Slashdot Mirror
The Americas Are Now Officially 'Measles-Free' (theverge.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: The Americas are now free of measles and we have vaccines to thank, the Pan American Health Organization said earlier this week. This is the first region in the world to be declared measles-free, despite longtime efforts to eliminate the disease entirely. The condition -- which causes flu-like symptoms and a blotchy rash -- is one of the world's most infectious diseases. It's transmitted by airborne particles or direct contact with someone who has the disease and is highly contagious, especially among small children. To be clear, there are still people with measles in the Americas, but the only cases develop from strains picked up overseas. Still, the numbers are going down: in the U.S. this year, there have been 54 cases, down from 667 two years ago. The last case of measles that developed in the Americas was in 2002. (It took such a long time to declare the region measles-free because of various bureaucratic issues.) Health officials say that credit for this victory goes to efforts to vaccinate against the disease. Though the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine is recommended for all children and required by many states, anti-vaxxers have protested it due to since-discredited claims that vaccines can cause autism. NPR interviewed Dr. Seth Berkley, the CEO of GAVI, a Geneva-based nonprofit organization whose mission is to improve and provide vaccine and immunization coverage to children in the world's poorest countries. She says that 90 to 95 percent of people in a given region need to be vaccinated in order to stop transmission in a region. The rate worldwide is about 80 percent for measles, which means that 20 percent of people around the world are not covered.
So 54 people in the United States had the measles last year, but we're measles free because those people picked it up elsewhere?
I'm pretty sure some PR person must've come up with this definition...
#DeleteChrome
Yeah, if only they bothered to do routine medical checks and give people vaccines.
Oh wait.
You want to do something? Bitch about the sex trade or something useful, not your usual shit.
Yeah, those nasty dirty tourists, oh wait, you meant the tiny blip that is refugees? Really?
Seth Berkley, http://www.gavi.org/about/governance/secretariat/seth-berkley/ appears to be male. The she in the summary either needs to be changed, or made clearer as to who the subject is.
Thank God now all we have to worry about is Zika, Cickengunya and Dengue Fever! With an occasional bout of Ebola thrown in for good measure! Life couldn't be better!
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
And don't forget: Three of the four presidential candidates are anti-vaxxers.
https://twitter.com/realdonald...
https://twitter.com/govgaryjoh...
http://www.salon.com/2016/08/0...
You are welcome on my lawn.
that is just fucking scary! I almost wish some of these diseases would come back doubly strong just to rid the world of the anti vaxxer fucktards.
Given the "Officials Investigate Leprosy Case in California" reality :)
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/o...
The US will deal with such news by making the decades of very good public health and epidemiology political.
Infections and contagious conditions entering into the USA will just be a very hard to treat "rash".
Computer entry and collection of any such data will never make it out to the regional or national media.
Enforcement changes can also be seen in the lack of reporting on infectious like syphilis, gonorrhoea, infectious leprosy, and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection.
Active tuberculosis is about all the US gov will ever admit to be able to track in public.
"Medical Examination of Aliens-Revisions to Medical Screening Process" (01/26/2016)
https://www.federalregister.go...
With political change US doctors will not longer mention or track communicable disease.
That will be fun for top US experts at international medical conventions. The US case count this years is? Classified, redacted, not ready, not found, guess?
Could other nations ever even trust US medical data collection again? Lack of reporting and an active under reporting policy would make all such US stats useless.
What will that expensive and advanced US medial degree be worth if basic reporting trust is gone?
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
I've some background here, and I'd be...generally skeptical since about the only thing I can think of is that maybe we're talking about autoimmune diseases and honestly that seems more a reason to avoid vaccines for diseases that aren't that much of a problem. The immune system can be pretty accurately thought of as being a bored two-year-old, though we've only particularly lately realized that a germ-free environment would actually be pretty horrible.
However, honestly I'd expect just being relaxed about attempting to disinfect everything as long as the kid's actually got an immune system should counter a good amount of the damage, and there is some interesting discussion on if maybe a few of the annoying-but-harmless infectious vectors we don't get exposed to as much anymore ought to basically come out so you can be deliberately infected since it seems those may have helped train the immune system to not do things like take a sudden, virulent hate for your nervous system.
However? If these are the same people who had been going vaccines cause autism before we finally managed to slay that lich? I'd not take any medical advice from them without getting a second opinion from somebody who at least is aware that prenatal exposure to Rubella (the R in MMR) is positively linked to autism.
(In fact, most of what we've traced as causes are prenatal, if not genetic in their origins, and we have been able to push back the ability to diagnose autism to before when most vaccinations are received.)
On the flu shot, though--I've heard reports that some people have found it to be effective for multiple years, and 'effective' with vaccinations means 'your immune system recognizes and does not have to guess at how to make antibodies for this.' From what I've heard, a decent number of the problems with the flu shot can be attributed to the fact that it's based off of educated guesses of what strains will be this year's popular ones...and as I recall, at least one year practically none of the guesses were right. (The flu isn't a single virus but a slew of them, and a lot of people who think they have the flu actually have something else entirely...right up to and including bacteria instead. Generally it's not worth the testing needed to tell.)
Oh crap how did you find out...look, please don't tell anyone I was on Slashdot...
999,999 "unscreened people" / 300 million Americans ~= 0.33% Or, in other words, if we already have 95% of people in the US vaccinated already, then this influx of people would make absolutely no difference. Get back to me when we have an influx of 15 million people*. Oh, and as another person noted, they're hardly unscreened people. It always amazes me the arrogance of people who are born Americans who require so much effort for others to be vetted and STILL act like no effort is made. Imagine the tyranny if you were treated so shittily.
* An argument for universal "free" vaccination of illegal immigrants and their children. And since that's such an "evil" thing--as it's not really free but taxpayer paid--, an argument for universal "free" vaccination for everyone in the US. And then we can finally go the slippery slope and just have "free" health care and get rid of the ridiculous health insurance system. But then I digress about...what was your point, again? You like the free market, the free movement of people (as that's a cornerstone of the free market), and hence actually support the notion of reintroducing measles into the US population? Yep, overall, you're an asshole.
So no more usa strains? All existing measle cases in usa are actually foreign strains? Well, thats the "official story" . Maybe this is an attempt to clasify measles as a foreign problem, not respecting political geo maps. Nasty terrorists and invaders.
Brace for a massive outbreak of autism :P
There is quite a difference between being against mandatory vaccines and saying the vaccines are bad for you. Even if disagreeing with both positions, it should be clear.
Now that's the real reason to fight on the poles against those candidates. If I were an American, I would just have been given the reason to wake up from my long, political sleep.
You clearly didn't read the article about Stein.Or worse you're just lying. It claims she panders to anti-vaxxers not that she is one.
