strongly about protecting them you are more than welcome to stand in front of them to catch the bullets :)

      I have to agree. I'm generally in favor of vaccines, (I had a bad case of chicken pox in my twenties -- I'm told I smelled like rotting meat -- daughter got the chicken pox vaccine) but drew the line at Gardisil. I think that was an illustration that you can't take either side of the argument completely at their word.

      Which, come to think of it, is true for most arguments.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  2. Obvious Answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We should present to them the facts! That will sway their minds. /sarcasm...

    1. Re:Obvious Answer by Gr8Apes · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Expose them to measles, mumps, diptheria, etc seems to work. Maybe not compassionate, but neither is preaching ignorance and endangering society.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    2. Re:Obvious Answer by TWX · · Score: 3, Interesting

      How about denying medical insurance coverage to those that fail to get vaccinated, unless they can demonstrate that they are a member of a recognized religious congregation that specifically is against vaccination as a part of church dogma?

      Think of it along the lines of a warranty on an expensive machine being void if the owner fails to follow the maintenance schedule.

      And for those that want to argue religious freedom, please bear in mind that even Christian Science, as against intrusive medical care as they are, still has room for its adherents to follow vaccination laws where applicable.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    3. Re:Obvious Answer by rickb928 · · Score: 2

      You can't deny coverage in a single-payer system. You just crank up the deductible/copay, for punishment. Accept the consequences of that action or get out of the business of governing.

      And those who do not vaccinate are costing us all money in a single-payer system, which is reason to compel vaccination.

      Which is reason to decide on a single-payer healthcare system based not on supposed cost savings, nor even charity/indigent care, but on the inevitable loss of individual choice. Remember, those who do not vaccinate their children put their children at risk, but these are THEIR children, not 'ours'. If they want the freedom to choose how to raise their children, they need to accept the responsibility for their actions.

      Yes, radical ideas, that you are responsible for your choices, that if you exercise that right you are subject to the consequences and deserve no shelter from them, and that asking the State to impose your choices on others is always an exercise in using force to impose your will.

      All legislation is someone's morality. All if it.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    4. Re:Obvious Answer by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Fuck it. Just ban their kids from attending public schools, daycares and the like. If they want to endanger their kids, they should not be permitted to endanger anyone else's.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    5. Re:Obvious Answer by ibwolf · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Remember, those who do not vaccinate their children put their children at risk, but these are THEIR children, not 'ours'.

      This is simply not correct. There are a number reasons some children can not be vaccinated, including allergies and other health problems. Generally, if vaccinations are widespread, those that can not be vaccinated will benefit from the herd immunity afforded by general vaccination. When the number of non-vaccinated kids goes up, the effect of the herd immunity goes down putting the children that can not be vaccinated at risk.

    6. Re:Obvious Answer by dentin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Religion is no excuse to not be vaccinated. There should be no religious exception.

      --
      Alter Aeon Multiclass MUD - http://www.alteraeon.com
    7. Re:Obvious Answer by Cenan · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That only works as long as these people are a minority. Once they out breed you, you'll have herds of disease ridden, home schooled imbeciles running the world.

      --
      ... whatever ...
    8. Re:Obvious Answer by mrbester · · Score: 5, Interesting

      So, just as it is now?

      --
      "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
    9. Re:Obvious Answer by bmeiers · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I agree. I can't take my dog to a kennel without proof of vaccination. Are our dogs in kennels more important to protect than our children in schools?

    10. Re:Obvious Answer by CastrTroy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Kind of a slippery slope though. Sure it makes sense for most vaccines, but the bigger idea of "if you don't follow our medical advice, you don't get coverage" could lead to all other sorts of unintended outcomes.

      I don't ever get the flu shot because it makes me have the same symptoms as the flu the few times I did get it. I know you can't get the flu from the flu shot, but if you get all the same symptoms, you "effectively" have the flu. Should I be denied care in the case where I do get the flu?

      Should people who smoke be denied care because they were told many times that it's bad for them? What about people who refuse to eat well, even though they can afford to? What about those people who don't exercise, even though you can do so for free in your own spare time?

