Are you guys for or against childhood vaccines?
Options
Replies
-
Transferred a 1 month old baby to the NICU from my emergency department with pertussis ... have no idea if they lived or died. It was horrendous.
I am definitely pro-vaccine.
Even if every adult or older child in the family had been vaccinated (which is unlikely), that is no assurance that the baby would not have contracted the bordetella p. infection. The best insurance against infection in newborns is breast feeding---the mother's immunity is passed through her breastmilk. And that is the case with all infectious diseases--and there are many for which we do NOT have vaccines (and likely never will have). Vaccines are not some magic elixir.
Of course the baby could still contract whooping cough, nobody is saying vaccines are 100% effective - but chances are MUCH lower and chances of severe disease are MUCH lower.
The mother will also only pass the immunity she has - unless the mother has contracted whooping cough or been vaccinated for whooping cough in last 7 - 10 years, she will not be passing on whooping cough immunity.
Some immunity lasts longer than others - whooping cough is relatively short lasting.
I hope you are not suggesting that the pertussis vaccine would do a thing in a one-month old infant?
The reasonable suggestion is to follow the OBGYN recommendation that pregnant women be vaccinated for it in the third trimester of every pregnancy.0 -
Transferred a 1 month old baby to the NICU from my emergency department with pertussis ... have no idea if they lived or died. It was horrendous.
I am definitely pro-vaccine.
Even if every adult or older child in the family had been vaccinated (which is unlikely), that is no assurance that the baby would not have contracted the bordetella p. infection. The best insurance against infection in newborns is breast feeding---the mother's immunity is passed through her breastmilk. And that is the case with all infectious diseases--and there are many for which we do NOT have vaccines (and likely never will have). Vaccines are not some magic elixir.
Of course the baby could still contract whooping cough, nobody is saying vaccines are 100% effective - but chances are MUCH lower and chances of severe disease are MUCH lower.
The mother will also only pass the immunity she has - unless the mother has contracted whooping cough or been vaccinated for whooping cough in last 7 - 10 years, she will not be passing on whooping cough immunity.
Some immunity lasts longer than others - whooping cough is relatively short lasting.
I hope you are not suggesting that the pertussis vaccine would do a thing in a one-month old infant?
The reasonable suggestion is to follow the OBGYN recommendation that pregnant women be vaccinated for it in the third trimester of every pregnancy.
I agree that it is probably a better alternative than injecting the infant. In the past, because of the threat of infectious disease, people would limit contact of outsiders with infants--particularly during the first six months, once they understood the role of microbes in causing disease.
This is a bit off the subject but it should be remembered that vaccines are not the answer for all infectious disease and probably never will be. In the Spanish Flu outbreak (during WWI), many mothers kept their infants away from everyone but themselves and their husbands. There's something to be said for that approach. We've gotten somewhat casual about infectious disease, since the advent of antibiotics but that prop is being removed as one after another antibiotic becomes ineffective. They never were effective against viruses (except when secondary infections crop up). International travel has brought exotic new viruses (and a handful are quite deadly) to our doorstep. If there is ever a serious outbreak, we will have to rely on the old measures for controlling infection--quarantine and hygiene.
During the Spanish Flu outbreak, one town in Colorado--Gunnison--stayed more or less free of the disease because they observed strict quarantine procedures early on.
From the Denver Post:
"...Remaining substantially free of the disease, the town decided to quarantine itself 'against the world.'
Gunnison rigorously enforced its rules. County lawmen blocked roads and turned back motorists who tried to enter. Two Nebraskans on their way to Delta tried to run the blockade on Cochetopa Pass, south of Gunnison, and were arrested and jailed. An Alamosa man who tried to sneak into Pitkin, a hamlet northeast of Gunnison, was fined $43. Train conductors warned passengers not to alight at the station, where a step onto the platform meant five days in quarantine. A similar threat at La Veta, more than 100 miles southeast of Gunnison, discouraged motorists from driving north. The Gunnison News-Chronicle urged continual vigilance: 'This disease is no joke, to be made light of, but a terrible calamity.' By taking the threat seriously, Gunnison County survived it with only 58 cases reported in 1918, a per capita rate one-fifth the state's average..."0 -
For.
My step-sister had a liver transplant that lowers her immune system and makes her more at risk - and means she can't get vaccines whether she wants to or not. If other kids don't vaccinate, theirs more chance of preventable diseases popping up and being able to spread to kids who are vulnerable to them.
I'm all for people's right to choose, but not when it's not just there own kids that they're risking but others who don't have a choice in the matter.0 -
I'm for the theory of vaccinations.
I just don't really trust that we're only getting what we're told we're getting.0 -
I'm for the theory of vaccinations.
I just don't really trust that we're only getting what we're told we're getting.
^^^THIS^^^0 -
I just don't really trust that we're only getting what we're told we're getting.
Welcome to the human condition.0 -
For.
My step-sister had a liver transplant that lowers her immune system and makes her more at risk - and means she can't get vaccines whether she wants to or not. If other kids don't vaccinate, theirs more chance of preventable diseases popping up and being able to spread to kids who are vulnerable to them.