If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
Diseases can never be eliminated with non-mandatory vaccines -- you can't reach 95% that way, it's hard enough to with mandatory vaccines. And of course without that group immunity the people who really can't use the vaccine due to an allergy are left unprotected. If you're against mandatory vaccines, you're bad for other people.
This space intentionally left blank
The vaccines aren't mandatory per se, they are mandatory if you want your kids to mix with all of the other kids who don't have parents who aren't complete fuckwads.
Go ahead and homeschool your frail little sunflowers, but don't expect that the rest of us want them to join the herd hoping that OUR vaccinations were enough to protect them.
Distinction without a difference. She clearly panders to anti-vaxxers, so either she is one or she isn't and therefore is an MD without enough moral code to set the straight despite her loss of influence.
yes!
pee in my butt and tell me it's raining
Using Predator drones to kill measles suspects was really effective.
The right of self-determination. The freedom for you to live your life as you wish, making choices for yourself as you see fit, not as someone else thinks you should live.
So it boils down to which of these noble rights you think is greater. The right of self-determination, or the right for society to attempt to rid itself of certain diseases. Unfortunately, when resolving conflicts between two noble rights, most people stack the deck. They pick a scenario which supports their predetermined conclusion. For those supporting vaccination (note: I support vaccination), this usually means proffering the scenario of someone refusing to vaccinate their children, resulting in their children getting sick and the disease spreading to others because of lack of herd immunity.
Just to play devil's advocate, someone arguing the opposite extreme would bring up the case of a corrupt government staying in control by locking up and drugging "troublemakers" (aka dissidents). The reality usually lies somewhere between these two extremes.
As I said, I believe in and support vaccination. However, I cannot in good conscience support forcing people who don't believe in it to be vaccinated. At least not with our current system of government. If you do not grant that right of self-determination to others, on what basis can you argue that others should grant it to you? If there were less corruption in government, if I were more confident about the safeguards build into it, then I would probably go the other way. But based on what I've seen, no. History is replete with those in power doing harmful things to others against their wishes with the best of intentions. Our current government simply should not have the power to require everyone be injected with medicines of its choosing. If that makes me fall within your definition of an anti-vaxxer, then so be it.
The way I see it, the anti-vaxxer problem needs to be solved by educating people so they will make the correct decision on their own. Not by subjugating refusers and forcing them to do something against their will. Yes I know that's the hard way. But the easiest way would be to simply put a bullet in their heads. Denying them the right of self-determination is halfway to denying them their life. (It's interesting to note that people who've grown up in or have experienced repressive governments tend to think the right of individual self-determination is paramount. While those who have lived all their lives under a benign government tend to be the ones who think society's rights should overrule the individual's. I'll leave it to you to figure out which of these groups is deciding based on experience and evidence, and which is deciding based on naive idealism.)
Hurd immunity? You must be GNU here.
I'm seeing some doctors claim that vaccines cause children to be more susceptible to diseases later in life. Does anyone have background information about this?
This has long been known. The Vaccines provide an artificial immunity that is temporary. As adults you still require booster shots.
I was vaccinated as a child, yet got Chicken Pox from my Girlfriend that was caring for kids with it. I wish fervently I had gotten the natural immunity when I was a child. "Childhood Diseases" are much, much worse on adults. I wanted to die. This is likely how it spread in Disneyland. Adults that failed to realize their vaccine was a false hope, and that if you don't get the immunity naturally in your younger more robust years you will be forever vulnerable as an adult.
The real threat in the 1800's and prior was lack of sanitation and hygiene that caused secondary infections. That problem has been solved.
~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
Because they're loud, obnoxious, smelly and expensive.
Next question?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
If there was a justice, anti-vaccers would not be protected by herd immunity.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I and perhaps getting vaccinated isn't quite so black-and-white.
I'm not conversant with either position, and was wondering if anyone with actual knowledge (and not echo-chamber retelling of conventional wisdom) could comment on this.
Do vaccinated children catch other diseases more easily?
Just asking questions are we. I imagine you already have your opinion. Nobody here is going to convince you otherwise.
Amazes me that after eradication of smallpox, victories against polio, typhus, measles, mumps, fucks knows what else, there are always people trying to drag us back to the stone age.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
He may be talking about Varicella. IIRC, the immunity from the vaccine doesn't last as long as the immunity conferred by actually having the disease. Wouldn't that potentially protect from the disease in the very young where it is rarely a problem and then leave you vulnerable just when it starts to become more risky (potentially a net harm)? Meanwhile, (also IIRC), occasional exposure as a naturally immune adult is thought to act as a sort of booster to prevent shingles later in life.
The case is pretty strong for MMR and DTaP, but not so much for Varicella vaccine.
As for the flu, I recall some recent research that shows that people who have been immunized for flu the previous year are less likely to be effectively immunized by a new flu vaccine. Meanwhile, since (as you said) the available flu shot is based on a guess at which strains will become prevalent, there is a good chance that the guess will be wrong and so the shot will have very limited effectiveness. It may actually be better to confine flu shots to the most vulnerable populations where the flu itself is most dangerous.
Add to that the media blitz over H1N1 a few years ago where we were told with a strait face that we should all run out and get the flu shot that didn't cover H1N1 because H1N1 was going to kill us all but that there was no need to avoid crowded malls. Then, by the time the H1N1 vaccine came out, it was clear that it had already gone past it's peak and would be all but gone by the time the immunization would become effective (and it proved to be far less dangerous than initially thought) we were supposed to run out and get that too. It's hard to not think we are being lead down the garden path on that one.
That sort of thing is extremely unfortunate and even dangerous since it leads people to question the well proven and greatly beneficial MMR and DTP.
And don't forget: Three of the four presidential candidates are anti-vaxxers.
https://twitter.com/realdonald...
https://twitter.com/govgaryjoh...
http://www.salon.com/2016/08/0...
Correction here - Gary Johnson is not opposed to vaccinations. He is opposed to mandatory vaccinations at the federal level - which is in line with Libertarian ideals. Good writeup here: http://reason.com/blog/2016/08...
Carry on.
Actually, characterizing Stein as anti-vax or pandering to the anti-vaxers is over the top. There is a HUGE difference between questioning the FDA's effectiveness and being anti-vax, particularly when it comes to the old and well proven vaccines. She is on record as supporting vaccination.
Since the Salon article only pointed to Snopes' home page rather than providing a useful link, I'll supply it here.
Johnson predictably says no to any government mandatory anything. That's not a proper anti-vax stance since he isn't basing his position on paranoid pseudo-science. It says nothing about if he would personally recommend vaccination or not.
Trump looks to be all in on the crazy pseudo-science and hysteria.
Quick addendum. The population of the Americas would have been lower in 1968, but even if it was half at 500 million, the ratio is still better than 30.
