Vaccines: how do I talk to my anti-vac wife about it?

[truethat]

The fact that the epidemic was not as bad as they thought does not mean that the vaccine was useless... so it only saved hundreds of lives instead of thousands. Ummm... that makes no sense. Amoxicillian is an antibiotic that has to be subscribed by a doctor. The only way they should be taking it is if they were actually ill, and saw a doctor. You're not supposed to take it as a preventative measure.

Yes but it seems that because kids are on amoxicillin that as soon as the kid gets sick the parent dashes off to the DR who is more than happy to prescribe it. And it creates a vicious cycle since the kids are not actually ever fighting off the illness themself, they are constantly relying on the antibiotic which in turn etc etc etc.

But that's a whole nuther conversation. Many doctors over prescribe it IMHO just to get the sick crying kid and the nervous mother out of the office.


Of course the vaccine wasn't useless. The question for me is, is it worth the unknown risk. Telling us that we don't know of any risk is not the same thing as there not being any risk. And the risks that are known, however small are scary to parents with small kids. That's pretty much it, in a nutshell.

 

[NewtonTrino]

A friend of mine had his marriage break up over this and other similar issues. Good luck.

 

[Drachasor]

No people prefer their personal reality over statistics. Even statistics are based on a segment of the population.

I have three sons, except for the few colds my oldest has had, none of them has ever been sick.

I don't really understand your point. Your kids haven't really ever been sick -- LUCKY YOU -- so why would you have ever given them antibiotics? I can certainly understand not giving antibiotics for a cold or the flu, since those are VIRAL. Antibiotics wouldn't do anything.

Are you saying that if they got a nasty bacterial infection you wouldn't let the doctors administer antibiotics?

As for not giving them vaccines. That frankly IS insane. It makes them much more vulnerable to diseases. Maybe they'll get lucky and never get sick, but you can't count on luck. You can't count on their current luck continuing either. What you are doing is basing their medical plan on the fact they've been fortunate so far, which is silly. The swine flu could have been a big problem. It could still become a big problem in the future. The vaccine you gave them did no harm and still might be helpful. What's wrong with some precautions?

What you are saying is similar to arguing that they don't need bike helmets since they've never got in an accident while riding. It's that ridiculous.

I don't see how you expect to convince you wife of anything if you half-believe the silly stuff she does. How can you convince her she's wrong if you don't really believe it yourself? Thought this was the OP.

There are zero "unknown" risks with vaccines. That's just fear-mongering. All you are doing is administering a very weak virus (or something roughly to the same effect) to let the body do its thing and learn how to fight it. To argue in favor of the body's natural defenses and argue against vaccines is hypocritical.

 

[truethat]

But the swine flu WASN'T a big problem and we don't know the kind of side effects that viruses have until we have studied their use for years, no?

So why would you insist that someone who is not likely to contract a virus and is in good general health inject the virus into their body?

Or am I terribly mistaken? I've always thought that the vaccine IS the virus just a milder version (in laymans terms)

What looks insane to me is to take a virus you are not likely to contract and inject it into your body to build up your immune system "just in case" you catch it.

That seems very stupid in my opinion.


Would you inject a milder version of HIV into your system to help you create what's needed to fight the infection? Let's put it that way? If you are not likely to contract the virus only an idiot would do that IMO.

Of course I'm sure I'm misunderstood so I'm happily sitting here waiting for someone to make it make sense. I'd love to have this explained more fully to me. Because honestly it doesn't make any sense why you would get angry at someone for not doing what you choose for your body.


Also please keep in mind that I do think that if I were in a situation that would make it likely to contract the virus I would definitely take the vaccine. (also as I pointed out, my kids have had regular immunizations) However what is the likelihood that my kids will contract the swine flu, and on top of that what is the likelihood that it will be very serious for them to recover? Compare that to the potential problems that include "dumb people giving the injections who screw up for some reason" and to me the second threat is more real and serious than the first.


Especially because your body is designed to defend itself against infection.