I'm all for people's right to choose, but not when it's not just there own kids that they're risking but others who don't have a choice in the matter.
In the past, vulnerable children were schooled at home and they were kept away from other ill children. Those children are vulnerable to all kinds of infectious disease--not just ones for which we have vaccines. Financial support should be given to the parents of those children so that one or the other parent could stay home with them. There is no reason to remove the rights of others in order to satisfy this circumstance.0 -
100% for. In for fun as well:laugh:0
-
I just don't really trust that we're only getting what we're told we're getting.
Welcome to the human condition.
So...does that mean that, when there is clear wrongdoing on the part of the pharmaceutical firms (as has been reported on over and over), that we're to just shrug our shoulders and say to their victims, "Welcome to the human condition"?0 -
For. It's not even a question.0
-
In the past, vulnerable children were schooled at home and they were kept away from other ill children. Those children are vulnerable to all kinds of infectious disease--not just ones for which we have vaccines. Financial support should be given to the parents of those children so that one or the other parent could stay home with them. There is no reason to remove the rights of others in order to satisfy this circumstance.
Interesting how you skew rights as applying to one individual, but not another, and not to the collective.
I just don't really trust that we're only getting what we're told we're getting.
Welcome to the human condition.
So...does that mean that, when there is clear wrongdoing on the part of the pharmaceutical firms (as has been reported on over and over), that we're to just shrug our shoulders and say to their victims, "Welcome to the human condition"?
It means we don't make our own vaccines, grow our own foods, and slaughter our own animals, either.0 -
In the past, vulnerable children were schooled at home and they were kept away from other ill children. Those children are vulnerable to all kinds of infectious disease--not just ones for which we have vaccines. Financial support should be given to the parents of those children so that one or the other parent could stay home with them. There is no reason to remove the rights of others in order to satisfy this circumstance.
The problem with keeping anyone away from ill children so they don't catch disease is that many diseases have an incubation period - ie a well person is spreading them before they get sick.
Is also not realistic to keep people away from the community for long periods of time - those who are immune compromised or allergic to any vaccination are not going to be able to avoid all contact with the outside world, even if this were a desirable solution.0 -
I just don't really trust that we're only getting what we're told we're getting.
Welcome to the human condition.
So...does that mean that, when there is clear wrongdoing on the part of the pharmaceutical firms (as has been reported on over and over), that we're to just shrug our shoulders and say to their victims, "Welcome to the human condition"?
Of course manufacturers of vaccines need to be monitored and breaches of ethics etc reported and vaccine programs themselves need to be monitored by an independent agency - just like needs to happen with any other medication.
This doesn't mean vaccination is not effective or that the benefits of vaccination do not far outweigh the risks.0 -
In the past, vulnerable children were schooled at home and they were kept away from other ill children. Those children are vulnerable to all kinds of infectious disease--not just ones for which we have vaccines. Financial support should be given to the parents of those children so that one or the other parent could stay home with them. There is no reason to remove the rights of others in order to satisfy this circumstance.
Interesting how you skew rights as applying to one individual, but not another, and not to the collective.
I just don't really trust that we're only getting what we're told we're getting.
Welcome to the human condition.
So...does that mean that, when there is clear wrongdoing on the part of the pharmaceutical firms (as has been reported on over and over), that we're to just shrug our shoulders and say to their victims, "Welcome to the human condition"?
It means we don't make our own vaccines, grow our own foods, and slaughter our own animals, either.
Interesting how you invoke "collective rights" to deprive individuals of their right to make an informed choice about what they do or do not put into their bodies.
At one time, it was thought to be ideal to grow one's own food--perhaps that was when no one was trying to push the "collective rights" agenda. What has the fact that I don't make my own vaccines have to do with whether or not I choose to partake of them?0 -
I just don't really trust that we're only getting what we're told we're getting.
Welcome to the human condition.
So...does that mean that, when there is clear wrongdoing on the part of the pharmaceutical firms (as has been reported on over and over), that we're to just shrug our shoulders and say to their victims, "Welcome to the human condition"?
Of course manufacturers of vaccines need to be monitored and breaches of ethics etc reported and vaccine programs themselves need to be monitored by an independent agency - just like needs to happen with any other medication.
This doesn't mean vaccination is not effective or that the benefits of vaccination do not far outweigh the risks.
That is, until sloppy manufacturing processes cause a catastrophe.0 -
In the past, vulnerable children were schooled at home and they were kept away from other ill children. Those children are vulnerable to all kinds of infectious disease--not just ones for which we have vaccines. Financial support should be given to the parents of those children so that one or the other parent could stay home with them. There is no reason to remove the rights of others in order to satisfy this circumstance.
The problem with keeping anyone away from ill children so they don't catch disease is that many diseases have an incubation period - ie a well person is spreading them before they get sick.
Is also not realistic to keep people away from the community for long periods of time - those who are immune compromised or allergic to any vaccination are not going to be able to avoid all contact with the outside world, even if this were a desirable solution.