WOW! So don't vote:
Don't vote GREEN: Jill Stein’s anti-vax game: How and why the Green Party candidate is pandering to the anti-vaccination crowd http://tinyurl.com/jd9s626
Don't vote LIBERTARIAN https://twitter.com/govgaryjohnson/status/113419678730301440 Sorry Gary but spreading disease is not a right. Ever heard of Typhoid Mary.
Don't vote TRUMP https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/507158574670573568?lang=en&lang=en An idiot
PS There are still antivaxxers in the public out there who won't vaccinate their kids. The virus will survive in their kids as reservoirs and eventually they carry it back to the community. Look in any Microbiology textbook for the graphs.
Children I can put up with. But we really do need a final solution for SJWs.
And even that is not quite right. She is on record as supporting vaccines. She is simply questioning the FDA in general (honestly, it's track record in recent years gives her very good reason for that). Mostly from the standpoint that it's crappy track record for objectivity in recent years is being used as an excuse by the anti-vaxers.
She came out and said she supports vaccination. She just believes (correctly, IMHO) that the FDA has fallen into disrepute and so is contributing to the anti-vaxer problem.
I'm just glad that they did this instead of looking at gay diseases like AIDS or nignog diseases like sickle cell. They have their priorities right
Leprosy isn't nearly the problem it was in Biblical times. It is hard to catch and easy to cure. Some even question if what we now call leprosy is even the same disease.
You say that as if homeschooling is a bad thing.
I got it as a child, and it's horrible then too.
If a boy gets it during puberty it can leave them sterile, probably mess up their development too.
Even if you catch it as a child, the immunity can still run out. Those who caught the real deal can get secondary infections later on in life like shingles.
Swine flu was not "real". The flu was no more deadly than any other. The initial statisics were all wrong. It was caught by pig farmers in Mexico. Take a sick day, lose your job. Lose your job, starve and die. So taking a sick day was death. So workers literally worked themselves to death, with the flu, then the complications like pneumonia. They'd drop dead at work, drown in their own mucus while standing up. The stats were pretty bad in Mexico, but when spread in the US, the death rate was no worse than the regular flu. I took a trip to LA, and managed to contract N1H1. A flu, but not the worst I'd had.
Learn to love Alaska
Amazes me that after eradication of smallpox, victories against polio, typhus, measles, mumps, fucks knows what else, there are always people trying to drag us back to the stone age.
You're amazed because you can't see past your own nose...
I don't doubt the effectiveness of vaccines... I just expect the choice of what to put into my body and frankly I don't trust any government to be honest about these things...
> I got it as a child, and it's horrible then too
I got it as a child. It was trivial (5 spots and a weak off school), I thought it was great. Unfortunately, it looks like people who get it mildly are more likely to get shingles earlier, which I did when I was 33 (though it meant I had a cast-iron excuse to miss a family Christmas, so it was awful but with a silver lining). My kids got chicken pox last year, no big deal.
All of which proves nothing. Arguing from individual cases - yours, mine, my kids - proves nothing. Generally, get chicken pox as a child, no big deal, but in a few cases, big deal. Bit like lots of things really.
At work I am called Rabbi and am allegedly a Talmudic scholar and help out with hebraic legal questions. The leprosy you see mentioned in the Hebrew bible (which is best read in in Hebrew rather than the majority bad English translations), was in the text obviously a physical manifestation of a persons spiritual status; specifically a response to rumoring/chatting more or less POV truths about things or people in an unfavorable light when they had greatly benefit that person.
It if it helps people understand better, leprosy simply can not afflict stone houses which is 50% of the text, in addition to the mismatch in human symptoms, so it is obviously not the modern tropical disease which has different symptoms than those mentioned in the bible and is best understood as a supernatural affliction rather than germ theory disease.
Calling people you disagree with "crazy" shuts down any reasonable conversation.
You are presuming the conversation was reasonable to begin with. The anti-vax crowd is not spouting off reasonable viewpoints based on considered evidence. There is nothing reasonable about their viewpoint or what they are saying. They are loudly proclaiming harmful falsehood and putting people in harms way by doing so.. No matter how polite on is, ANY discussion with them is basically an instance of pointing out that they are crazy and dangerous. These are fearful people who are either unwilling or unable to listen to reason and evidence. It never was a reasonable conversation in any meaningful sense.
Whatever you think of them, the anti-vaxxers aren't trying to drag anybody back to the stone age. Mostly they point out - correctly as it happens - that the vast majority of the reduction in problems (mortality and morbidity) of infectious diseases is (in first-world countries anyway) attributable to improvements in public health and living standards. At least, *I've* never heared one say we should go back to caves, abandon all medicine, etc., etc.
Your right to be protected against disease does not override my right to decide what to put into my body.
Yes you have that right. HOWEVER that does not mean the rest of us have to accommodate you and the threat you present in society consequence free since you have chosen of your own free will (and delusions) to be a potential disease vector. Your unvaccinated children should not be allowed to attend school. You should not be allowed to have a job where you interact with people. Go ahead and stay unvaccinated and I'll defend your right to do so. But I also will insist that you remain in quarantine until it is safe to be around you.
She could start by letting you in. I'm sure that would help triple the immigration rate for goat fuckers.
For every thousand people that catch it, the more serious symptoms during the course of the infection are:
60 people with pneumonia, probably requiring hospital treatment.
6 people having seizures.
2 dying.
(rarer complications include SSPE - where your brain shuts down for no well understood reason and you die 1-7 years later, at a rate of about 20 per 100000 cases).
Measles during pregnancy leads to a higher risk of spontaneous abortion.
In the last large outbreak in the USA, 11000 were hospitalised, and 123 died. (1991)
.
Oh you got offended by the truth? Poor thing. I am sure that if you virtue signal enough, Muslims will let you live once they take over.. provided that you pay the extortion as instructed by the prophet (PBUH) in the holy Quran.
As I said, I believe in and support vaccination. However, I cannot in good conscience support forcing people who don't believe in it to be vaccinated.
I would support their choice to not be vaccinated as long under the condition that if they decide not to be vaccinated after receiving education about the consequences of not vacinnating that they remain in some form of quarantine. Is this stance coercive? Yes it is. But when you present a clear and present danger to those around you by your irrational unwillingness to submit to a treatment that is demonstrably safe because of your ignorance I don't see any credible alternative. I would have no problem forcing them to go through an education class about the consequences of their decision. If they still make the choice to not vaccinate then quarantine it is. It might be a mild form of quarantine but if it is important enough to vaccinate for a disease then clearly the public interest is in stopping the disease completely.
If you do not grant that right of self-determination to others, on what basis can you argue that others should grant it to you?