And

exhibit A

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/SwineFluNews/school-staffers-insulin-swine-flu-shot/story?id=9606504

Such errors have happened before. This past fall, a number of people in the neighboring town of Needham received a seasonal flu vaccine in place of the H1N1 vaccines they were supposed to receive. And in 2007, a teacher in the nearby town of Attleboro also received an injection of insulin instead of the intended flu shot.

 

[Giordano]

Yes but it seems that because kids are on amoxicillin that as soon as the kid gets sick the parent dashes off to the DR who is more than happy to prescribe it. And it creates a vicious cycle since the kids are not actually ever fighting off the illness themself, they are constantly relying on the antibiotic which in turn etc etc etc.

But that's a whole nuther conversation. Many doctors over prescribe it IMHO just to get the sick crying kid and the nervous mother out of the office.


Of course the vaccine wasn't useless. The question for me is, is it worth the unknown risk. Telling us that we don't know of any risk is not the same thing as there not being any risk. And the risks that are known, however small are scary to parents with small kids. That's pretty much it, in a nutshell.

This calculation only works if there is no risk to NOT vaccinating. Unfortunately that is not the case. Any vaccine in use today has been shown to have a benefit substantially greater than its risk. The risk of the diseases are well known and documented. The risk of the vaccines are well known and documented. Vaccines are not approved unless the one greatly exceeds the other.

To a large extent many people alive today do not remember just how dangerous many of the "childhood" diseases really are. Not just the big killers, like whooping cough, diptheria, polio, and tetanus, but also measles, mumps, and chicken pox damaged a substantial fraction of those who caught these diseases. For the many who had mumps, chicken pox, and measles, and recovered fully (as did I)- consider yourself lucky. But there were/are the unlucky ones too, whose lives were changed for the worse by these diseases.

I would suggest to both truethat, and to jamesbuhls's wife, that the "natural" process of having the child fight off these diseases is exactly the same way the vaccines work. Vaccines work through the same mechanism. The only difference is that I'd rather have my child exposed to a highly tested, purified and non-infectious vaccine, than to a random attack by a dangerous pathogen of unknown genetic origin and virulence.

 

[Drachasor]

But the swine flu WASN'T a big problem and we don't know the kind of side effects that viruses have until we have studied their use for years, no?

Or am I terribly mistaken? I've always thought that the vaccine IS the virus just a milder version (in laymans terms)

Some are, some aren't. But the virus is so incredibly weak the times it is that the immune system should have zero problem handling it. It might be a concern if the patient as a severely weakened immune system. There's a reason why vaccines are incredibly safe. If there was a remotely significant chance of danger they wouldn't be approved and doctors wouldn't recommend it.

What looks insane to me is to take a virus you are not likely to contract and inject it into your body to build up your immune system "just in case" you catch it.

There's no reason to waste money on something you aren't going to get. Something like Swine Flu wasn't like that. There was a good possibility they could have been exposed based on the information available. There was no good reason not to get the vaccine for your kids. Just because it ended up that it wasn't as dangerous as thought doesn't mean it wasn't a sensible precaution at the time.

Would you inject HIV into your system to help you create what's needed to fight the infection? Let's put it that way? If you are not likely to contract the virus only an idiot would do that IMO.

Full-fledged HIV? No, that's insane. Just like it would be insane to infect yourself with any disease. Vaccines are at worst a virus crippled so as to be essentially harmless (the worst reaction is you be minorly sick for a couple days or so).

An HIV vaccine though, if proven effective, that's a great idea. The chances of infection might be small, but with something like HIV, it is better safe than sorry because it really is out there among the population and condoms aren't guaranteed to keep you safe.

You can't like vaccines don't go through extensive safety tests before being released. They are tested thoroughly for both safety and efficacy.

 

[truethat]

I actually edited the HIV part, I thought it was obvious I didn't mean full fledged HIV.


You quoted the first part and then totally ignored it and frankly it's sorta the crux of the argument.

Also you say that "based on the information we had" well then where is the Swine Flu?

