"That's how you deal with vaccine deniers" Topic

Let's address the topic that seems to be your biggest itch, the immigrants. As already said, many countries, not all have good immunization programs, which actually contributes to REDUCE the odds of diseases coming in. It would not be unwise to take special attention to those from countries that are or have been in social upheaval for whatever reason as most medical support would have broken down and immunization would be compromised.

Oddly enough it may well be good ole US germs that are at least partially the cause of disease rather than evil foreign ones. As you may know viruses come in different strains, often tied to specific parts of the world. People who grow up in certain areas are more resistant to the local variants, but would have no protection against other strains.

Most vaccines are cocktails of multiple strains as cases of diseases crossing over have been recorded on several occasions, so a properly immunized population should have far fewer problems than one where concerned mommies are so terrified that their precious snowflake will catch autism they open the door to far nastier things like death and a lifetime of either sad regret or wilful denial …

So anything that increases vaccination of everyone including those who have entered the population (be it legal or not) is to be promoted because it's in the common interest of society.

You do know that the total number of measles cases since 2010 is under 1500.

Yes you correct and thanks for making the point for immunization so eloquently.

Let's take Rubella, which may be the measles you are talking about (edit: turns out your link is for the more innocous form of measles). Before the MMR vaccine (1969) there were 12,5 million cases of Rubella in the US and 20, 000 infected newborns (1965). Now there is significantly less, as you described. There has been massive influx of immigrants over this 52 year period since the rubella epidemic of '64-65. The massive drop in cases is a testament to the efficacy of the MMR vaccine and the efforts of pro-vaxxers.

A few points to ponder:

50% of cases are subclinical. That means you are infectious without knowing you are sick. The other half are infectious before they know they are sick.

70% of women that contract rubella develop arthralgia and arthritis.

It was the Congenital Rubella Syndrome that was the scary part in the 60's when I was a kid. Remember the "Rubella Umbrella" ads of the time? Read up on CRS.

All info from those dispensers of propaganda and "false news", the CDC:

link

"Saving Lives, Protecting People". Gosh, have they no shame?

In Canada, the epidemics were less severe than what occurred in the US but the trends are the same. Once the MMR vaccine showed up the Rubella cases plummeted. No way any intelligent person can't see the benefits.

link

All most Facts
2 million children 1 infection 2,000 dead 5,000 with permanent damage mild to severe.
2 million children 1 vaccine 10 dead 100 with permanent damage mild to severe.

I have been waiting for a new drug for over three years it is still being trialled maybe available in 4 years so from discovery to market as with all new drugs 9 to 12 years.

One of the drugs I have to take increases the risk of cancer test sample 12,000 with, 13,000 placebo the with group 3 cases of cancer more than the placebo group. And yet they still made the drug available.

A lot of posts are like the WW1 General who said that the troops should stop wearing helmets as since they started to wear helmets head wounds had gone up by 200%/500% reason before the helmets they would of been dead.

2 million children 1 infection 2,000 dead 5,000 with permanent damage mild to severe.
2 million children 1 vaccine 10 dead 100 with permanent damage mild to severe.

Two things, first we have no idea what these numbers include and second they show a reduction in the effects of disease post vaccine. As has been said before not all people react positively to vaccines or a combination of external factors may cause problems, a person on chemotherapy, even with prior vaccination will not have protection.

There are many misunderstandings about vaccines and drugs

3 cases out of 25000 probably isn't enough to distinguish it from statistical variance. If the test was repeated with several different groups we might see the number shift slightly. I'd be more concerned if there was a difference of a hundred or more. And if anything the actual risk increase, if any is quite tiny.

When drugs and vaccines are tested, every single occurrence during testing is recorded, if during a vaccine test somebody breaks a leg, that is noted in the research. If the person happens to have been thrown from a horse, it's unlikely it was linked to the vaccine, if the person had a dizzy spell and fell, breaking a leg, one would look for all instances of dizziness. Even if the number is low such as the cancer risk, if you will allow me to borrow the numbers, they still will include it with possible side-effects, should future information reveal more. See that's one of those post Thaliomide systems that were implemented to make research more thorough.

Such thoroughness helps if in the future a drug turns out to have unforeseen effects. The classic "symptoms may include" effectively lists all side-effects noted during trials, but there is no reason at all to believe they are all symptoms that are guaranteed to happen, this is not a scare list, don't expect to get all the symptoms, or even more than one. Symptoms and side effects may be caused by the drug or may be caused by the medical particularities of certain people involved in the trial.

