Vaccination & epidemic

[Flint]

ur a poop

Originally Posted by Flint

ur a poop

At least Flint has style.

[lumberjim]

Originally Posted by Tiki

I love how, if you can't actually refute points you disagree with, you simply resort to personal attacks, which you then gleefully drag around from thread to thread pretending you're being "friendly".

You're not especially bright, and it shows.

^^^^^See that, LJ? That's a personal attack, against you, a person. Not a general opinion such as "I think people who don't vaccinate are irresponsible idiots who are a threat to society". That's not a personal attack, it's a strongly-worded opinion.

oh wayull shazammmm.....thanks for edjumacatin me, thar tiki....you suuuure is smart. yoooo must be wunna dem collidge gerls....



I may not be all that bright, but I'm smart enough to recognize an arrogant twat when i hear one.

Originally Posted by lumberjim

oh wayull shazammmm.....thanks for edjumacatin me, thar tiki....you suuuure is smart. yoooo must be wunna dem collidge gerls....



I may not be all that bright, but I'm smart enough to recognize an arrogant twat when i hear one.

Good job of proving my point... when unable to come up with an actual rebuttal, resort to childish name-calling. What exactly is up with the chip on your shoulder regarding education, anyway? You realize that I have a third-grade education, right... that I never went to high school, let alone graduated it, never took my GED, and I am so excited about going to college now because I'm thirty-eight and have no degree at all? I have sixteen credits in miscellaneous classes I've taken at PCC over the last 20 years, and that's it.

Everything I know, I know because I like to read about things, and I like to know as much as possible about something before I form an opinion. I also like to continue learning about things I'm interested in so that if I'm mistaken about something I can change my mind. I don't think that's a bad thing, and it's a trait I admire in other people.

So if you want to ignore the actual relevant content of my posts and fixate on your apparently terribly insecure perception of me as some smug ivory-tower twat, go for it, but in that case we really have nothing further to say to each other, ever, and I'd appreciate it if you stopped taking cheap pot-shots at me in every thread I post in.

[Aliantha]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

Actually, that doesn't make sense. In most cases the children who got the whooping cough were not deliberately unvaccinated, they were younger than the vaccine schedule would have them immunized. In my friend's case, there's no question that she got the disease from her mother. Except her mother was vaccinated as a child, just like we all were. Her mother got the disease because, as doctors will freely admit, a vaccine doesn't give you lifelong immunity like having the disease does. It wears off. It is the millions of adults walking around who are now susceptible to the disease again because their childhood vaccines have worn off, rather than the handful of unvaccinated children. There's been a big push in this country--for over three years, at least, because I got all the handouts when my first one was born--for new parents to re-immunize themselves against whooping cough, so they won't pass it to their baby. We've set ourselves up to need lifelong "booster shots."

Whether it makes sense or not, that's what is being reported.

A resurgence in the disease has been attributed to less people immunising over the last 10 to 15 years, so it's more prevalent in general, which means it's more likely that an unimmunised child/baby could come into contact with the disease.

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by lumberjim

I may not be all that bright, but I'm smart enough to recognize an arrogant twat when i hear one.

That's a usertitle waiting to happen.

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

Whether it makes sense or not, that's what is being reported.

A resurgence in the disease has been attributed to less people immunising over the last 10 to 15 years, so it's more prevalent in general, which means it's more likely that an unimmunised child/baby could come into contact with the disease.

As I understand it, there has to be roughly 95% vaccination rates for them to be effective at a societal level. Currently, the NorthEast of England is running at about 85% takeup (with some areas of the NE even lower): worryingly, this region is currently experiencing its biggest measles outbreak for 20 years.

[Aliantha]

That sounds about the same as the figures we get over here Dana.

It's a concern. So much so that I worry about taking Max out in crowds because he could get whooping cough. I know it's alarmist to base my reaction on an isolated case, but my aunts friend just had to bury her 1 month old due to the disease. I don't want to take the chance, and it's a shame that there's a higher risk now than there was previously simply because some people choose not to immunise.

[DanaC]

I do think that the medical profession could go a long way to alleviating the situation if they were more sympathetc to those parents who wish to stagger the vaccinations. By trying to insist on a one-size-fits-all approach, they are pushing away people who are open to the idea, but have concerns about multiple vaccination.