Let's have a little perspective here. Vaccines are about as safe as any medication gets. Any risks are INCREDIBLY small and well documented. The dangers presented by people opting out of vaccines are real, consequential, and measurable. While I would agree that people should have the civil right to opt out of vaccination under normal circumstances, the evidence is clear that they are making an irrational choice and endangering others by that choice. I see no reason why we shouldn't assign cultural consequences to making that choice just like we do so many others.
The way I see it, the anti-vaxxer problem needs to be solved by educating people so they will make the correct decision on their own. Not by subjugating refusers and forcing them to do something against their will.
A common tactic in good parenting is to frame a decision. You don't ask a child who doesn't understand that veggies are good for them if they want to eat veggies because they will opt out every time. You ask them "do you want peas or carrots"? No veggies is not among the options available to them. This gives them the power to make a decision on their own but narrows the choices to a group of good decisions. If someone wants to decline to be vaccinated after being educated about the consequences of their decision then the decision tree should only involve options that are beneficial to society.
Its the illegals coming through the Mexican border that have measles. I wasn't aware of a screening process for them, but don't let that get in the way of your political cover up for a failed administration.
> was in the text obviously a physical manifestation of a persons spiritual status;
I'm afraid to say that I'm stunned by the foolishness of this answer. The earliest proof of leprosy is over 4000 years old (http://www.livescience.com/5456-earliest-case-leprosy-unearthed.html). It's certainly existed for millennia.
We hear the like of this "it's a spiritual problem, not a physical one" today in claiming that AIDS is God's punishment of homosexuality, and that the millions of cases suffered by infants and blood transfusion recipients were judgments of their spiritual state. Just because a disease is spread mostly by human behavior does not make it unreal. Similar claims were made for the 1917 flu epidemic, which was spread by soldiers returning from World War I battles overseas, and for the Black Plague which ravaged Europe in the middle ages. Behaviorally aggravated plagues does _not_ mean the plague did not happen.
And "Leprosy cannot affect stone houses", "the Talmud had mostly stone houses", and therefore the disease was not real? I'm looking at the text in Leviticus 13, of the Christian Bible, and that describes very clear physical examination for an infectious physical illness. There are many interesting and _much better_ analysis suggesting that what is called leprosy in Hebraic documents is other medical issues, such as thttp://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/9774-leprosy. But they make _no_ claim that it was purely a sullied spiritual state.
It's like guns. I respect Second Amendment rights, but that doesn't mean I like someone shooting wildly in a crowded area. My right to not be shot trumps the rights of others to shoot. Same thing here. You choose, seemingly out of sheer spite, to be a disease vector, fair enough, just never do it around the rest of society. If your right to not put something that, in the vast majority of cases, is negligable into your body overrides my right to not get sick and possibly die, fine then, my right to not get sick and potentially die overrides your right to live in the rest of society.
H1N1 was bird flu that crossed species. Swine flu (also known as erysipelas) is transmittable to horses and then transmittable to man more effectively than direct from pigs.
"Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
Oh crap how did you find out...look, please don't tell anyone I was on Slashdot...
Because spending time on /. is worse than being around Weiner, er, I meant Carlos Danger??
Jenner was a fraudster. Most of the 'doctors' alive in his day were also conmen, who jumped on the 'vaccination' bandwagon, what's not to like? Inject filth into people, under force of LAW, and get paid for it! Millions of customers, who have no choice - if they don't get 'vaccinated', they get put in prison? Or weren't you aware of this?
http://whale.to/v/hadwen1.html
Nobody has EVER rebutted any of Dr Hadwen's talks on 'vaccination'. Why is that? There are millions of you (apparently) who believe Jenner's lies, so why haven't you written a simple rebuttal?
LOL at 'group immunity', I think you mean 'herd immunity', and you're wrong:
http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2012/02/18/the-deadly-impossibility-of-herd-immunity-through-vaccination-by-dr-russell-blaylock/
As far as "the people who really can't use the vaccine due to an allergy are left unprotected." - aren't they EXACTLY the same 'risk' to others as those who CHOOSE not to be 'vaccinated'? Or are those who choose more dangerous because they're 'bad' people...
Shouldn't we be locking up "the people who really can't use the vaccine due to an allergy" or are they magically NOT infectious or dangerous because they THINK THE RIGHT THOUGHTS?
Are you really this stupid? All of you believe that 'anti-vaxxers' are 'evil' and 'dangerous' because they allegedly threaten everybody else - thus proving that you don't believe that 'vaccines' work, and can't protect you from disease! And then you make out that "the people who really can't use the vaccine due to an allergy" are somehow NOT infectious or 'dangerous', solely because they THINK the 'right' thoughts...
Why should the other children who HAVE been 'vaccinated' be at any risk, if 'vaccination' works?
On the other hand, why should the children you laughably claim ARE at risk, because they are 'allergic to vaccines', be allowed to mix with other children either? Why does one group of children, who 'think the wrong thoughts', represent a threat BECAUSE THEY AREN'T VACCINATED', but the other group, who allegedly are allergic to vaccines, not represent a threat, even though THEY AREN'T VACCINATED?
See how stupid you all are? None of you has even bothered to think the most basic facts of this through.
Stop talking about me!
BlameBillCosby.com
No, we're not trying to drag you back. We just want to toss some chlorine in the gene pool so fucktards don't get to multiply.
Where's a fucking modpoint when you need one?
BTW, you owe me a new keyboard.
Did you skip out signing up for selective service when you were 18? If you're conscripted you could be asked to die for your country and they'd also make sure you got your shots. If the potential cost to society is high enough, the government can make you get the shots and leave out the invasion of Normandy.
A few notes (to waste on an AC thread):
The population of the Americas is now 1Bn but wasn't so 40 years ago. The reduction in number of cases to what the Americas have now is significant also because there are more people that could have been affected and are not, thanks to the efforts in eradicating the disease. A more useful measure would probably be morbidity in % of population, to show clearly how big the overall problem was then and is now.
I point out "morbidity" because death is not the only possible effect of catching this disease. While it is a useful thing to measure mortality, measles is linked to pneumonia and encephalitis, which can have significant consequences such as blindness and deafness.
To say that everything would be OK without vaccines because post-facto the disease is not killing a lot of people does not tell the whole story. If there's any obfuscation or misunderstanding of the real situation it is on the side of those who overlook the needs of a growing and mobile population.
Interestingly I've seen this sort of presentation before by someone who thought that polio eradication would have been "naturally occurring" in the USA, overlooking that in the chart she was showing the date range was one where the USA population had doubled (baby boom and huge inbound emigration after WW2). I can't imagine what side effects she was worried about that would lead to going without such strong prevention measures, even if the data shows that the reduction of cases of paralysis was big, and in terms of % of population as actually a very significant and sudden change when the polio vaccination programme started.