Of course some people have been using these lists to scare people into not taking some drugs (guess what they usually offer as an alternative ?)

And then there is the vaccination compensation fund. A very
misunderstood system. Before it was established, anyone who was vaccinated and had a medical issue shortly afterwards could take a lawyer and sue the company for damages. This meant that vaccine production and research was being put on hold because companies had to spend too much time in court defending themselves. So in order to make sure that public health would not be endangered because somebody wouldn't accept that the polio vaccine couldn't cause their horse to buck and throw them and break their leg and insisted on going through years of legal proceedings, the compensation fund was established to handle all vaccine damage claims instead of the companies.

Of course you can't whistle Dixie without at least somebody figuring there must be some dark conspiracy at play and so the Fund has become the posterboy of the dark dealings of Big Pharma, paying off people in return for their silence. First of all the companies must contribute to this fund (it still beats being sued for a bazillion dollars) and if something does show up, the victims are compensated, but then people will have some explaining to do with the CDC and rectify the situation.

So far it only compensated some 3000-odd cases, though the detractors love to talk about the many billions that have been paid out because many billions makes it look much more scandalous and conspiratorial (and I'm sure Mithmee will soon chime in to point out it's not 3000-odd cases and therefore my argument is invalid …)

You're joking right?

No

the risk will increase, the main victims will be found among the unvaccinated and those who have no protection against certain diseases.

The amount of risk is quite small less than 1% and I mean really less than 1%.

But you like the government is trying to state that if a small number of individuals do not get their shots the risk is so great that there will be wide spread epidemics.

Well that is not the case but "Shock Tactics" work since the majority of individuals don't have a clue.

Now I remember about the issue of German Measles back than since everyone in the school had to get the shot for them.

No choice just do what your told.

Now I have gotten all of my shots and so did my daughters.

I points are that I do believe that individuals should decide for themselves and not be forced by others or the government to do something that they don't want.

The government knows that if these individuals don't get their children vaccinated there would be little risks.

But the government wants everyone to do what it tells them and that is what the government hates when they fight back.

Since governments really does not want anyone to have freedoms to do what they want and only wants individuals to do what they tell them to do.

I'm sure Mithmee will soon chime in to point out it's not 3000-odd cases and therefore my argument is invalid.

Actually, really don't care, since I am for allowing individuals the rights to make choices.

The government and many here aren't for that.

"I points are that I do believe that individuals should decide for themselves and not be forced by others or the government to do something that they don't want."

You want to be part of the same society as us than you will have to do some things whether you like that or not as the cost to being part of society with us. You do not want to be part of the same society as us, then we both create our own countries and you do your thing and we do our own. Nice borders backed by armies will make sure we do not interfere with each other.

The amount of risk is quite small less than 1% and I mean really less than 1%.

To know that and state it with such authority, you have to know which disease we are dealing with, and it's epidemiological factors, such a vaccine efficacy, etc. I explained this in yesterday's post. Otherwise your number of 1% is meaningless.

The government knows that if these individuals don't get their children vaccinated there would be little risks.

Again, what is little? It's 5% or more for Rubella, I believe, to threaten proper protection for the community. Does that ever happen?

Actually, really don't care, since I am for allowing individuals the rights to make choices.

I personally want to store plutonium next to your house and drive on the wrong side of the road. Any issues with my "reductio ad absurdum" examples?

Otherwise your number of 1% is meaningless.

Not really since I understand numbers and that is what we are dealing with.

1% of the current world population is around 75 million.

The thing is you are talking about diseases that can be controlled.

The real worry is not from these diseases since they can be controlled.

Nope you should worry about another event like the "Spanish Flu" hitting since that cannot be controlled.

Oh you would say get your flu shots but those are hit and miss and really have not been all the effective.

link

Plus here is the kicker you can get the flu shot and still end up with the flu killing you.

link

The thing is don't get sick. I have coworkers that end up sick every year while I never get sick.

That sucks since they get extra days off of work and I don't.

'Oh and the 1918-1920 Spanish Flu had it beginnings in World War I trenches. '

No, it started in Kansas.

link

Though there are other possibilities. The war just helped it spread.