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    11. Re: Obvious Answer by Newander · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The problem is that the antivaxers have had their shots. It's their kids that are being put at risk. There is also the problem that they reduce herd immunity and put at risk individuals who are legitimately unable to have vaccinations such as very young babies and those with certain autoimmune diseases.

      --

      Jesus saves and takes half damage.

    12. Re:Obvious Answer by necro81 · · Score: 2

      You can't deny coverage in a single-payer system

      Oh, well, thank God I live in the United States, where we don't hold with that socialist crap. Everyone knows our health care is the best in the world. [/sarcasm]

    13. Re:Obvious Answer by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

      How about denying medical insurance coverage to those that fail to get vaccinated, unless they can demonstrate that they are a member of a recognized religious congregation that specifically is against vaccination as a part of church dogma?

      Of all the reasons not to get vaccinated, that would be, by far, the the least valid, worse than Jenny's autism scare... And recognized? What does that mean? Recognized by whom?

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    14. Re:Obvious Answer by fustakrakich · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If sick kids can out breed healthy ones and become a majority, what does that indicate to you?

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    15. Re: Obvious Answer by wagnerrp · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It goes even further than that. When the virus is allowed to propagate among even a small percentage of the population, there is a chance for that virus to mutate in a manner that renders the vaccine less effective, putting everyone at risk.

    16. Re: Obvious Answer by wagnerrp · · Score: 2

      Sure you can. Nature calls it a "measles outbreak".

    17. Re:Obvious Answer by Grave · · Score: 2

      The difference here is that failure to vaccinate does not just impact you (or your kids, in the case of nutjob parents). It impacts everyone they ever come in contact with. You getting the flu can impact others if you spread it to them, but it's a short-term liability and is easy enough to limit. The flu is also rarely lethal. Those limitations don't apply with measles, etc.

    18. Re:Obvious Answer by sjames · · Score: 2

      So what of people whose devout religious beliefs are non-congregational?

    19. Re:Obvious Answer by knarf · · Score: 2

      How about denying medical insurance coverage to those that fail to get vaccinated, unless they can demonstrate that they are a member of a recognized religious congregation that specifically is against vaccination as a part of church dogma?

      Why make an exception for 'church dogma'? If you willingly subject yourself to unnecessary risks because of 'church dogma' you should be willing and able to bear the consequences of your actions. Surely the ${deity} which instilled this 'church dogma' into its believers will come to the aid of the needy? And if ${deity} happens to fail to show up, that must all be part of the plan, right?

      The only exception I see as necessary is that for underage children. They don't have a say in the matter and are just subject to whatever figment of imagination their parents or guardians impose on them.

      --
      --frank[at]unternet.org
    20. Re:Obvious Answer by interkin3tic · · Score: 2

      A bit like burning a house down to fireproof it. Allowing them to get sick IS the health hazard we want to avoid. Having people who should be immune carry the diseases just to teach them a lesson is still going to affect immunocompromised people or kids who are too young to be vaccinated.

    21. Re:Obvious Answer by Tom · · Score: 2

      It's not an argument when it's bullshit top to bottom. An argument requires some kind of logical chain. What religious and other faith-based nutjobs spout forth is statements, but not arguments.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    22. Re:Obvious Answer by dentin · · Score: 2

      I think it is as black and white as I'm making it; we don't allow people to crap on city sidewalks because it's a public health hazard, no matter how strongly they believe that god told them to crap on the sidewalk. You crap on the sidewalk, you get arrested. Plain and simple. Vaccination is really no different.

      No matter what a person believes, we don't allow them to kill or maim other people, and it doesn't matter if the tool is a claw hammer or an easily vaccinated disease.

      --
      Alter Aeon Multiclass MUD - http://www.alteraeon.com
  3. testimonials by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    http://www.followingvaccinations.com

    As long as trends like this happen, you won't get through to them.

  4. MMR Outcry? by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Hmm was there a major outcry by people who knew **** all about vaccines regarding MMR and the unfounded notion that it might cause Autism? We had a large outbreak of Measles in the UK recently because people had stopped getting their kids vaccinated. Perhaps the same thing happened on your side of the pond.

    --

    Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

    1. Re:MMR Outcry? by buchner.johannes · · Score: 3, Interesting

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Hmm ...
      1964 + 25 = 1990, first bump
      1964 + 25 + 25 = 2014 new bump?