[Aliantha]

I've never heard of any docs over here having a problem with it. There are guidlines for how to make the immunisation effective, but honestly, if it means an extra few visits to the docs, surely that's financially beneficial to them anyway, and I suspect that's how most of them here would view it.

Max is having his immunisation today. He'll be having all the scheduled 2 month shots.

[jinx]

Originally Posted by Tiki

Sort of a red herring, don't you think? I had already admitted to being wrong about bacterial vaccines, and it doesn't have much to do with the discussion at hand, which is about whether vaccines prevent disease.

No, see, it's not a red herring... It started with you suggesting that Jenny McCarthy and all her anti-vaccine minions are causing MMR uptake to decline - which would then cause measles epidemic and OmGZ!!!11! polio too!!!

I posted statistics which show that measles(along with several other communicable diseases) was in decline (98% decrease) for decades prior to the introduction of the applicable vaccines, if any were even introduced at all. I also posted information showing that there were measles epidemic years post vaccine introduction but pre-Wakefield. My intended point being; we might not suddenly return to the 1800's if we take a minute and do some safety studies on the vaccines we use today.

You then declared the information I shared to be completely irrelevant
because of your ignorance of the existence of bacterium based vaccines
and what you thought that implied about the importance of hygiene.
Presented with new (to you) information you didn't even pause to
consider, you jumped right back into arguing. You may have
admitted to being wrong, but only before launching into another tirade about how illogical "my argument" was. Since it's not all about you, I went
ahead and posted complete, accurate information, for others who may be
following along.

For the record, my argument is; first, do no harm. My argument is; informed consent should be based on real, accurate, meaningful and relevant information - and if that information doesn't exist yet, we need to go looking for it.

Originally Posted by DanaC

I do think that the medical profession could go a long way to alleviating the situation if they were more sympathetc to those parents who wish to stagger the vaccinations. By trying to insist on a one-size-fits-all approach, they are pushing away people who are open to the idea, but have concerns about multiple vaccination.

With all three of my kids, my doctors have been very accommodating, and offered (without my asking) to special-order single vaccines they don't stock.

It was really a non-issue.

Originally Posted by jinx

No, see, it's not a red herring... It started with you suggesting that Jenny McCarthy and all her anti-vaccine minions are causing MMR uptake to decline - which would then cause measles epidemic and OmGZ!!!11! polio too!!!

I posted statistics which show that measles(along with several other communicable diseases) was in decline (98% decrease) for decades prior to the introduction of the applicable vaccines, if any were even introduced at all. I also posted information showing that there were measles epidemic years post vaccine introduction but pre-Wakefield. My intended point being; we might not suddenly return to the 1800's if we take a minute and do some safety studies on the vaccines we use today.

You then declared the information I shared to be completely irrelevant
because of your ignorance of the existence of bacterium based vaccines
and what you thought that implied about the importance of hygiene.
Presented with new (to you) information you didn't even pause to
consider, you jumped right back into arguing. You may have
admitted to being wrong, but only before launching into another tirade about how illogical "my argument" was. Since it's not all about you, I went
ahead and posted complete, accurate information, for others who may be
following along.

For the record, my argument is; first, do no harm. My argument is; informed consent should be based on real, accurate, meaningful and relevant information - and if that information doesn't exist yet, we need to go looking for it.

Unless I missed an entire post of yours, I already explained why the statistics you posted weren't relevant, Jinx, and I can't for the life of me figure out why you still think they are. You and LJ have consistently gone with hysteria and namecalling over rational discussion, and I really just can't take you seriously at all.

This, however, is totally relevant:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0v_85tAey9s

Originally Posted by DanaC

That's a usertitle waiting to happen.

You, madame, are genius.

[jinx]

Originally Posted by DanaC

I do think that the medical profession could go a long way to alleviating the situation if they were more sympathetc to those parents who wish to stagger the vaccinations. By trying to insist on a one-size-fits-all approach, they are pushing away people who are open to the idea, but have concerns about multiple vaccination.

It's far easier for parents here to exempt their children from all vaccines than it is to selectively vaccinate. It's nothing like 10 years ago though, thanks to doctors and school officials becoming better informed (school officials used to think it was their business).