I find it odd that you find it completely inconceivable that there was fear mongering going on with the pharmaceutical companies (and no I'm not a anti big pharma person) that created a panic and demand for a vaccine that proved to be pretty much unnecessary.

Why is it that people on the other side never even for a second want to consider a fact. When this was going on, many of us said it felt like a scam to make money. In hind sight it sure as heck looks that way doesn't it? But they'll deny it to the gills.


You know when the Hurricane recently hit NYC many of us here thought Bloomberg was either making up for his shoddy work during the snow storm this past winter, or fear mongering people into going out and buying everything they could get their hands on, which included guzzling gas.

Several of my friends knew it wouldn't make a dent, and it certainly didn't do what we were told it was going to do.

It's not the first time someone in power has done this and it won't be the last. I guess some of us wonder why this has never dawned on the angry vaccination crowd.


Thanks for the information about what vaccines really are, that's an interesting read and takes away some of the stress and uncertainty.

I do wish though, that you'd consider the idea of "why inject something into my body that COULD have something gone wrong" when it is not necessary.

The only thing that made it "necessary" is that the "media" said it was.

 

[Giordano]

But the swine flu WASN'T a big problem and we don't know the kind of side effects that viruses have until we have studied their use for years, no?

So why would you insist that someone who is not likely to contract a virus and is in good general health inject the virus into their body?

Or am I terribly mistaken? I've always thought that the vaccine IS the virus just a milder version (in laymans terms)

What looks insane to me is to take a virus you are not likely to contract and inject it into your body to build up your immune system "just in case" you catch it.

That seems very stupid in my opinion.


Would you inject HIV into your system to help you create what's needed to fight the infection? Let's put it that way? If you are not likely to contract the virus only an idiot would do that IMO.

Of course I'm sure I'm misunderstood so I'm happily sitting here waiting for someone to make it make sense. I'd love to have this explained more fully to me. Because honestly it doesn't make any sense why you would get angry at someone for not doing what you choose for your body.

Vaccines all differ- some have fully killed virus, some have virus attenuated so they cannot cause disease, and some have only subunits and no virus at all. All have been tested for years. Again, putting any or all of these tested and proven vaccines into my body seems a lot better idea than taking the risk of exposing myself to the real thing. Yes, I'd readily inject a vaccine based on the HIV virus into myself to protect against AIDS later, if the vaccine had tested as safe.

Someone in good health is the ideal candidate for a vaccine- its too late once you start to get the disease (except in very rare cases like distal rabid bites).

But truethat- I'll concede that if you somehow have a life style in which you will never be exposed to any of the diseases mentioned here- you will never inhale an influenza virus at a mall, never puncture your hand with an object with tetanus bacteria on it, and never be exposed to meningitis, you should not be vaccinated. Good luck on that!

One last point you may wish to consider- like it or not, as people grow older, they loose their immunity against childhood diseases unless they are boosted by exposure to the disease, or by a vaccine. Don't be too certain that mumps or measles are only in your past, even if you had them as a child, unless you can a booster for these.

 

[truethat]

This calculation only works if there is no risk to NOT vaccinating. Unfortunately that is not the case. Any vaccine in use today has been shown to have a benefit substantially greater than its risk. The risk of the diseases are well known and documented. The risk of the vaccines are well known and documented. Vaccines are not approved unless the one greatly exceeds the other.

To a large extent many people alive today do not remember just how dangerous many of the "childhood" diseases really are. Not just the big killers, like whooping cough, diptheria, polio, and tetanus, but also measles, mumps, and chicken pox damaged a substantial fraction of those who caught these diseases. For the many who had mumps, chicken pox, and measles, and recovered fully (as did I)- consider yourself lucky. But there were/are the unlucky ones too, whose lives were changed for the worse by these diseases.

I would suggest to both truethat, and to jamesbuhls's wife, that the "natural" process of having the child fight off these diseases is exactly the same way the vaccines work. Vaccines work through the same mechanism. The only difference is that I'd rather have my child exposed to a highly tested, purified and non-infectious vaccine, than to a random attack by a dangerous pathogen of unknown genetic origin and virulence.