      Maybe this is just the half-time of the shots, and it's time to refresh? I.e. "2014, third dose recommended"

      --
      NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
    2. Re:MMR Outcry? by rickb928 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Casually watching the autism debate, I see that autism is:

      - Now a spectrum, not a syndrome or disease. This has enlarged the affected population, enhancing the power of their advocates and increasing the urgency of finding a solution;

      - Being blamed (root cause) on vaccines, diet, environmental effects, technology, with a de-emphasis on genetics and prenatal care.

      - Used to describe many more behaviors, hence becoming a 'spectrum', not a syndrome or disease or even a process.

      - Described as a growing treat, capable of potentially impacting a majority of the population, being caused by a multitude of toxins, exposures, and behaviors, hence the urgency to find 'a cure'.

      This pattern is familiar to me. Have you other /.rs seen this before?

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    3. Re:MMR Outcry? by Jason+Levine · · Score: 4, Informative

      Herd immunity isn't rubbish. The reason we're worried is because of three things:

      1) People who can't be vaccinated due to medical conditions. If you have an immune system disorder or are allergic to the vaccine, you won't be able to be vaccinated. In this case, you need to rely on herd immunity.

      2) People who are too young to be vaccinated. Suppose you have an 8 month old baby and plan on vaccinating her. However, the MMR is given at 12 months. So your baby is still susceptible until then.

      3) Vaccines aren't 100% effective. Nothing is. However, they are around 99.9% effective. Of course, with millions being vaccinated, this still means that thousands will still be susceptible.

      If everyone was vaccinated who could be, herd immunity would protect these other people. When anti-vaxxers first started out, they relied on herd immunity also. Skip the measles vaccine and nothing happens! Because of herd immunity. As the numbers of anti-vaxxers grow, though, herd immunity breaks down and the diseases spread.

      If anti-vaxxers were only affecting themselves/their children, I'd take a "it's a personal choice, albeit one I disagree with" stance. Since their choice affects (and kills) other people, though, I don't see this as a right of theirs. You don't have the right to kill someone else's baby because you want to listen to Andrew Wakefield and Jenny McCarthy.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    4. Re:MMR Outcry? by overshoot · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Maybe this is just the half-time of the shots, and it's time to refresh? I.e. "2014, third dose recommended"

      If that were the case, you'd be seeing the new cases in people over the age of 30. Instead it's pretty much all kids.

      --
      Lacking <sarcasm> tags, /. substitutes moderation as "Troll."
    5. Re:MMR Outcry? by wagnerrp · · Score: 5, Informative

      4) Viruses mutate, and mutations can bring rise to resistance against the existing vaccine. The more people who get the virus, the higher the chance it has to mutate into a new strain.

    6. Re:MMR Outcry? by Jason+Levine · · Score: 5, Interesting

      As a parent of a child with autism (as well as someone who is likely on the spectrum as well, albeit not diagnosed), I feel qualified to clarify some of this:

      Now a spectrum, not a syndrome or disease. This has enlarged the affected population, enhancing the power of their advocates and increasing the urgency of finding a solution;

      Autism is a developmental disorder. (It was never a "disease" as that implies being contagious. You'll never "catch" autism from me or my son.) The term "spectrum" is used because autism can describe individuals with vastly different levels of developmental delays. My son is very high functioning, you might not know from a casual observance that he even has autism, until he can't cope any more and melts down because his schedule changed slightly. Other kids with autism around my son's age might be non-verbal or have other, more severe, issues that their parents deal with.

      Being blamed (root cause) on vaccines, diet, environmental effects, technology, with a de-emphasis on genetics and prenatal care.

      This is only true for the anti-vaxxers and other such groups. Scientists actually investigating the cause of autism are focused on genetics as the primary cause. There might be environmental factors as well, but it looks like those only trigger existing genetic markers. I often liken it to diabetes. You can get diabetes from environmental factors (eating too much high sugar food), but your risk for it is determined by your genes.

      Used to describe many more behaviors, hence becoming a 'spectrum', not a syndrome or disease or even a process.

      See my first answer as to why it is a spectrum.

      Described as a growing treat, capable of potentially impacting a majority of the population, being caused by a multitude of toxins, exposures, and behaviors, hence the urgency to find 'a cure'.