On the flu shot, though--I've heard reports that some people have found it to be effective for multiple years,
The fact is that about half the time, they target the wrong flu strain, and the flu vaccine is utterly and completely useless. In those years, anyone who thinks the flu strain kept them from getting flu is total a fucking moron who is operating on confirmation bias.
Vaccination is a legitimate practice, but the flu shot is utterly and totally useless about half the time. They know well before they are administering the shots whether there is actually any point to doing so, by monitoring the spread of various flu strains, but they will never, ever put that information out there to potential customers. That job is always left to the media, most of which couldn't care less. Anti-vaxxers are loud, but there's not enough of them to sell papers to for them to jump on that grenade, so they just ignore it and Americans waste millions on pointless flu shots.
And then people wonder why there are people who mistrust vaccines, because they are dumb shits too.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
"The Americas" includes Mexico.
this signature has been removed due to a DMCA takedown notice
Illegal immigration, idiot. Or am I just racist for pointing out the different between legal and illegal immigration?
Most Armadillos are carriers of the leprosy virus. And yes, they can spread it to humans. Could wipe out all leprosy from humans and it still find it's way back to us.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Public health is something you need to get familiar with. This debate was settled, at least in the US, back in the early 1900s. You do NOT have an unfettered right to decide what goes into your body and what you do with it. You CAN be compelled to take medications and be vaccinated. Have you ever heard of quarantine, or Typhoid Mary?
In a similar fashion, the state can kill you if the collective polity sees it as necessary.
The fact that you BELIEVE, against the evidence, that you have this right - that makes you unreasonable.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
I wouldn't be surprised if during the medical part of the immigration process that they aren't vaccinated. It would be more of a problem if they weren't actually.
But, it also goes to why we need foreign aid to wipe this virus out around the world, and why we need a neutral FDA that looks at what is in vaccines and how they interact with some people.
He may be talking about Varicella. IIRC, the immunity from the vaccine doesn't last as long as the immunity conferred by actually having the disease. Wouldn't that potentially protect from the disease in the very young where it is rarely a problem and then leave you vulnerable just when it starts to become more risky (potentially a net harm)? Meanwhile, (also IIRC), occasional exposure as a naturally immune adult is thought to act as a sort of booster to prevent shingles later in life.
Your memory is weird: A quick check confirms that the Varicella vaccine is a live, weak virus one--and the sole reason I needed to check is because practically all the vaccines of that age are either that or dead virus...and a few take a mixed-approach by using one for the vaccine and another for the booster. (When I say some background, I mean "I have less than somebody who went for immunology as their specialty."
The shot for shingles--herpes zoraster--is pretty much nothing but a variant on the Varicella vaccine, making it a booster for those who got their immunity from wildtype Varicella.
I should note that I had to check because my records before college--absolutely all of them aside from my birth certificate--got completely and entirely lost, so...basically? If you get the Varicella vaccine yet again, it'll just boost immunity. The strength and duration of said immunity--regardless of how you got it--is something we're not so sure of, but given that we know that sometimes it's more like apparent lifelong immunity...finding out is going to require having a nice large age range of people who got the vaccine young, all of them willing to be deliberately infected.
I'm pretty sure I could get the study proposal through the ethics board, there's nothing unethical here and it's an important enough question. I just doubt anybody will consent to being deliberately given a virus that inserts itself into their genome, just to see if their immune system still will recognize the virus and produce antibodies to it.
The case is pretty strong for MMR and DTaP, but not so much for Varicella vaccine.
Oh, yes, though neither actually should be expected to grant lifelong immunity because as I noted we're starting to realize that no, what you get is really long immunity and with Rubella the flier they give you so you can give proper consent pretty explicitly says that your immune system will start to lose that virus definition from its memory banks in about two years. I don't remember what the time period was on the DTaP, and my copy of the flier is gone. (I had to get nearly all my childhood shots again, because my records were lost...)
As for the flu, I recall some recent research that shows that people who have been immunized for flu the previous year are less likely to be effectively immunized by a new flu vaccine. Meanwhile, since (as you said) the available flu shot is based on a guess at which strains will become prevalent, there is a good chance that the guess will be wrong and so the shot will have very limited effectiveness. It may actually be better to confine flu shots to the most vulnerable populations where the flu itself is most dangerous.
Sometimes it'll be even more effective to vaccinate those who are around those who are the most vulnerable, because the reason they're vulnerable is a compromised immune system--so it's better to try to keep them from getting infected in the first place.
Overall...well, I think if you really want a good flu shot, a more generic version of the vaccine may be best--and even then, confine it to a limited population. Given what has to be done with autoimmune disorders to control them, and how weak many flu strains are, it might actually be less risky to set it up so you can get deliberately dosed with a weak strain of the flu--but that would require society be prepared to accept that the occasional mild illness is not bad for you.
Symptoms of illness are usually caused by immune response. A vaccine giving partial immunity will not prevent infection but will ensure your response is robust enough to prevent you from becoming seriously ill. A subclinical infection in an unvaccinated individual may not show as robust an immune response but this doesn't mean they're better off. Alternatively you can have sepsis, and if your immune system hasn't noticed, you may feel and operate fairly well without even a fever until you drop dead from toxic shock.
Unfortunately, they don't just hurt themselves. They hurt their children, who don't have a say in it, and shouldn't be stuck with paying the price for their parents' ignorance. But what's worse is that not every can get vaccinated to begin with, for legitimate medical reasons, and are forced to rely on herd immunity - herd immunity that goes away if lots of anti-vaxxer idiots refuse to get their children vaccinated.
For most people here, this is common knowledge, but you apparently didn't get the memo. Let's break it down for you.
Why should the other children who HAVE been 'vaccinated' be at any risk, if 'vaccination' works?
The question of whether vaccination works was settled decades ago. Your insinuation here is that vaccination doesn't "work" unless it is perfect. No vaccine is 100% effective, but vaccines don't need to be 100% effective to "work." Vaccines don't just flip a bit from "completely vulnerable" to "completely safe;" they give you a much better chance at avoiding infection. Some vaccinations may not take or their effectiveness may diminish over time. And yet, they still "work" if everyone who can be vaccinated is vaccinated because the disease's propagation pathways are greatly diminished. This is commonly referred to as "herd immunity."
On the other hand, why should the children you laughably claim ARE at risk, because they are 'allergic to vaccines', be allowed to mix with other children either?
Again, vaccines don't need to be perfect to be effective. Vaccination of all those who can be vaccinated provides sufficient protection for those who cannot be vaccinated. The system fails however when you reduce the vaccinated population and introduce infection pathways between people who have not been vaccinated or who are still vulnerable despite being vaccinated.