I can't speak for jamesbuhl's wife, but for me, I love the way vaccine's work. But at the same time, you cannot, absolutely CANNOT promise me that what I inject into my son will not be tainted in any way or will not have life threatening side effects.

You just can't. So even though it's a game of odds, my odd's will be stacked on the likelihood that my child will NOT contract the disease. The older ones have virtually been wiped out. Although I have vaccinated my child, if I hadn't, the likelihood of him contracting this disease is practically nil because of the fact that most people in the US have had the vaccine.

So even if my child doesn't, his likelihood of contracting it is really no higher than someone who does.

I think this is the part that tends to piss off a lot of pro vaccine people. But it boils down to the facts.

If your child is not likely to be exposed to the virus and your child is in good health and lives in a society that mandates and encourages vaccination, honestly his likelihood of contracting the diseases are no higher than someone who HAS had the vaccine.


It's unfair and self centered but it is true is it not?

 

[Giordano]

I actually edited the HIV part, I thought it was obvious I didn't mean full fledged HIV.


You quoted the first part and then totally ignored it and frankly it's sorta the crux of the argument.

Also you say that "based on the information we had" well then where is the Swine Flu?

I find it odd that you find it completely inconceivable that there was fear mongering going on with the pharmaceutical companies (and no I'm not a anti big pharma person) that created a panic and demand for a vaccine that proved to be pretty much unnecessary.

Why is it that people on the other side never even for a second want to consider a fact. When this was going on, many of us said it felt like a scam to make money. In hind sight it sure as heck looks that way doesn't it? But they'll deny it to the gills.


You know when the Hurricane recently hit NYC many of us here thought Bloomberg was either making up for his shoddy work during the snow storm this past winter, or fear mongering people into going out and buying everything they could get their hands on, which included guzzling gas.

Several of my friends knew it wouldn't make a dent, and it certainly didn't do what we were told it was going to do.

It's not the first time someone in power has done this and it won't be the last. I guess some of us wonder why this has never dawned on the angry vaccination crowd.


Thanks for the information about what vaccines really are, that's an interesting read and takes away some of the stress and uncertainty.

I do wish though, that you'd consider the idea of "why inject something into my body that COULD have something gone wrong" when it is not necessary.

The only thing that made it "necessary" is that the "media" said it was.

Yeah, and what about all those people who cried wolf about Hurricane Katrina, or the Black Plague, huh? Oh wait, they were right...

Well, obviously you see conspiracies where I see people trying to take precautions against potentially catastrophic risks. Some individuals get annoyed when, as is often the case, the catastrophic risk fails to materialize. Me, I'm relieved and thankful for those who thought ahead and tried their best to protect others based on a worse case scenario. Different viewpoints, and I do not seek to change yours. Take any risk you want. But my recommendation to others is: get vaccinated!

 

[Drachasor]

exhibit A

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/SwineFluNews/school-staffers-insulin-swine-flu-shot/story?id=9606504

None of those accidents would be harmful, except of course for the lack of getting the needed vaccine. That's hardly an argument against getting a vaccine, and such harmless accidents are also very, very rare.

I actually edited the HIV part, I thought it was obvious I didn't mean full fledged HIV.

You quoted the first part and then totally ignored it and frankly it's sorta the crux of the argument.

I started writing my post before you did that edit. I also took into account you meant a weakened version of the vaccine and addressed that issue.

Also you say that "based on the information we had" well then where is the Swine Flu?

Yes, at the time it was a very smart move. The Swine flu was a potential risk. Again, bike helmet argument. Just because you didn't happen to get in an accident on a particular day doesn't mean it wasn't a good idea to wear your helmet.

I find it odd that you find it completely inconceivable that there was fear mongering going on with the pharmaceutical companies (and no I'm not a anti big pharma person) that created a panic and demand for a vaccine that proved to be pretty much unnecessary.

Medical experts of all stripes made recommendations. I don't recommend you listen to ones working for big pharmaceutical companies, but ones working for the State, Universities, or that are independent? Sure.

Why is it that people on the other side never even for a second want to consider a fact. When this was going on, many of us said it felt like a scam to make money. In hind sight it sure as heck looks that way doesn't it? But they'll deny it to the gills.

Because you are acting like PEOPLE TRYING TO PREDICT THE FUTURE CAN'T BE WRONG. That's crazy. They did the best job they could with the knowledge they had. Do you think it is an umbrella scam if the weatherman says it will rain and it doesn't?

You know when the Hurricane recently hit NYC many of us here thought Bloomberg was either making up for his shoddy work during the snow storm this past winter, or fear mongering people into going out and buying everything they could get their hands on, which included guzzling gas.

Several of my friends knew it wouldn't make a dent, and it certainly didn't do what we were told it was going to do.

It's not the first time someone in power has done this and it won't be the last. I guess some of us wonder why this has never dawned on the angry vaccination crowd.

Major storms have changed directions outside of where we were pretty sure they would go before. It is possible the Hurricane could have hit NYC much harder. Being prepared for the worst IS a good idea.

I do wish though, that you'd consider the idea of "why inject something into my body that COULD have something gone wrong" when it is not necessary.

What exactly are you worried about here? Some vague fear of yours does not a realistic concern make. Again, this is about basic safety like wearing seatbelts or a bike helmet.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Was it last year that you and another poster were predicting dire horrid circumstances based on the "swine flu epidemic" that has mysteriously disappeared?

So who is doing the fear mongering? We were told of drastic life threatening circumstances. Told that by not vaccinating that elderly people and children with illnesses that threatened their immune system would basically be dropping like flies based on our selfishness not to vaccinate.

It didn't happen did it? Or is it being covered up in the news or something?


That sounds like fear mongering as well.


Both sides have gotten pretty creative in making their arguments I would say.

Find the quote and let's see what I actually said. I don't recall saying anything that was incorrect about H1N1.

 

[Giordano]

I can't speak for jamesbuhl's wife, but for me, I love the way vaccine's work. But at the same time, you cannot, absolutely CANNOT promise me that what I inject into my son will not be tainted in any way or will not have life threatening side effects.

You just can't. So even though it's a game of odds, my odd's will be stacked on the likelihood that my child will NOT contract the disease. The older ones have virtually been wiped out. Although I have vaccinated my child, if I hadn't, the likelihood of him contracting this disease is practically nil because of the fact that most people in the US have had the vaccine.

So even if my child doesn't, his likelihood of contracting it is really no higher than someone who does.

I think this is the part that tends to piss off a lot of pro vaccine people. But it boils down to the facts.

If your child is not likely to be exposed to the virus and your child is in good health and lives in a society that mandates and encourages vaccination, honestly his likelihood of contracting the diseases are no higher than someone who HAS had the vaccine.


It's unfair and self centered but it is true is it not?

From CDC, only searching for Pertusis outbreaks. European outbreaks not included:

In 2010, 9,143 cases of pertussis (including ten infant deaths) were reported throughout California. This is the most cases reported in 63 years when 9,394 cases were reported in 1947 and the highest incidence in 52 years when a rate of 26.0 cases/100,000 was reported in 1958. Previously, the peak was in 2005 when there were 3,182 cases reported. In 2011, disease activity is still at relatively increased levels throughout the state. Visit the California Department of Public Health website for the most recent information.
In Michigan, an increase in pertussis was first observed in the second half of 2008, continued throughout 2009, and continued throughout 2010. This is on top of a long term rising trend in the reported number of pertussis cases since about 1990. In 2010 there were 1,564 cases. In 2009 (for the complete year) there were 902 cases reported. In 2008 there were 315 cases reported. Visit the Michigan Department of Community Health website for the most recent information.
In Ohio, Columbus Public Health (CPH) and Franklin County Board of Health (FCBH) responded to an outbreak of pertussis during 2010 and 2011. In 2010, there were 964 cases reported by Columbus and Franklin Counties. This is the most cases reported in 25 years. Through April 9, 2011, 144 cases of pertussis were reported. For the most recent information, visit the Columbus Public Health web site.

