Slashdot Mirror


Mutant Registration vs. Vaccine Registration

Responding to an editorial endorsing a national vaccine registry in Canada (though the same kind of registry could be and has been proposed in the U.S. with the same logic), an anonymous reader writes "Vaccine Registration makes me think of Mutant and Superhero registration. The reasons are similar. It's based on fear and misinformation. People fear that unvaccinated people will doom us all. Sound familiar? The difference is this is real. (Oh, and they probably won't use sentinels to track down the dangerous unvaccinated folks.) Thoughts?" From the linked editorial: "A national vaccination registry would identify which Canadians have been fully vaccinated, those who have received less than a full dose of shots, and those who have not been vaccinated at all. Having a vaccine registry in place in the event of an outbreak of measles, whooping cough, and diseases like these would enable public health officials to identify the children and adults who need vaccinations. Getting them the shots they need would reduce the risk of anyone on the list getting sick, and would also reduce the threat of an outbreak in the community in which they live or travel to [and] from." In the U.S., immunization records — at least, ones which have been put in electronic form at all — are maintained in a mix of databases, including at the state level, or maintained by cities, or by insurance companies and medical providers. Here, some people (like the reader who submitted this story) also see a potential for unwarranted privacy invasion in a national vaccination registry; however, their case isn't helped by often being tied to opposition to vaccination more generally.

43 of 493 comments (clear)

  1. Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well except mutants aren't real and can't doom us all whereas unvaccinated people can.

    1. Re:Well... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yes, this is just misplaced paranoia. Vaccinations are legitimate public health information. Since vaccinations are required for school, international travel, and military service, most vaccinations records are already in some government database anyway. Consolidating the records will reduce costs, make it easier for people who move or change doctors, and make the information accessible in an emergency. Why should I care if the government knows my shot records?

    2. Re:Well... by mellon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Also, you are an anti-vaxxer by choice, but a mutant by birth.

    3. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Reading the comments from the antivax croud on that site makes me think that conspiracy theorists are the biggest danger to society, it's willful anti-scientific, anti-intellectualism.

      These people will gleefully sail us into the abyss, blaming everyone else all the way down.

    4. Re:Well... by UnknowingFool · · Score: 4, Insightful

      [sarcasm]Yes because I catch STDs all the time by being in the same room as someone who has one. Measles, whooping cough, polio, etc. on the other hand are never transmitted by casual contact.[/sarcasm]

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    5. Re:Well... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, this is just misplaced paranoia. Vaccinations are legitimate public health information.

      Just no. That is to say, yes they are legitimate public health information. But no, it is not paranoia.

      Registrations of one kind or another are extremely prone to government abuse. And it isn't valid to say "I know my government representatives and they would never do such a thing." Because you do not know all future government administrations and whether they would do such a thing.

      And if you genuinely cannot imagine how government could conceivably abuse this information, then you shouldn't be speaking up at all. Should everybody be vaccinated? What about people with other health conditions who cannot tolerate the vaccine? Pushing the issue might actually be harmful to some peoples' health in exchange for little if any real societal benefit. Beyond a certain critical mass of vaccinations, additional vaccinations are subject to diminishing returns.

      I was never a great fan of LBJ, but I will leave you with probably one of the greatest things he ever said:

      "You do not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harms it would cause if improperly administered." -- Lyndon B. Johnson

    6. Re:Well... by hamburger+lady · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You should be able to go to a government web site and enter a persons name to check and see if they have vaccinations, STDs, etc.

      nobody as far as i know is advocating a publicly-accessible database here, are they? we already have large data stores full of patient information and i still am not able to look up my neighbor's medical records on the internet.

      --

      ---
      Is this the MPAA? Is this the RIAA? Is this the DMCA? I thought it was the USA!
    7. Re:Well... by crmarvin42 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What about people with other health conditions who cannot tolerate the vaccine?

      They would benefit in the event of an oubreak in there area. They could be notified directly that there was an outbreak in the area so that they could then decide to leave the hot zone before becoming infected. I don't think anyone is claiming vaccines should be administered to those at high risk for adverse events (egg allgies, or previous adverse reactions to similar vaccines). However, unvaccinated people do pose a risk not only to themselves, but to others. Being able to mitigate those risks would help everyone.

      To be clear, I approve of something like this for the US (where I live) but only if the list is maintained by health officals only. I see no reason for this to be publicly available information. I have no business knowing if you are vaccinated, but the WHO or CDC does in the event of a legitimate risk in your area.

      Beyond a certain critical mass of vaccinations, additional vaccinations are subject to diminishing returns.

      Very true, but that critical mass is around 95%. The original article makes it clear that in Canada, the vaccination rates are nowhere near that number. Articles I've read in the US place the rates below that number as well. Especially in regions where non-medical vaccination abstentions are high (religious groups, Wealthy communities suffering from the misconception that vaccines are related to autism, etc.).

      --
      Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
    8. Re:Well... by virtualXTC · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yes, this is just misplaced paranoia. Vaccinations are legitimate public health information.

      Just yes. That is to say, yes they are legitimate public health information. And yes, it is paranoia.

      Paranoia says registrations of one kind or another are extremely prone to government abuse. And it isn't valid to say "I know my government representatives and they would never do such a thing." Because you do not know all future government administrations and whether they would do such a thing.

      - TFTFY

      Further, thouse who's health cannot tolerate vaccanation are exempt from vaccinations for schooling and don't have any place in the milatry. It is unfortunate that madated vaccines are the only way to get us to the ciritical mass that can protect those who cannot be vaccinated, however it's fear mongers like you are what's keeping us below that critical point.

      Moreover, intentional fallicies like this call into question your ablity to think critically and rationally:

      And if you genuinely cannot imagine how government could conceivably abuse this information, then you shouldn't be speaking up at all. Should everybody be vaccinated?

      If you cannot articulate your actual fears are so that they can be addressed, then you are just paronid. I personally can think of very few ways the list could be abused, and none of the abuses outweigh the risk of another Polio outbreak.

    9. Re:Well... by geekoid · · Score: 3, Insightful

      A national registry, an abuse of a vaccine program are not the same thing.
      Both of those events were appalling.

      Ironically, a national database of people vaccine would have prevented both those things.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    10. Re:Well... by pepty · · Score: 3, Informative

      How the US is doing:

      http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastat...

      Percent of children 19-35 months old receiving vaccinations for:

      Diphtheria, Tetanus, Pertussis (4+ doses DTP, DT, or DTaP): 83%

      Polio (3+ doses): 93%

      Measles, Mumps, Rubella (MMR) (1+ doses): 91%

      Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) (primary series + booster dose): 81%

      Hepatitis B (Hep B) (3+ doses): 90%

      Chickenpox (Varicella) (1+ doses): 90%

      Pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV) (4+doses): 82%

      Percent of children 6 months to 17 years who received an influenza vaccination during the past 12 months: 45.2%

      Percent of adults 18-49 years who received an influenza vaccination during the past 12 months: 26.3%

      Percent of adults 50-64 years who received an influenza vaccination during the past 12 months: 42.7%

      Percent of adults 65 years and over who received an influenza vaccination during the past 12 months: 66.5%

  2. Infectious diseases ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Look, if you're a luddite and have chosen to not be vaccinated against infectious diseases, you are a public health risk.

    If I or my children get sick due to contact with you, I want legal recourse against you.

    If you are un-immunized, you really have no business going into places like hospitals where you will put the lives of others at risk.

    If you solely bore the risk of not being immunized, and only you and your family might become ill -- well, good for you, you'll take yourself out of the gene pool and do us all a favor.

    But, if you're a moron who hasn't vaccinated your children because you've been listening to Jenny McCarthy, I don't want you or your children anywhere me or my family.

    You want to be a plague carrier? Fine, but you can't go into public.

    Diseases which had been mostly eradicated which are suddenly making a resurgence are entirely due to idiots who think the vaccine is going to give them another disease. You're entitled to your stupid beliefs, but you are not entitled to spread disease.

    If you choose to exercise your right to not be immunized, you give up some of your rights as far as you could infect others.

    1. Re:Infectious diseases ... by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Also you actively need to be kept away from other people like you.

      Unvaccinated people congregating in geographical proximity is actively a bad thing - i.e. schools need to know how many unvaccinated children (for any reason) are present since while 1 is probably fine, 10 more or less undoes herd immunity benefits for them. It has serious ramifications if any 1 presents with symptoms of something normally vaccine-preventable.