Why does one group of children, who 'think the wrong thoughts', represent a threat BECAUSE THEY AREN'T VACCINATED', but the other group, who allegedly are allergic to vaccines, not represent a threat, even though THEY AREN'T VACCINATED?
Numbers. We're talking about populations here, not individuals. When the unvaccinated population rises too high, outbreaks become possible again. The exact percentage of people susceptible to infection at any given time and the number required to maintain herd immunity for a particular disease are difficult to determine with any certainty, so the only reliable course of action is to vaccinate as widely as possible when it is safe to do so.
See how stupid you all are? None of you has even bothered to think the most basic facts of this through.
Because this was all thought through and put to bed decades ago. Why don't you move on to pointing out all of the problems with trying to go faster than the speed of sound or sending a man to the moon?
Why would someone that has been inoculated be so worried about those that aren't inoculated? I'll try to say this clearly... YOU HAVE BEEN INOCULATED. You shouldn't be able to catch anything from someone that isn't inoculated. The only people at risk are those that have chosen not to inoculate. I can't speak for everyone, but I know people that have chosen against the MMR, and they are well aware of the risks on both sides of the decision.
I'm afraid to say that I'm stunned by the foolishness of this answer.
You shouldn't be. It's an answer that has been filtered through faith. It has to be read in that context.
Looking for truth in an answer filtered through faith is like looking for sugar in water having been filtered through a foot of sand.
Because vaccination REDUCES THE RISK of dying from the disease. It is not a magical immunity barrier. Your purely binary worldview is a great comfort to you in your simple and confused mind, but has no place in reality.
-- I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
I love Slashdot and the intelligent discussion it used to have.
Your right of self-determination ends where it becomes a liability to the rest of society. If you are a selfish enough asshole that you don't give a shit about the rest of society, get the fuck out of it!
We've been here before:
We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes.
Holmes concluded his argument by declaring that "Three generations of imbeciles are enough".[12]
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_sterilization
* http://www.npr.org/2016/02/26/468297940/imbeciles-explores-legacy-of-eugenics-in-america
Anti-vaxxers are dumb, but there are larger liberties at stake.
Agreed. It wasn't worth the hype, but they did flog the hell out of those shots.
On the flu shot, though--I've heard reports that some people have found it to be effective for multiple years,
The fact is that about half the time, they target the wrong flu strain, and the flu vaccine is utterly and completely useless. In those years, anyone who thinks the flu strain kept them from getting flu is total a fucking moron who is operating on confirmation bias.
Actually, in this case the question is the more important one of how long and how broad the immunity provided against the flu by that particular vaccine are--which has all sorts of implications.
Vaccination is a legitimate practice, but the flu shot is utterly and totally useless about half the time. They know well before they are administering the shots whether there is actually any point to doing so, by monitoring the spread of various flu strains, but they will never, ever put that information out there to potential customers. That job is always left to the media, most of which couldn't care less. Anti-vaxxers are loud, but there's not enough of them to sell papers to for them to jump on that grenade, so they just ignore it and Americans waste millions on pointless flu shots.
And then people wonder why there are people who mistrust vaccines, because they are dumb shits too.
Well, the media also tends to be ignorant of its own ignorance, and I'd certainly not expect them to grasp that the flu is pretty rapidly-mutating--to the point that if you actually get more than a flu season's worth of immunity from the flu shot, the better strategy would be to either go with a big expensive broad-spectrum one with annual booster-updates to add that year's new strains (pretty much a certainty) or a series that is less rough on your body and over time will maintain a decent broad spectrum of immunity even if it takes a while to achieve that point.
However, this requires expecting the public to grasp that for some infections there may never be a good generic vaccine--that even if there is a highly-conserved portion of its genes, it may not be a viable vaccine target--and any vaccine is going to be limited in what versions it can actually hit.
This actually is a major--if not the major--reason we don't have an HIV vaccine yet. As early as the 90s there were some pretty good prospects, but they were also pretty specific. It was a given that even if this protected you against the strains you were most likely to catch, there were many other, rarer strains and you'd still be totally able to get those. It was also considered pretty much a given that, as you note, people are dumb: No matter how clear you are, they're still going to mean they got total and perfect protection from alllll the strains, and when the first one manages to catch something serious because they thought this meant they didn't have to use some sense.. The media is going to be going into a "OMG OMG OMG TEH VACCINE DOESN'T WORK!!!1!one!" frenzy (because panics are the ancestor of clickbait) instead of the more accurate "Moron discovers that the vaccine only supposed to protect against some strains does exactly that." Oh, and if said moron's trial lawyer is decent, the jury will probably be right there with the media in not grasping that limited protection is--amazingly--limited.
At least with the flu vaccine, the social costs of a misfire are lower, though as I've noted, somebody whose immune system is fine and who doesn't spend lots of time around people whose immune systems are compromised? Outside of the really nasty strains of the flu, they're just plain better off catching it. Ditto the common cold--if any improvement can be had, I'd actually vote for having it possible to schedule when you get it and choose a nice, mild strain.
I have rather little hope that we're going to get people in general more aware of the complexity of trying to make a vaccine for anything that refuses to have
Obviously not pro-choice. Cause I thought the whole argument was that one had a right to their own body. Guess I was wrong.
Who can't use the vaccines due to allergies. The whole argument you folks make is that vaccines are safe and there are no problems.
That's news to me. The last time I was in the local hospital, they had signs up everywhere warning people who thought they had measles to wear masks.
That if vaccines are effective, and your child is immunized, than there really is no issue.
You also realize the effect of many vaccines fades. When is the last time you had an MMR? In fact, a great many adults can be carriers. The vaccine may give them enough protection but they carry the vaccine. So you're concern of a 1% versus a large percentage of society being potential carriers is rather silly.
Except in many states, home schooling is not easily allowed. And in many states there are mandated school attendance or parents are charged and arrested.
Yes, let the anti-vaccers rejoice.
Now they will not vaccinate their kids and say that the vaccines don't work. until their kids get sick :P
"When the unvaccinated population rises too high, outbreaks become possible again"
Not really, outbreaks only are potential for those who are unvaccinated. If 5% are unvaccinated, and 95% are vaccinated. Even if an outbreak happens in the 5%, most all of the 95% who were vaccinated should be safe. Yes, there may be a few exceptions. But very few.
Want to know the real cause of the outbreaks. The ones the media blamed on unvaccinated, most eventually determined those who were infected were ALL vaccinated. The real issue is that the vaccines are several decades old, and while science teaches us that said viruses rapidly mutate and evolve to knew strains. We're using vaccines based on strains sometimes almost a century old. Which greatly reduces their efficacy.
But here's the catch. It's expensive to get FDA approval on a vaccine update. Furthermore, the pharmaceutical corps have millions of dollars invested in stocked vaccines and rooting compounds. So much easier for the FDA and big pharm to claim it's because of loss of herd immunity, when in fact it is because they are using extremely dated and ineffective vaccines.