I could present similar examples for other diseases we've discussed here. But I am unlikely to change your mind. Honestly, good luck, I know your love your son and you believe you are doing the best for him. But the statistics say that your son, unvaccinated, is taking greater risks than if he was vaccinated. When the actual risk of a disease drops below the risk of the vaccine, as it has for smallpox in the US, and I believe polio, the use of the vaccine is discontinued.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

....
Especially because your body is designed to defend itself against infection.

...

And microorganisms evolved to defeat the immune system. Are you that ignorant about pre-vaccine pre-antibiotic era when human life expectancy was a fraction of what it is today?

 

[truethat]

I'm not necessarily afraid of anything.


But the fact stands. If a person doesn't inoculate their child, they are honestly no more at risk than their peers because the nature of the vaccination has, for all intents and purposes wiped out the disease from likely being spread.


I keep going back to the LIKELIHOOD of you contracting the illness and it's been ignored again and again.


Frankly the fact that you think it's no big deal that someone injected insulin into someone instead of H1N1 vaccine or that it couldn't potentially be life threatening is strange.

It certainly could make someone sick no? Isn't that what the vaccine is attempting to prevent?

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Vaccines are a way to stimulate the bodies natural immune system to be prepared without the risk of the fully fledge disease.
As others have said, our sanitation was as good as it is now when things like smallpox still claimed lives.
The reason not many people get such diseases nowadays is because of vaccination.
Unfortunately for the OP I suspect the only way his wife will be ever convinced of that is if she sees one of her children dying of a disease she could have prevented.
I sincerely hope that does never happen and if she lives in a western country the fact that the vast majority of people there does vaccinate means that the chances of contracting such diseases are small. Once the children are grown up I hope they are smart enough to vaccinate themselves before travelling to different countries.

As for the swine flu thing. Yes, it turned out to be not as bad as we thought. But at least an attempt was made to combat it. I know it gets under reported, but the spanish flu of 1918-1920 killed more people than WW1 in less time. And that was before transatlantic flights. I prefer a thousand false alarms and the wasted resources attached to it over a similar virus wiping out 1/10 or more of humanity in 2 years.
Oh and that all natural virus targeted and killed those with the best immune system first, so everyone who 'never got sick' was among the first to die.

For the record truethat, I don't think you're stupid if you refuse to vaccinate, I think those that hold that line of thought are arrogant, overconfident and irresponsible. Before we knew how to vaccinate (and other medical aid) and relied on our all natural bodies defenses diseases were the major cause of death for humanity. Now they aren't
I'd say a statistical sample of several billion over several thousends of years does have some significance.

 

[truethat]

And microorganisms evolved to defeat the immune system. Are you that ignorant about pre-vaccine pre-antibiotic era when human life expectancy was a fraction of what it is today?

Darlin' for the last time, we don't LIVE in the pre-vaccination era. We live in the NOW.

Most people DO vaccinate their children. And most people WANT to vaccinate their children.

The number of people who do not are pretty much a fraction of the rest of society in the US.


And unfortunately for you (because you get so twisted over this fact) those that do not are actually protected in most cases (Notice I said most) from contracting the diseases because the majority of the people around them ARE VACCINATED.

So at the end of the day it really doesn't matter if they vaccinate or not. Their children are unlikely to catch the disease.


Now can you stop trying to bring up an irrelevant point just because you hate this fact.