      Again, this is just those anti-vaxxer/etc groups. Personally, I don't want to be cured. My brain is just fine as it is. In fact, I credit my autism with helping me program computers. (One of the traits of people with Asperger's Syndrome/High Functioning Autism is thinking in If-Then terms. Horrible for social situations, but fantastic for working with computers which operate - at a basic level - on an if-then system.)

      The "growing threat" is just due to better detection. Were I my son's age now, I'd likely get diagnosed, but back when I was a kid that didn't happen. I was just termed as "shy" and perhaps "weird." I took things too literally ("take off your coat" => I take it off and put it on the floor) and didn't understand why people seemed to "get" this socialization thing where I didn't. It was almost like everyone got some How To Socialize instruction book and they forgot to give one to me. (I could get a diagnosis now, but that would spend money we don't have and wouldn't really help me or my son.)

      The best thing for kids with autism is early intervention. Detect it early and give them therapy and other resources to help them deal with the neurotypical world. (That'd be the rest of you who aren't autistic. Never use the term "normal" to someone dealing with autism unless you want an angry diatribe directed at you.)

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    7. Re:MMR Outcry? by cyberjock1980 · · Score: 2

      Actually, a bunch of the doctors that helped create some of these vaccines did deliberately expose themselve to the diseases as proof to the public that it worked. This was back in first part of the 20th century when people couldn't believe that vaccines actually worked as well as claimed. Go read up on how some of them were created. Back then scientists were hardcore and all about proving their stuff was safe and better for the public at large. They felt they had a committment to society to:

      1. Make the vaccine.
      2. Make the vaccine safe.
      3. Make the vaccine effective.
      4. Convince the public of #2 and #3, at almost any cost, including their own safety.

      Of course, today it would be considered attempted suicide if you deliberately exposed yourself to some of these diseases. But, in a twist of irony it's okay to not vaccinate a child because a parent "is a dumbass".

      Some immunologists allegedly died trying to prove that some bogus vaccine worked too!

  5. Tell them a story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Tell these people a story about a kid that got sick and nearly died because of not being vaccinated. It was recently shown to be effective, which makes sense, since these people seem to think emotionally rather than rationally. Evidence does nothing to convince them.

    1. Re:Tell them a story by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Neither of those are at all true. Plenty of pediatricians (like ours) refuse to treat willfully unvaccinated kids because of the high risk they present to other patients. If you're taking a two week old baby into the doctor's office for a well baby checkup, the last thing you want to see is some moron's measles vector sitting in the same waiting room. "First, do no harm" nicely dovetails with "by condoning and tolerating anti-science Luddites spreading disease through your office."

      This isn't uncommon and most doctors who feel this way make no attempt to hide it. If nothing else, if a patient doesn't trust their doctor when recommending safe, prudent vaccinations, will they trust that same doctor to recommend emergency surgery or other invasive treatments? If there's not a trust relationship, why even bother with it?

      Anti-vaxxers should come to expect that their rejection of science leaves them to see only homeopaths and other witch doctors because science-based ones won't touch them with a 10 foot pole. If they want to practice voodoo, why should they want or expect to receive all the other benefits of legitimate medicine?

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
  6. Dumb logic by Vermonter · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Well my kid died of measles, but at least he didn't get Autism"

    1. Re:Dumb logic by slashmydots · · Score: 5, Funny

      OMG measles is like a 1700's pirate disease. Nobody catches it anymore. That's ridiculous. The government is just injecting nano-bots into your bloodstream to spy on you and make you eat fatty foods so you die before they can pay you social security and...*cough*...*dies from measles*

    2. Re:Dumb logic by splodus · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Actually I think you might be onto something;

      "Remember people, measles kills, autism doesn't! Get the jab now!"

    3. Re:Dumb logic by medv4380 · · Score: 3, Funny

      That's scurvy not measles. Measles is a German disease. American's are Immune.

    4. Re:Dumb logic by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 4, Informative

      It was *not* a fake polio vaccination campaign. Every one of the subjects got a *real* polio vaccine. The catch was that the vaccination wasn't the only thing they did.

      People have died, but not because they got fake polio vaccines, but because Pakistanis are now refusing to get vaccines at all because they're afraid they're all CIA fronts.