Personal interest: It took out my Great Grandfather in 1919. He was serving in the army – in India!

Not really since I understand numbers and that is what we are dealing with.

1% of the current world population is around 75 million.

The number I'm talking about is the immunization threshold level. It is the % of the populace that needs to be immunized in order to protect the community. It changes for each disease and depends on a variety of other factors. For rubella that is about 95%. In other words, if more than 5% of the populace is not immunized, the disease is protected by the carriers. So once again:

link

I have no idea what your number of 1% means. Simply telling me that 1% of the world population is 75 million doesn't imbue it with any significance or meaning in the context of immunization. I'm willing to be shown otherwise.

Oh you would say get your flu shots but those are hit and miss and really have not been all the effective.

Really? Why? Because you read that the efficacy of the flu shot ranges from 40-55%? You know you are comparing apples and oranges with comparing influenza and mumps and measles, rIght?

Influenza mutates many times in a single season. The flu shot consists of antigens of all the most recently collected flu samples. Therefore, it will never protect you against the next mutation coming down the pipeline in any given season. You will never get anywhere near 100% protection.

Now take mumps, which you normally only get once in a lifetime. That is because the virus has an extremely low mutation rate. So the MMR vaccine in childhood usually gives you a lifetime of protection.

Apples and oranges. The CDC figures are actually excellent given the challenges in protecting the public from influenza.

Plus here is the kicker…….

See above. It's not a kicker to those who know the challenges of influenza immunization.

But your other point is well taken. Influenza is always a problem and epidemiologists think we are over due for another pandemic. That's why the CDC reacts so every time a new bird flu or swine flu comes out of SE Asia. I think historical forensic pathologists agree that influenza may have killed more humans than anything else throughout history. Also, that it may have started from the domestication of pigs, about 10,000 years ago. Besides it's rapid mutation rate, influenza is infectious across various species.

No, it started in Kansas.

I'm not sure your link states that.

It seems that historical and epidemiological studies cannot locate the source. The great Spanish Flu Pandemic actually came in 3 waves. It's not sure if the successive, more lethal waves were related to the first. It is assumed that they were variants of the modern H1N1 and H3N2 virus.

link

I'm not sure your link states that

Actually it does but that is a Wiki page and while it can give a good background it just might not be right.

This source says China but it really did not turn really deadly unto it got to the Soldiers in the Trenches in World War I and than they went home.

link

Oh and many of those soldiers were professionals and they took it to other places as well.

Which is why things like the Norovirus Outbreaks bring major concerns.

OK, Mithmee….

How's THIS…

My sister teaches 3rd grade at a local elementary school. The school has roughly 200 students. A couple of years ago, a new family enrolled their 2 kids in the school. The family was adamant (and public) about their anti-vaxx stance and had not gotten their kids vaccinated. Well, what's the problem, you'd say. It's only 1% of the total population. And it's THEIR RIGHT to do so. Well, one of their little darlings developed measles. Which, since measles is one of the more virulent viruses out there, spread to a goodly number of the rest of the students. Most shook it off (they had been vaccinated). But one little 8 year old girl in my sister's class was not so lucky. She was in the middle of chemotherapy for leukemia and highly immunosuppressed. The result was a vicious, short sickness that ended in her death. Thanks to your precious anti-vaxxers. (And, yes, the epidemiologists were able to ID the first vector).

In my mind, anti-vaxxers are no less than a major threat to public health. And deserve absolutely NO consideration. They have ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT to put MY health and the health of others at risk because of some wacko belief in quack science.

The government and many here aren't for that.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry or both at that kind of looney tune conspiracy BS….

Actually it does…..

It actually states that this is the hypothesis of Alfred Crosby. The Kansas outbreak was the first confirmed case of a new virus in 1918. However, the flu was already reported in 1917 in Northern China. Of course, in China there were no virologists and epidemiologists available to confirm this. I think it is impossible to determine thie actual source as there were no stored samples of any of the isolated visions from this time. A guess is that it is a precursor of today's H1N1 and the H3N2. But I have no idea how that is done.

True, but what the War did was put a lot of individuals from around the world into one place and then when the War ended they travel everywhere.

Thus, spreading it around the world and to areas where certain groups had no natural immunity (I.E. been exposed).

Humans are capable to adapting to many things though sometimes that means millions dying before that happens.