 

[truethat]

From CDC, only searching for Pertusis outbreaks. European outbreaks not included:

In 2010, 9,143 cases of pertussis (including ten infant deaths) were reported throughout California. This is the most cases reported in 63 years when 9,394 cases were reported in 1947 and the highest incidence in 52 years when a rate of 26.0 cases/100,000 was reported in 1958. Previously, the peak was in 2005 when there were 3,182 cases reported. In 2011, disease activity is still at relatively increased levels throughout the state. Visit the California Department of Public Health website for the most recent information.
In Michigan, an increase in pertussis was first observed in the second half of 2008, continued throughout 2009, and continued throughout 2010. This is on top of a long term rising trend in the reported number of pertussis cases since about 1990. In 2010 there were 1,564 cases. In 2009 (for the complete year) there were 902 cases reported. In 2008 there were 315 cases reported. Visit the Michigan Department of Community Health website for the most recent information.
In Ohio, Columbus Public Health (CPH) and Franklin County Board of Health (FCBH) responded to an outbreak of pertussis during 2010 and 2011. In 2010, there were 964 cases reported by Columbus and Franklin Counties. This is the most cases reported in 25 years. Through April 9, 2011, 144 cases of pertussis were reported. For the most recent information, visit the Columbus Public Health web site.

I could present similar examples for other diseases we've discussed here. But I am unlikely to change your mind. Honestly, good luck, I know your love your son and you believe you are doing the best for him. But the statistics say that your son, unvaccinated, is taking greater risks than if he was vaccinated. When the actual risk of a disease drops below the risk of the vaccine, as it has for smallpox in the US, and I believe polio, the use of the vaccine is discontinued.

Is Pertusis something that is covered by vaccinations in the US the way MMRI and Hep B are? I'm unfamiliar with it.


http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/vis/downloads/vis-dtap.pdf

Can you check this out btw. I thought it was interesting that they wrote

Any child who had a life-threatening allergic
reaction after a dose of DTaP should not get
another dose.

Any child who suffered a brain or nervous system
disease within 7 days after a dose of DTaP should
not get another dose.

You can understand why this would freak a mother out no?

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Darlin' for the last time, we don't LIVE in the pre-vaccination era. We live in the NOW.

Most people DO vaccinate their children. And most people WANT to vaccinate their children.

The number of people who do not are pretty much a fraction of the rest of society in the US.


And unfortunately for you (because you get so twisted over this fact) those that do not are actually protected in most cases (Notice I said most) from contracting the diseases because the majority of the people around them ARE VACCINATED.

So at the end of the day it really doesn't matter if they vaccinate or not. Their children are unlikely to catch the disease.


Now can you stop trying to bring up an irrelevant point just because you hate this fact.

"Hey, you know what will be a nifty vacation for us and the kids?, lets go to India and bathe in the ganges. It's ok if they run into virii, they're vaccinated!"
And then they come back to school and run into kids who aren't

So yes, if you live in an area where most kids are vaccinated and noone ever travels or leaves that area or enters it without being screened, you're safe in herd protection.
If one of these things is not the case....

 

[truethat]

"Hey, you know what will be a nifty vacation for us and the kids?, lets go to India and bathe in the ganges. It's ok if they run into virii, they're vaccinated!"
And then they come back to school and run into kids who aren't

So yes, if you live in an area where most kids are vaccinated and noone ever travels or leaves that area or enters it without being screened, you're safe in herd protection.
If one of these things is not the case....

So this is your real argument. That parent should vaccinate their children in case people take their children to India and bathe in the ganges and then come back and expose them to it?


Most people in the United States do not travel abroad. I'm sure you know this because most people in the US don't even move outside three zones away from where they grew up. Sad but true.

At the same time, my premise is always based on the LIKELIHOOD that you can contract the disease.

There must be viruses rampant in Sudan that Americans aren't vaccinated against? Why, because it is unlikely that we will travel there. At the same time, one of the Centers for Tropical Diseases is located in Elmhurst Queens because of the large number of immigrants in this area.

We also have issues with tuberculosis rising in this area as well.

This is why I'm up on most of my inoculations with my kids. My son's elementary school has 5,000 students in it, many of whom travel to the middle east, China or South America for the holidays.


I would be one who should inoculate. So I do.

But why is someone who lives in a small community in the midwest, a "stupid idiot" who is "risking her kid's life" by not vaccinating?


I'd say she's being reasonable.