The immune system can be pretty accurately thought of as being a bored two-year-old, though we've only particularly lately realized that a germ-free environment would actually be pretty horrible.
Interesting choice of words, because if you actually have a two-year-old your immune system is likely very busy!
You can let the product sell itself. It's convenient not to get sick.
It's not a placebo - it does something to your immune system. You will notice it.
They're not really that safe, actually - but it's fine to use them if you want. You're probably going to be just fine. But they're pretty nasty.
Things are fast-tracked. Corners are cut. Trillions of dollars are involved. Governments and pharma hand-in-hand. Societal pressure like you've never seen. Guilt. Fear of losing kids.
From the other person's perspective, it sucks. You know that Linux is better, but these Windows people keep telling you this, or you realize how elegant a hackintosh is but the Apple people frown on you and the FOSS people think you're strange.
It's a strange place to be in, really, but vaccines are nasty, and they are more or less unnecessary.
But take them if you want them, that's cool. Let the product sell itself. That's the best way to do it. If it's so good (and really, they're not THAT bad... for most folks, anyway.) . But safe, no... not at all. Vaccines can kill you. Or your kid. And they do... all the time.
It should definitely be a choice. But do it if you want to. You'll probably be just fine, and it's convenient - you could potentially avoid some down time.
The anger, the guilt, the fear, the trillions of dollars, the fast-tracking (notice how I'm not even concerned about autism), poor safety record, deaths, permanent disabilities, pain and suffering, etc... it should definitely be a choice (actually, it is, at least for now).
The anti-vaccination perspective is not far from the Linux vs other perspective. Once you get comfortable (kind of) realizing how fragile life is, you realize how much of an insult to your health and well being pumping yourself full of that crap is. But you'll get over it just fine if you're healthy.
Think Linux. And realize that life is short. And make up your own mind. It's important to remain positive, and not intentionally cause distress to others who have very valid reasons to have a viewpoint other than you. There are two valid points of view, and many folks can do vaccines and be just fine. Yes, they are quite nasty, but they serve their purpose and they have their place. So does love.
What's really scary is that its not remotely true, but that didn't stop PopeRatzo from sensationalizing. From that single tweet, it seems to me that Gary Johnson isn't anti-vax. He is anti-"require people by law to get vaccinated"...otherwise known as a supporter of the status quo.
http://reason.com/blog/2016/08/25/gary-johnson-changes-his-mind-on-mandato
Actually, looking it up my memory is correct. Immunity from actually having chickenpox is acknowledged to last much longer than from the vaccine, and will be lifelong in most cases, particularly if you are occasionally re-exposed to chickenpox (for example, by being around a child that has it). The duration for the vaccine is thought to be about 20 years.
A quick check confirms that the Varicella vaccine is a live, weak virus one
I'm pretty sure I could get the study proposal through the ethics board, there's nothing unethical here and it's an important enough question. I just doubt anybody will consent to being deliberately given a virus that inserts itself into their genome, just to see if their immune system still will recognize the virus and produce antibodies to it.
Based on the two quotes above, I'd say they were already given a virus that inserts itself into their genome albeit a weakened one. It would be their parents who consented (without really being informed). As for the thus far unasked question, can the vaccine strain cause shingles later in life and how does the risk differ from the wild strain, we have no way of knowing yet.
As for the flu, yes it probably would be more effective for people around the most vulnerable to get the shot. I think that so far, a more generalized flu vaccine has eluded us, thus the annual shots.
If you believe in herd immunity... how about getting together with your herd and inhaling some inert gas. You will all be protected from it because you are in a herd. F'ing morons.
"The Americas" includes Mexico.
Even 'North America' includes Mexico.
So after a generation a simple infection will travel like wildfire and wipe us out.
There IS still an issue if your child is immunized AND vaccines are effective.
1) Vaccines are rarely 100% effective. So something like 5% of people vaccinated can still get sick. Furthermore, in the case of measles, which is highly contagious, >~5% vulnerability in the population to measles is enough to support an epidemic. ~5% vulnerability means that measles doesn't get the chance to spread and is incapable of becoming epidemic.
2) It's an issue for ME anyway, if people who are immunocompromised and can't take the vaccine, or are just sick, get sick because of vaccine non-compliers weakening herd immunity. For example, I don't some poor kid on chemotherapy with degraded immunity to die because someone else couldn't be bothered to get the measles shot.
I don't get vaccinated just for myself. I also get vaccinated FOR EVERYONE ELSE, and especially for the most vulnerable.
As for the rest of your comment, it is so incoherent that it's hard to decipher what you mean. Yes, vaccines fade in how well they provide immunity with time. That is why I get booster shots periodically--as should everyone. That said, the subclinical cases you mention are often also not very contagious.
--PM
a) not hundreds of thousands
b) they are screened
c) they are vaccinated if not already
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
no youre racist for not acknowledging that net immigration has been 0 across the mexican border for 3 years running now, and for not acknowledging that the majority of undocumented immigrants enter the country via its airports and then overstaying their visa.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
again: libertarian stupidity at its finest
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
I saw range listed as debated on the vaccine with no range but 'probably lifelong but weaker,' and I'd be rather less skeptical of the '20 years' number if there was a push to get people to get boosters--which can extend the length and strength of protection--as adults, since you can catch Varicella as an adult, and it's both significantly worse, enough to send somebody to a hospital, and significantly different. (It just happened to be rare, originally, because it required you pull off the astonishing feat of not catching Varicella until an adult.)
However, I'm not precisely surprised, though I'd actually wonder if the lifelong was really a thing even with the wildtype--or if you just got regular re-ups because kids around you got you infected before your immune system decided it no longer needed to store that 'virus definition.' That immunity is not necessarily lifelong (and can be merely effectively so) is actually relatively recent as discoveries go, and the time spans dealt with are long enough that the potential importance and implications are not always even realized to be an issue needing considering.
As for the retrovirus rewriting your DNA thing, I'd not expect much chance of getting informed consent from people if you told them the complete truth no matter how harmless. A lot of people find the very idea of 'rewriting your DNA' super-scary and unnatural, and good damn luck getting them to pause in their panic long enough to listen to the minor fact that not only is it very natural, but some rather beneficial genes got into the human genome because a 'smart' retrovirus basically decided that it was going to be more successful if it improved its hosts' survival... Honestly, I suspect people would flip out if some mutant strain of some minor retrovirus ended up giving you a rather mild infection as it inserted itself into your genome and cured obesity. After all, it's still scaryscary retrovirus, it must turn you into a (skinny) zombie-vampire-werewolf! Even if it's too damn tiny to do more than accidentally cause a beneficial gene tweak and even that's a surprise.
Vaccinations are not perfectly effective, and some people can't be vaccinated. Losing herd immunity hits those people very hard.
Which outbreaks are you talking about, that were among vaccinated people? The ones I've seen involved a significant number of people who weren't vaccinated.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Understood that the range is still not proven. I do note that the original single injection schedule was updated to 15 months then at 6 years. Nobody has yet gone 20 years between boosters since it hasn't been approved that long. We'll find out in a few years I guess.
We seem to be putting out a lot of effort and people's money for a fairly small benefit (if, indeed there is any in final analysis).
Just another data point, we have seen breakthrough cases of chicken pox in otherwise healthy vaccine recipients, but I'm not aware of any in those immunized by having the disease, even with it's reduced prevalence.
And with current air travel availability, we're no longer measles-free anymore. That was fast.
Beware of Sales Reps bearing gifts.
A good and reasonable question! For which the answer is a complex one. First, there are the people who can't get a vaccination, due to higher risk, but did not do so by choice, so much as vulnerability or exposure. Then there are the people whose immune reaction is not quite robust. They may have been inoculated, but received minimal benefit to it. Thus it is possible that they would be more at risk if the disease was in wide exposure.
That is just as bad. vaccination is a herd immunity thing, if you want to be part of the herd (society) then it needs to be a requirement for vaccination. There is always a legitimate percentage of the population that cannot be vaccinated due to health reasons and hence for vaccination to be effective everyone else that CAN be vaccinated should be. If you want choice then go live in a 3rd world country or buy your own island.
You're thinking the point of the research is to know more about chicken pox, aren't you?
Autoimmune diseases are pretty much the leading cause of death and disability in the US right now, so any basic research that might produce a better knowledge of how the immune system 'forgets' has the potential of producing some very significant benefits--the holy grail here probably is a way to basically edit the immune system's memory banks so we can remove 'bad' definitions. Any lead here is worth checking, even if you end up discovering that actually all of these 'otherwise healthy vaccine recipients' actually are cases of vaccine failure that had gotten hidden by herd immunity.
That last is still something we kind of need to know about, because wrong estimates of effectiveness and failure rates have implications, and past investigations into these sorts of things have caused changes to procedures. It might end up being just yet another round of reminders going out that if the vaccine is supposed to be stored in a fridge that means, amazingly enough, it needs to be stored in a fridge. It's been a bit over a decade since the last one for clinics that take care of humans, so we may be due. (I didn't study immunology specifically. I am in the biomedical field, and aiming to work in health care.)
Since you may need it: CDC doesn't reccomend that health care workers get a booster, so it looks like the current evidence may be that the 'otherwise healthy vaccine recipients' of your data point are currently suspected of being cases of vaccine failure. The effectiveness of two doses of this vaccine is listed as 90%, which is pretty respectable but does mean not everybody's going to actually come out with long-term immunity. (In fact, it means about one in ten people will get anything from a brief period of resistance to none whatsoever.)
But I'm afraid that the answer wasn't filtered through faith. It was merely filtered through self interest masquerading as faith.
So your right to force disease on others trumps their right to not be diseased by you. You must be a crazy liberal, against personal responsibility and all that.
Learn to love Alaska
But I'm afraid that the answer wasn't filtered through faith. It was merely filtered through self interest masquerading as faith.
All faith is self-interest. If someone displays signs of faith without it, it's insanity.
I'm not talking about research, I'm talking about public health and mandatory for school vaccinations. Surely you're not claiming that children are being involved in a secret research project starting at 15 months of age?!?
Considering that the vaccine hasn't been available for 20 years yet, there aren't a lot of health care workers whose immunity derives from the vaccine yet unless you count candy stripers and even there, it's not 100% of them since the vaccine wasn't mandatory when it came out.
I agree that learning how the immune system forgets would be extremely valuable, but that isn't anywhere near on-topic here and certainly doesn't count as a justification for the Varicella vaccine for school children.
It may be that data derived from tracking vaccine performance would be helpful, but the value is likely limited WRT autoimmune since in the latter, the immune system will be constantly stimulated.
The data point on breakthrough cases is more an observation that having chicken pox is 100% effective at immunization (with the exception of immune compromise where vaccines don't work either).
What about those that can't get immunized? What if I'm in the 5% or so who are susceptible, even after the vaccine?
Learn to love Alaska
No one said she doesn't support vaccination. But many say she panders to the anti-vax crowd since that's a big part of her base. Did you read the Salon article linked in the previous post? It goes into all of this in detail. It's entirely possible the FDA is indirectly contributing to anti-vaxer problem, but it's pretty much a given Jill Stein is doing so.
Sort of like how Trump panders to evangelicals even though he hasn't seen the inside of a church in decades (outside of his multiple weddings), or Clinton panders to the middle class even though she has no real interest in reigning in Wall Street.
Should that be a deal breaker for voting for her? I wouldn't think so, I think her policies towards vaccinations and the FDA would be reasonable. (if anything the deal breaker is that she's going to get 0.5% of the vote and isn't even *on* the ballots in 1/3 of the states...) But we need to call out all politicians for their pandering, and this is Stein's big example.
So her saying she believes firmly in the good vaccines have done, her personal recommendation for vaccination, thge fact that she giuvbes vaccinations, and her decrying that the FDA has so soiled it's reputation that even when it's right the anti-vaxxers won't believe it, she is pandering to the anti-vaxxers?
What would it take to NOT be pandering to the anti-vaxers by those standards, a superhero costume, a pneumatic injector in both hands and a picture of a syringe on her chest?
These are valid points, but it seems like so many that are concerned by the anti-vaxxers are thinking of themselves and not those that can't take vaccines. I just wish our government or vaccine makers would take it seriously that there are those that would go for the M M & R vaccines if they were back to being individual shots. I can't speak for everyone skipping the MMR, but of the families that I know personally, they would accept the vaccines individually.
I know of none of those people. I know plenty who claim things like that, but when accommodated, they change their objections, not remove them. Using the objection de jour doesn't mean they believe it, or that it's the only objection. Some of the MMR are available separately, some aren't. The anti-vax hit hard back when there were more options for separate vaccinations. So that was never a consideration. But these days, the proven safety of the MMR, the makers of the individual vaccines have stopped, so options are more limited. Seems that the anti-vaxers have changed their complaints to something else they hope is impossible, so they can keep complaining while exposing their children and others to risk.
Learn to love Alaska
Were incorrect. The issue was when they asked parents to provide proof of immunizations. Most could not.
However, most are also in school systems where kids cannot attend unless they had been immunized or a special religious exception voucher was submitted. Of which, without, essentially means most of those kids were vaccinated. Few parents can actually find all the vaccination records of their kids.