    5. Re:Dumb logic by splodus · · Score: 2

      Those who are against vaccination believe there is a connection. I think it could be easier to convince them that vaccination is the lesser of two evils than that there is, in fact, no connection.

      A slogan that says something along the lines of 'Death from measles or autism, which is best for your child?' might be more successful with these people than 'the evidence does not support a link between vaccination and autism'

  7. People need to realize... by dosius · · Score: 5, Insightful

    People need to realize that Andrew Wakefield, the father of the anti-vax movement as we know it today, was discredited and disgraced for the shoddiness of his so-called "research".

    Oh yeah, and he had a vested interest in kids not getting MMR vax - I think he had ownership of a patent on a different rubella-only vaccine. Herp derp.

    --
    What you hear in the ear, preach from the rooftop Matthew 10.27b
  8. open research by moke · · Score: 2

    As a start they need to get all vaccine research out from behind paywalls in the public interest.

  9. DNA Testing by the_scoots · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Maybe we'll have the capability to cheaply trace each confirmed case back to the source through the DNA of diseases. Turn a few ambulance chasing lawyers loose on folks causing outbreaks for whatever reason and a few people might change their tune.

  10. You won't get through to them by egranlund · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How do you think we can get through to the anti-vaxxers?

    Unfortunately, I don't think anything will get through to them until their kids and loved ones start dying from very old and highly preventable diseases.

    Their mindset is one much like the followers of creationism, etc where they believe that:
    1) All scientists have been bought out by "big pharma" or
    2) That the consensus among the scientific community is some kind of organized ploy to sell more and more drugs.

    Because of this, no matter what scientists or public health officials say, they just plug their ears and go "LALALALALA".

  11. Public statement by the original study author by StandardCell · · Score: 3, Informative

    The best way to handle this is for the original author of the paper that started this anti-vaccination mess, Andrew Wakefield, come out and give a public statement indicating that:

    1. Apologize for the fact that his study was flawed, and explain why.

    2. That no other study has established any material basis in any respect for a link between autism and vaccines or their components.

    3. The original funding for this supposed research was made by lawyers who were attempting to find reason to litigate against vaccine manufacturers.

    4. That many people will now die of diseases that were nearly eradicated a mere 15 years ago similar to smallpox a few years before it was eradicated.

    Put that as a public service announcement on every major TV and radio channel, and online as well, as widely as possible. Show pictures of what happens when people don't vaccinate, particularly to children, the elderly and immune-compromised individuals (e.g. transplant saved his/her life, now they die). Have him make this appeal over and over again until people get this.

    Even if we don't get to 100%, we owe it to everyone around us. The public health costs are staggering, and the stupidity is mind boggling.

    1. Re:Public statement by the original study author by Patch86 · · Score: 2

      1. Andrew Wakefield is unapologetic and still claims that his study was valid. He vocally blames a conspiracy theory for his problems.

      2. After so long of playing the "conspiracy" card, if he were to suddenly recant now his followers would most likely decide that he's been "gotten to" by the Illuminati (etc.). It is very unlikely they'd all go "Oh it was a mistake? Good to know, we'll just get off to the GP's for a full round of vaccinations then".

  12. Re:A bit of common sense maybe? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 2, Insightful

    - free vaccinations

    That could work

    - no insurance coverage for treatment if you are not vaccinated

    Insurance companies would love that, but I'm pretty sure it would violate the ACA

    - fines for not vaccinating your children

    Unconstitutional.

    That leaves stupidity as the only reason not to get vaccinated./p>

    Stupidity, ignorance, religious preference (which I know a lot of people 'round these parts will lump in with stupidity), lack of access, distrust of the government, distrust of doctors, etc.

    Just because you can only think of one reason doesn't mean it's the only reason.

    there should be child abuse laws for not giving your child required medical care that kick in.

    Look, bud, if you don't like living in a country that promotes and supports individual liberty, you're free to either try and amend the Constitution or expatriate. But don't be a self-righteous, dickhead fundamentalist who demands laws be passed to support your opinion by taking rights and freedoms away from other people. 'Cuz that's fucked.

    You could also reverse it, i.e. a tax deduction for vaccination, in case the psychology works better that way.

    That's your best bet - provides the right incentive, and is Constitutionally sound. The flat-taxers won't like it, but since when does anyone care what a flat-taxer thinks?

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  13. Marketing is everything. by TomRC · · Score: 5, Funny

    Just tell them that the vaccine is fully organic, low sodium, fat free and gluten free.

    Also, it's got Electrolytes.

    1. Re:Marketing is everything. by RedShoeRider · · Score: 2

      But Electrolytes are what plants crave, not humans!

      --

      Chris Knight is my hero.

    2. Re:Marketing is everything. by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 2

      but "gluten free" is a legitimate health concern for a lot of people.

      For certain definitions of "a lot". If you're one of the one in several hundred people who has celiac disease, then, yeah, you should avoid eating it. Otherwise it's not a problem.

      It's also only a concern even for sufferers of celiac disease when it's in the small intestine. Intravenous injections should not be a problem.

  14. Re:Self-solving problem... by splodus · · Score: 2

    Unfortunately we all rely on the effect of herd immunity. A bunch of people going without the vaccine puts everyone else at risk too.

  15. Re:Solution that might be a crime by Sockatume · · Score: 2

    The whole idea of vaccinations is that they make it impossible for a disease to spread through a community, that it'll die in its current host before it finds another person who either didn't gain immunity from the vaccine or couldn't be vaccinated for medical reasons. You don't get that benefit at low coverage rates.

    --
    No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
  16. *you think* your kid might become autistic, if va by fatboy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Ok, so *you think* your kid might become autistic, if vaccinated.... Better to have a live autistic child than one that is dead from whooping cough.

    When it came time to discuss this with our DR, she said to us, "You don't want to see what it's like to watch a child die from whooping cough." It took about 2 seconds for my wife and I to process that, and decide what the larger risk is.

    --
    --fatboy
  17. Re:Wait by Sockatume · · Score: 2

    Unfortunately vaccination is one of those issues where their mistake (loss of group immunity) hurts someone else (endemic measles finds a ward of immunocompromised patients). That's why it's a social issue, not an individual one.

    --
    No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
  18. Why worry - its natural selection in action by Viol8 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Its sad, but if the kids of parents who only think on a base emotional level die then its clearing out the human gene pool. We should thank them.

    1. Re:Why worry - its natural selection in action by song-of-the-pogo · · Score: 4, Informative

      Herd immunity

      The trouble is they're putting others at risk who, for varying reasons, are unable to be vaccinated. That is irresponsible, to say the least.

      --
      soupy twist
    2. Re: Why worry - its natural selection in action by baffledmom · · Score: 2

      The problem with this argument is that the ones who are most at risk are babies, who are too young to be vaccinated. They are not necessarily weak...just young. The baby may have parents who vaccinate, siblings who are vaccinated etc but once they come into contact with an contagiuos unvaccinated kid, they can get sick (and potentially die). I'm sure you would be this glib if your baby died from a preventable disease...

  19. Cut them off by Swampash · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you don't vaccinate your child, fine. But if you reject society like that then expect society to reject you.

    No vaccination? Forbidden from attending school. Forbidden from visiting a doctor. Forbidden from visiting any public facilities like libraries, train stations, or airports. Forbidden from riding a bus or train or taxi.

  20. Re:Anti-Vaxxers? Try Population Density by Viol8 · · Score: 2

    Oh rubbish. People lived in far closer proximity in medieval times than they do now. Apart from the black death which only happened once in a big way with a few smaller outbreaks over the centuries and spanish flu (which isn't bothered by proximity anyway), there haven't been any major pandemics that have come close to wiping us out.

  21. Shunning by mdsolar · · Score: 2

    Shunning might work. Unvaccinated kids don't pose a medical danger to vaccinated kids, but they are a potential emotional liability since they may die for a tragically preventable reason. If we say we don't want our vaccinated kids to get close to unvaccinated kids to avoid a possible emotional wound, then that places a lot of social pressure on the issue. Shunning is one of the cruelest things to do, so we ought to be sure the problem is really worth taking such steps. It's been working for smoking though.

  22. Re:Simple: Let them die. by grapes911 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Call me selfish, but that doesn't help my 8 month old daughter who can't yet get the vaccine and relies on herd immunity for the time being.

  23. I've lost friends over this. by Charliemopps · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I've always known some people that were stupid enough to fall for this garbage. And I always told them how dumb they were being. But now I have my own kid. Now, I ask... "Is your kid vaccinated?" and if not they are not allowed in my house, and not allowed around my kid unless mandated by law (school) One couple got mad at me, and I finally just told them to go screw themselves. The life of my child is not worth maintaining your pseudoscience addled minds fantasy. I'm sick of it, and everyone else should be to. Ostracize these people and their kids. Do not allow them near you. The only thing that will fix this insane fad is peer pressure.

  24. Re:Autism Schmautism by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

    How is it you have the brains to learn to read and write, but in other respects appear to be an ignorant halfwit?

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  25. Re:What's wrong with anti-vaxxers? Nothing, I say! by Megane · · Score: 2

    Because nothing sucks like a VAX!

    --
    #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
  26. Re:** moron by Bengie · · Score: 3, Interesting

    that would mean demanding vaccination records for all kids in public schools

    We got that around here. Want to go to public school? You must show your vaccination records. Don't want to send your kids to public school? You'd better be using an approved home school system or sending them to private, because you'll get fined or have your children taken from you if you don't educate them. We won't tell you how to educate your children, you just need to have proof that you've been using some form of acceptable education.

  27. Re:Anti-Vaxxers? Try Population Density by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I skipped the second M of the MMR (mumps), as my sons exposure risk was minimal and it's very treatable with lower bad outcomes than the vaccine.

    Have you ever seen the mumps? What kind of sadistic bastard would rather see his kid suffer through that than a 5-second injection?

    --
    Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
  28. Re:Anti-Vaxxers? Try Population Density by Patch86 · · Score: 2

    So you're expecting an outbreak of smallpox any day now then, as soon as the population density hits a certain point?

    Measles is highly contagious disease which is preventable with a simple vaccine, and it was getting tantalisingly close to the point of being eradicated. Now less people are getting vaccinated, and the number of cases are on the up. That is not a coincidence.

    If we could come up with effective and lasting vaccines for MRSA of H041 Gonorrhea, we could wipe them out with a sufficiently widespread vaccination scheme too. We did it for smallpox, and that was almost 40 years ago. With all our modern technology and with more and more societies becoming wealthier and developed, why not do it again?

  29. Re:A bit of common sense maybe? by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And you would most assuredly be wrong. Certainly not recently. We are quite careful about what we eat, tending only to eat those things God fashioned and directed us to eat.

    God provided me with a cheeseburger yesterday, and it was aluminumally delicious.

    Yes, I'm making fun of you. All opinions aren't equal, and yours is incredibly naive and dangerous. You're endangering your kids for no legitimate reason, you're a bad parent, and I have no desire to be tactful about this idiocy anymore.

    --
    Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
  30. Anti-Vax home schoolers by Space · · Score: 3, Informative

    My wife and I home school our two daughters. There is a home school support group in our area that is frequented by several anti-vaccine families. My daughters are up to date on their vaccines and we don't associate with the anti-vax nut jobs. Please don't assume that all home schoolers are anti-vax.

    --
    I Don't Work Here
    1. Re:Anti-Vax home schoolers by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 2

      I'm not a homeschooler (all my kids are in public), but I've known a few. One of my best friends is a family practice doc. His family homeschools because they believe they can give a better education than the local schools in his small town, but he's adamantly in favor of vaccination.

      Homeschooling absolutely doesn't imply anti-vax (although the Venn diagram does overlap a fair bit).

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
  31. Re:MOD PARENT TRENDY by Eravau · · Score: 2

    It's more like if you told millions of people that remaining on top of the cliff was a scientifically-proven death sentence for them and their children... and that if they pushed their children over the edge the children would be much more likely to survive. And on top of that... condemning those who left their children well-anchored on top of the cliff as baby killers who obviously hate their own children.

  32. Yes, some people can't get vaccines by PeterM+from+Berkeley · · Score: 2

    Sir,

        Yes, some people cannot get shots. My co-worker's child died of whooping cough. (Yes, in the US, the third world of the first world!)
    She was too young to get shots, not yet 3 months.

    --PeterM