Back in 2005 I picked up a very bad case of Cellulitis in my lower right leg. It got treated but it is still there just waiting.

In my mind, anti-vaxxers are no less than a major threat to public health. And deserve absolutely NO consideration. They have ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT to put MY health and the health of others at risk because of some wacko belief in quack science.

Thing is it is their choice not yours.

Or do you believe in using force in order to get your way in holding them down and giving them shots?

Yes, just as it's their choice to fire blindly into a crowd of children with automatic weapons. Oh wait that's iligal.

True, but what the War did was put a lot of individuals from around the world into one place and then when the War ended they travel everywhere.

Yes close proximity is how the flu spreads. Similar to how cold and flu season is in the winter. People used to think they "caught a cold". Temperature has nothing to do with that. In winter we spend most days indoors with windows tightly shut and spend more time in close proximity with each other.

Thing is it is their choice not yours.

That's a dumb argument. We live in a community of others, not just by ourselves. There are hundreds and hundreds of strictures on our personal freedoms that exist so that society can function efficiently and safely. Charlie 12 gives a good example of such a case above. As for my choice, curtailing my choice to drink and drive down the wrong side of the road is just one of those pesky strictures and limitations I have to suffer with. You can even think of a few I bet.

Yes, just as it's their choice to fire blindly into a crowd of children with automatic weapons. Oh wait that's illegal.

Yes it is but not getting vaccinated isn't.

That's a dumb argument. We live in a community of others, not just by ourselves.

So I take that if you could you would use force in order to vaccinate them.

There are hundreds and hundreds of strictures on our personal freedoms that exist so that society can function efficiently and safely.

Yes I know and the Government is behind most of them.

Funny that while you think you are living in a society that actually functions efficiently, it really not that efficient or in many cases even safe.

And to hammer the point home

link

So I take that if you could you would use force in order to vaccinate them.

Wow, is that really your response? The OP is about Australia (who like Canada has universal health care) withholding some government payments if they do not wish to have vaccinations. And it seems to work. No one is talking about rounding up the anti-vaxxers, putting them in cattle cars, and shipping them off to FEMA death camps.

By the way, this type of financial billing based on behavior also exists in the States. Many insurance companies charge higher premiums to smokers, heavy drinkers and recreational drug users. All this behavior may be legal, and is the person's personal choice, but it comes at an additional cost. Anti-vaxx should be treated as detriment to public health, which it is.

Yes I know and the Government is behind most of them.

I would guess that's the Governments job. One of their jobs is to keep us safe.

Funny that while you think you are living in a society that actually functions efficiently, it really not that efficient or in many cases even safe.

But it would be less efficient if there were no rules and laws. I said that government places restrictions of personal freedoms in order to be more efficient and safe. That's different from what you wrote, if I can be pedantic.

Wow, is that really your response? The OP is about Australia (who like Canada has universal health care) withholding some government payments if they do not wish to have vaccinations. And it seems to work.

Force comes in many forms and the Government is doing would be called Extortion, but they are the Government so it is okay for them to do this.

And, as always, we get the obligatory "THEY (the guvmit or whoever) is out to get us all!" response. As I said earlier, I don't know whether to laugh or cry or both at that kind of looney tune conspiracy BS…

Force comes in many forms and the Government is doing would be called Extortion

OK, you and I are buying life insurance. Pretend you are a non-smoker and I'm a smoker. The Insurance company charges me higher premiums for the same coverage. Are they extorting me?

Yes, as freedom (in some parts of a certain country) means I can do whatever I want without any consequences.

Are they extorting me?

Sorry your choice since you are getting Life Insurance, which by the way is really "Death Insurance".

So no they are not extorting you since you can go to a different Insurance company.

@Gunfreak: "Yes, as freedom (in some parts of a certain country) means I can do whatever I want without any consequences."

Lol. I think you're confusing freedom with free-dom.

Dan

"Or do you believe in using force in order to get your way in holding them down and giving them shots?"

No, give them their own country. Where they are a majority, the minority will have to choose if staying in the community is worth the risk. And where we are a majority and they are the minority, they will have to choose if staying the community is wroth their freedom.

Simple things. People have the right to leave communities whose rules they do not like. Communities have the right to tell people you have to do this if you want to be part of it.

So no they are not extorting you since you can go to a different Insurance company.

Yes you can go to other companies. They will also charge higher premiums for smokers.