    2. Re:Infectious diseases ... by josquin9 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, you're mistaken. An active outbreak of a disease increases the likelihood of mutation, which may create a strain that cannot be contained by the current vaccine. Even if the vaccinated will not catch the current iteration of the disease, they may be susceptible to whatever new horror results from giving this iteration free reign to evolve into something more deadly.

    3. Re:Infectious diseases ... by thevirtualcat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There are valid medical reasons that some people can't get immunized. (Allergies, compromised immune systems, etc.) Those people benefit from herd immunity.

    4. Re:Infectious diseases ... by hawguy · · Score: 4, Informative

      How can you get infected if YOU have been inoculated??? So how are they a public risk to you?

      Because no vaccine is 100% effective, even if you're immunized, you can still catch the disease.

      http://www.historyofvaccines.o...

      Why aren’t all vaccines 100% effective?

      Vaccines are designed to generate an immune response that will protect the vaccinated individual during future exposures to the disease. Individual immune systems, however, are different enough that in some cases, a person’s immune system will not generate an adequate response. As a result, he or she will not be effectively protected after immunization.

      That said, the effectiveness of most vaccines is high. After receiving the second dose of the MMR vaccine (measles, mumps and rubella) or the standalone measles vaccine, 99.7% of vaccinated individuals are immune to measles. The inactivated polio vaccine offers 99% effectiveness after three doses. The varicella (chickenpox) vaccine is between 85% and 90% effective in preventing all varicella infections, but 100% effective in preventing moderate and severe chicken pox.

      Further, some individuals are unable to be vaccinated due to underlying medical conditions (allergies, compromised immune system, etc).

    5. Re:Infectious diseases ... by ranton · · Score: 5, Informative

      The only problem with your logic is that if you are immunized then the un-immunized people don't pose a threat against you. That's the point of you being immunized. So your argument is pretty much moot...

      Vaccinations are not 100% successful. We rely on everyone having the vaccinations so the chance of ever even being exposed to the pathogens is very remote.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    6. Re:Infectious diseases ... by hawguy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The point still stands. If it's not 100% then someone who is immunized can catch and STILL give it to you. Thus both immunized and non-immunized pose the same threat to you.

      The point only stands if you pretend that there's no real difference between an unimmunized person and a immunized person with 0.3% chance of catching the disease, and if you ignore the science behind herd immunity.

    7. Re:Infectious diseases ... by MiniMike · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You're forgetting that many people can not be immunized- babies, some elderly, people with compromised immune systems, people with other conditions. etc. These are the people who are most threatened. This threat is in addition to those mentioned in the other comments about mutations, and vaccinations not being 100% effective.

    8. Re:Infectious diseases ... by medv4380 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Dumbass, may you be forced to sit and listen while your infant child dies slowly of Whooping Cough because some dumbass didn't get a vaccine.

    9. Re:Infectious diseases ... by Rich0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The only problem with your logic is that if you are immunized then the un-immunized people don't pose a threat against you. That's the point of you being immunized. So your argument is pretty much moot...

      Vaccinations are not 100% successful. We rely on everyone having the vaccinations so the chance of ever even being exposed to the pathogens is very remote.

      In addition to this, with enough vaccination it becomes possible to eradicate a disease entirely. Today nobody has to take Smallpox vaccine and suffer the side effects of it (as an older vaccine it has quite a few). We wouldn't be free of the vaccine today if everybody didn't take it like they were supposed to decades ago.

    10. Re:Infectious diseases ... by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In addition, in many cases, even if the vaccine is not fully effective, a vaccinated individual is likely to have a less severe infection and stay contagious for a shorter period of time.

      --
      retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
    11. Re:Infectious diseases ... by professionalfurryele · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If I present to you two pills. Both have been exposed to ebola but one has been put into a chamber which is linked to a computer. 97% of the time when I hit the enter key on the computer the chamber is flooded with gamma radiation killing every living thing in there. I hit the enter key, remove the pill and give both to you. I now through some form of compulsion require you to take one of the pills. Which one are you going to take?

    12. Re:Infectious diseases ... by nine-times · · Score: 3

      It doesn't even need to be a mutation. The fact is that immunizations are not 100% effective, and immunized people can get sick. They're just less likely to get sick.

      Aside from that, some people don't have the option of being immunized.

  3. Misinformation? by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The reasons are similar. It's based on fear and misinformation

    No, it's based on facts. It's the anti-vaxxers who operate based on misinformation.

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/...

    A Vancouver father is calling on parents to vaccinate their children for chickenpox after his son nearly died from the disease while his immune system was compromised during chemotherapy.

    Jason Lawson's 10-year-old son Beckett has been in and out of hospital for most of his life for cancer treatment, but Lawson says one of the scariest moments came when the boy caught chickenpox from a classmate at school.

    1. Re:Misinformation? by mlw4428 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's assuming you get it as a child. If you don't catch chicken pox as a child and you don't get a vaccination for it you could catch it as an adult. It's much more severe as an adult and the chance of complications increases, even in healthy adults.

    2. Re:Misinformation? by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Unnecessary?"

      Based on what science, exactly?

      I'm 47. When I was a kid there was no pox vaccine - When my brother caught it he had the pox everywhere - Inside his mouth, on his tongue, genitals. He lay in a dark room crying for a week in pain, with terrible headaches, with my parents up at night with nothing they could do. Why on EARTH would you subject a kid to that, when with one jab you're protected?

      That's child abuse.

      Even with milder cases I have friends today who are still scarred from scratching from the terrible itching when they were kids.

    3. Re:Misinformation? by compro01 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually, it's two jabs, but the point remains valid.

      Also, never having chickenpox means you won't develop shingles later in life.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    4. Re: Misinformation? by Rich0 · · Score: 3, Informative

      All diseases range in severity from individual to individual, and chicken pox and shingles are no different. Generally speaking it is worse for adults. That doesn't mean that every adult infection is guaranteed to be life-threatening, nor does it mean that a childhood infection can't kill somebody.

      It really is in the public interest to reduce the incidence of these diseases all-around. For every few hundred cases of whooping cough that cause discomfort to a teenager there could be a case that kills a 4 month old child (who is still too young to vaccinate I might add).

      Sure, the vaccines can also cause their own problems, but for any vaccine on the market the risks of side-effects and the risks of not being vaccinated are well known, and they wouldn't be on the market and on the vaccine schedules of virtually every developed nation if the one didn't greatly outweigh the other...

    5. Re: Misinformation? by Mashiki · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I wish there was a vaccine when I got it at the age of 12. I've still got the scars from it. I spent 2 weeks at home, no contact with the outside world. I was violently ill for 3-4 days on top of it. My sister who is 2 years younger was roughly in the same state. Now as I get older I get to experience the "glorious" side effect known as shingles.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
  4. False Comparison by mrbene · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sure, the fundamentals are similar - building a list of people who are threats to the health of the rest of the population.

    But, while super/mutant power are generally something innate and unselected, not getting vaccinated is, by and large, a choice.

    If you are making a choice to ignore what science has earned human society, and that choice is putting other people at risk, get on the list.

    Additionally, if I could not get vaccinated against something for some specific medical reason, I'd want to be on a list to be notified in case of an outbreak, so that I could lock myself away until it passed.

  5. Please put the comic book down by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Go for a little walk, breathe some fresh air.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
  6. Re:NO. by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The government has NO RIGHT to know what will and won't make me sick.

    Except when what can make you sick, can make others sick or even kill them.

    If you want the ability to walk around un-immunized and risk your life, maybe you should have to accept civil and criminal liability in the event someone else gets sick.

    Because if you being un-immunized causes people to die, and you knew that was a possibility, well, sounds like manslaughter to me.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  7. Really? Mutant registration? by nine-times · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How did this get on the front page? Comparing vaccination registrations with mutant registration? A remotely educated person would have at least tried to compare it to the real-life events that inspired the idea of "mutant registration", which were the treatment of Jews in Europe and of the Japanese in the US during WW2.

    And this:

    It's based on fear and misinformation. People fear that unvaccinated people will doom us all. Sound familiar? The difference is this is real. (Oh, and they probably won't use sentinels to track down the dangerous unvaccinated folks.)

    Is this a joke? Is the suggestion that they won't use sentinels sarcastic?

    And it's not "fear based on misinformation", it's fear based in real risk. When large numbers of people refuse to get vaccinated from serious infectious diseases, they're putting everyone else in the population at greater risk of infection.

  8. Re:NO. by LWATCDR · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Wow
    Slashdot you really need add a +1 crazy to the moderation levels.
    Someone might actually enjoy reading the nut jobs on Slashdot.

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  9. Registry checklist: by jpvlsmv · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm trying to keep track of what kind of registries are acceptable for each (US) political party

    No Fly Registry: It's Our Patriotic Duty (D&R)
    Gun Owner Registry: Acceptable for (D), Unacceptable for (R)
    Legal-to-work-in-US Registry: Acceptable for (R), Unacceptable for (D)
    National ID card: Acceptable for (D), Unacceptable for (R)
    Vaccination Registry: Acceptable for (D), Unacceptable for (R)
    Superhero Registry: It's Our Patriotic Duty
    Mutant Registry: Ditto
    Windows Registry: Can't run Windows without it, and what else would you run?

  10. Re:Really? Mutant registration? by LWATCDR · · Score: 3, Insightful

    " which were the treatment of Jews in Europe and of the Japanese in the US during WW2"
    Talk about two vastly different levels.

    The treatment of Americans of Japanese descent in the US was shameful.
    The the treatment of the Jews by Nazi Germany was a Holocaust.

    The sad thing is that treatment of Americans of Japanese descent has become so politicised that much of the history about it has been rewritten and many of the triggers are not taught because of fear that people will be accused of trying to justify it.

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  11. Re:NO. by QuietLagoon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The government has NO RIGHT to know what will and won't make me sick.

    On the contrary, the government has every right to assure you are vaccinated. Your ignorant and paranoid refusal to be vaccinated threatens the health of others. The threat you pose if you are not vaccinated is not some misguided rant of a paranoid, but a real and present medical danger.

    .
    If you do not want to get vaccinated, then go live in complete isolation, far, far away from those who want their children to be healthy. The moment you choose to interact with society, then you have a responsibility not to make that society sick.

  12. Re:NO. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Whats that? My idea is insensitive and wrong, but yours is ok?

    Yes. My neighbor's HIV/AIDS status is none of my business because I don't have sex with my neighbor. My neighbor's abortion history is none of my business because abortions are not contagious. But my neighbor's vaccination record for measles and polio IS my business because those are contagious diseases that can spread through a community.

  13. We don't do this already? by inhuman_4 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As a Canadian I'm shocked that the government doesn't already do this. I alway just assumed that when I went to the hospital the medical staff could look up what shots I've had, what I'm allergic to, and any major surgeries I've undergone.

    As a side note. I think this a good idea. I sure as shit don't want someone who isn't vacinated wandering around a hospital war full of people who's immune system is compromised.

  14. A new low for Slashdot by ildon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is the most insane, paranoid thing I've ever seen posted on Slashdot. And that's saying a lot.

  15. Re:Misinformation? - Shingles by onkelonkel · · Score: 4, Informative

    The same virus that cause chicken pox in kids will lurk in your body for decades and can come back and give you Shingles. For seniors it can cause nerve damage and crippling pain, even blindness if you are very unlucky. Chicken Pox may not seem like a big deal, but trust me you do not want Shingles.

    --
    None of them can see the clouds; The polished wings don't care.
  16. Re:Thanks for the idiots-eye view, AC. by UnknowingFool · · Score: 4, Insightful

    My great-grandfather had fully webbed feet; my father and grandfather have partially webbed toes. Tell me again how mutants aren't real.

    In the context of the article and the summary, mutants that are being discussed are in the X-Men comic book type mutants which have superpowers. Yes, technically speaking, mutants exist today: red haired individuals, dwarves, intersexxed, blue eyes, etc. Web feet falls into this category. These is not what the poster is talking about. Congratulations on either not understanding context or not bother reading the first few lines of the anything.

    And since unvaccinated people have existed as long as the species has, it's pretty clear they cannot "doom us all".

    You are aware that antibiotics are slowly becoming useless when it comes to fighting diseases right? Overuse and resistant strains may mean that in the future, vaccines will be one of the few effective ways of dealing with some diseases. The unvaccinated will cause major problems and my doom us all.

    Good job of expressing the know-nothing authoritarian viewpoint so popular on the Internet these days! Mike Godwin needs to come up with a new law - something like "in any Internet forum there is a 100% probability that overly simplistic authoritarian responses to complex propositions will be voted insightful by self-appointed experts

    Good job of not understanding or reading or thinking about what is being discussed.

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.