Aren't they taking a chance that they might catch something for which there is no vaccination? No, the possibility that the child may contract an illness does not give his parents the right to make decisions for other people about what they will or will not permit to be injected into their own children. I feel very sorry for the immune compromised child--just as I would any other child who was less than healthy, but I guess we should take a note from Greyfish and say, "Welcome to the human condition." We simply cannot secure only desirable outcomes, no matter how much we wish it to be so. Safeguarding the health of their children is an individual right and responsibility. I can advise and I can even facilitate, but I would not presume to force anyone to inject their children with a foreign substance and I think we are sliding down a slippery slope when we think we DO have the right to do so. Many individuals have already been forced to administer chemotherapy to their cancer-stricken children (most of whom died anyway). What happens when someone thinks they have the right to tell me what I may or may not feed my child? Will we have "lunch box police" who presume to prohibit the sardines or cheese that I include in my child's lunch (stating that it is "too smelly")?0 -
You fear needles, and want tattoos...rigghhhhhhttttttttt...:huh:Against. Why? Because they are bullcrap! They almost never do anything.
And this is why me, (and my 23 year old brother) are terrified of the Doctor because EVERY SINGLE TIME WE GO, they give us a shot for no reason whatsoever. I don't care if I sound or act childish, I'm terrified of thin sharp needles that stick into my skin for no reason. It's stupid. They either love seeing me cry in pain, or give me a shot for what they say will help, but will really make me sick.0 -
I just don't really trust that we're only getting what we're told we're getting.
Welcome to the human condition.
So...does that mean that, when there is clear wrongdoing on the part of the pharmaceutical firms (as has been reported on over and over), that we're to just shrug our shoulders and say to their victims, "Welcome to the human condition"?
Of course manufacturers of vaccines need to be monitored and breaches of ethics etc reported and vaccine programs themselves need to be monitored by an independent agency - just like needs to happen with any other medication.
This doesn't mean vaccination is not effective or that the benefits of vaccination do not far outweigh the risks.
That is, until sloppy manufacturing processes cause a catastrophe.
All the more reason for vigilant monitoring by independent bodies - I don't think anyone is arguing with that.
This does not negate the huge benefits of vaccinating though.0 -
In the past, vulnerable children were schooled at home and they were kept away from other ill children. Those children are vulnerable to all kinds of infectious disease--not just ones for which we have vaccines. Financial support should be given to the parents of those children so that one or the other parent could stay home with them. There is no reason to remove the rights of others in order to satisfy this circumstance.
The problem with keeping anyone away from ill children so they don't catch disease is that many diseases have an incubation period - ie a well person is spreading them before they get sick.
Is also not realistic to keep people away from the community for long periods of time - those who are immune compromised or allergic to any vaccination are not going to be able to avoid all contact with the outside world, even if this were a desirable solution.
Aren't they taking a chance that they might catch something for which there is no vaccination? No, the possibility that the child may contract an illness does not give his parents the right to make decisions for other people about what they will or will not permit to be injected into their own children. I feel very sorry for the immune compromised child--just as I would any other child who was less than healthy, but I guess we should take a note from Greyfish and say, "Welcome to the human condition." We simply cannot secure only desirable outcomes, no matter how much we wish it to be so. Safeguarding the health of their children is an individual right and responsibility. I can advise and I can even facilitate, but I would not presume to force anyone to inject their children with a foreign substance and I think we are sliding down a slippery slope when we think we DO have the right to do so. Many individuals have already been forced to administer chemotherapy to their cancer-stricken children (most of whom died anyway). What happens when someone thinks they have the right to tell me what I may or may not feed my child? Will we have "lunch box police" who presume to prohibit the sardines or cheese that I include in my child's lunch (stating that it is "too smelly")?
The lunch box police stuff is just straw man arguing - this topic is not about that.
I draw the line at forcing people to vaccinate, I agree that is a slippery slope.
I do however think that we all have a responsibility to the communities we live in and that includes vaccinating where possible, to protect not just ourselves and our own children but also other people, via increasing herd immunity.
Sure, we have a right to refuse and I dont agree with removing that right - but it is still an irresponsible choice.0 -
Interesting how you invoke "collective rights" to deprive individuals of their right to make an informed choice about what they do or do not put into their bodies.
At one time, it was thought to be ideal to grow one's own food--perhaps that was when no one was trying to push the "collective rights" agenda. What has the fact that I don't make my own vaccines have to do with whether or not I choose to partake of them?
"Collective rights" do not exist. (The poster making that claim got the quote boxes all fouled up, so I only left this last part.) Any "collective" is composed of individuals, and all individuals in the group have the same rights. Collective groups can have privileges, but not rights. The idea that rights belong to groups, rather than in individuals, means that rights can belong to some people, but not to others. And if that were true, then it isn't a "right" at all, merely a "privilege."
In my experience, when people invoke the concept of "collective rights," it's usually because they want to initiate force against others. It is easily forgotten that the right of person to do as they will has the limitation of the inalienable right of others in society to do the same.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 389 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 919 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions