Social Obligations & Immunization

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

Hey Merc, are you having trouble taking my posts at face value today?

No, you are on target. I am in a bit more of a mode to lay it all out for those who do not recognize that the decisions they think they are making for themselves actually put the rest of society at risk. I fully support people who want to kill off themselves but not when it places the rest of society at risk.

[Aliantha]

Well, I happen to agree with your stance on this subject. Whole heartedly in fact, which is as much of a shock to me as it is to you I suspect.

[jinx]

Each vaccine is an individual product with unique risks and benefits. Do you consider that at all or are you just gung-ho for all vaccines to the point of being angry at those who don't choose to buy (and inject into their offspring, with no guarantee or warranty expressed or implied) all the same products you do?

Since we don't still use the smallpox vaccine (why is that exactly?), which vaccines actually on the mandates schedule do you feel are most important. Which nasty communicable diseases were you referring to in your earlier post?

[vivant]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

Nope, there's no herd mentality. You may think you're the only person capable of making an informed decision, but you're not. You'll have to get over that one in your own time.

you take your pot luck with your children and just thank god you live in a society where these diseases are not prevalent due to the dilligence of people with more sense.

That's all I've got to say on this thread. I think I've made my point very clear.

Perhaps there is a cultural issue at bay here - if so, allow me to clarify:

The phrase Herd Mentality is not a direct insult on you or on anyone who disagrees with me. I've been clear from the get-go that I'm not out to change anyone's mind, and I've stated that we all do what we think is best for our respective families.

Herd Mentality is a common phrase in biology (and I thought socially, though maybe just in the US?) used to describe the theory you support (among other theories). Namely, that the "herd" (society) works as a whole, so that to keep the "herd" safe from disease, the entire "herd" must be immunized against said disease. Re-read what I said, with that in mind.

I have no need to attack people for what they believe. I'm perfectly comfortable with my choices in life; I don't need validation from faceless internet personalities or the illusion of numbers on "my side" to pump me up. I extend that same respect to others BECAUSE I know that I'm not the only person capable of making an informed decision. I'll thank God for that good sense

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by jinx

Each vaccine is an individual product with unique risks and benefits. Do you consider that at all or are you just gung-ho for all vaccines to the point of being angry at those who don't choose to buy (and inject into their offspring, with no guarantee or warranty expressed or implied) all the same products you do?

Since we don't still use the smallpox vaccine (why is that exactly?), which vaccines actually on the mandates schedule do you feel are most important. Which nasty communicable diseases were you referring to in your earlier post?

The most obvious and most frequently ignored is the flu shot. That is a big one. Hundreds of people die in the US from the flu each year. Everyone should be getting it.

The next big ones are MMR, Polio, Hepatitis, HPV (females), meningococcal, and varicella.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by jinx

Since we don't still use the smallpox vaccine (why is that exactly?)

Because through an agressive world wide vaccination program we essentially eliminated it. I believe the last case was in Somalia some years ago. I believe the only reason to continue to get it would be if you were to be exposed to a weaponized form. Even the military stopped giving it to everyone, only certain groups still get it.

[Aliantha]

If that's the case, regardless of how you put it, you consider yourself to be apart from the 'herd'.

By your actions, you're considering yourself to be more important than anyone else.

You are putting the 'herd' at risk.

Oh, and if you don't want to change anyone's mind and you feel quite comfortable with your decisions and choices, then stop arguing your point.

[vivant]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

No, you are on target. I am in a bit more of a mode to lay it all out for those who do not recognize that the decisions they think they are making for themselves actually put the rest of society at risk. I fully support people who want to kill off themselves but not when it places the rest of society at risk.

Lay it all out - I'm curious to hear more.

If an immunization is worth having, how protective can it be if you're still at enough risk to worry about contracting a communicable disease?

I'm sincerely interested in understanding how one can have faith in immunizations, but still believe society is at-risk from the minority few who opt not to immunize.

Goodnight my new friends; I look forward to reading more in the morning.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by vivant

Lay it all out - I'm curious to hear more.

If an immunization is worth having, how protective can it be if you're still at enough risk to worry about contracting a communicable disease?

I'm sincerely interested in understanding how one can have faith in immunizations, but still believe society is at-risk from the minority few who opt not to immunize.

Very simple. Not all of them will protect you 100% of the time. It is a risk benefit ratio. But the more people that do not get them, such as you seem to advocate, the more people are at risk, the more at risk, the more prevalent the disease becomes, the more people die from it or are severely disabled which eventually costs society through health care costs, time lost from work, the list goes on. Disease and illness through communicable disease is not a good thing for any organized groups of people living in community with each other.

[Aliantha]

I'm sincerely interested in understanding how one can have faith in immunizations, but still believe society is at-risk from the minority few who opt not to immunize.

It has been explained to you already.

You would not feel anywhere near as safe and smug about your choices if it weren't for the majority of people who immunise which in turn creates a society where the disease is not as prevalent.

How difficult is that for people who think like you to understand?

[vivant]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

If that's the case, regardless of how you put it, you consider yourself to be apart from the 'herd'.

By your actions, you're considering yourself to be more important than anyone else.

You are putting the 'herd' at risk.

Oh, and if you don't want to change anyone's mind and you feel quite comfortable with your decisions and choices, then stop arguing your point.

Wow - tough crowd. Sensitive much?

I've already stated more than once that yes, I choose my family over society. So it's not only by my actions, but straight out of the horse's mouth, too. Still, that doesn't mean I think I am more *right* than the rest of the herd - which is what you alleged, and what I was addressing.

Who is arguing? It's a conversation. It's where grown-ups agree to disagree but can still discuss interesting topics. When asked, I answer. If you feel I am trying to change your or someone else's mind well ... I suppose you'll have to deal with that in your own time.

[Aliantha]

I am sensitive to people who think it's ok for them to put the rest of society at risk.

Yep, people who think like you do piss me off in a big way. Not just on the net but in real life also. You are making life more dangerous for future generations.

Originally Posted by jinx

What way? With no toxins? I'm having a hard time believing that, can you tell me a brand name of a specific vaccine that is toxin free? No mercury, formaldehyde, sorbitol, phenol, aluminum, 2-phenoxyethanol, sodium tetraborate etc etc.?

No heavy metals or active strains, to be more specific. No mercury or formaldehyde (I am allergic to formaldehyde and did not want it injected into my son)... yes, you can get them that way.
Now, most of the complex salts, no, they still have them, but we break them down pretty quickly.
But, if it has a heavy metal or solid toxin... no, he does not get it.
Again, he has not missed one and has had many of his voluntary shots for a four-year-old. We have a progressive Dr. Most won't even tell you that they are available.

[piercehawkeye45]

Very interesting topic Vivant.

After thinking about this for a while and laying out the pros and cons I can say without a doubt that refusing to give children immunizations for diseases would spell certain disaster for whatever society that tries it.

For the pros, I can only think of two good ones. Population reduction and a rise of fitness of the human population against certain diseases.

For the cons, I can think of many more that tend not only to affect individual families, but the society as a whole. First of all, it will drastically affect individual families. How many parents would be willing to take the risk of their child dying to slightly help society in a way they can not see the effects? That type of sacrifice is unheard of, especially in societies that are naturally resistant to sacrifice, the US middle and upper class for example. Our society would be just as likely to face the effects of overpopulation than sacrifice their greatest love. The priorities of our culture just won't be able to handle it. The only way this type of practice could be implemented would be by force, which would be met with fierce resistance that would put the whole nation in danger of violent revolt.

The society aspects scare me just as much. One of the biggest changes in Western culture occurred in the early 1900s when families and society went from expecting a large number of their children dying early to expecting all of their children to live longer than their parents. If this practice did take place, what would be the consequences of our culture changing back to to a mindset where we expect many of our children to die? I mean seriously, I have seen many times how my high school has handled a single death of a classmate, what would happen if five classmates started dying a year, ten, twenty? How would the mindset of our children be changed? It would not only affect the dying children but everyone around him or her. How would that affect our society and aspirations?

Second, we would most likely revert back to a strong patriarchal society. Since a family can expect all of their children to survive childbirth and grow to be healthy adults, a mother only has to give childbirth only a few times in her lifetime. When we go back to a large number of children dying, the number of childbirths per woman will rise in order to maintain a stable population. That means women, especially married women, will start being expected to be at home more and the solidifying of gender roles will arise again. Not to mention the number of woman dying in childbirth will rise, changing another mindset of our culture.

With the number of women leaving their jobs because of childbirth, how will that affect our economy? Who will take their jobs?



Weighing the pros and cons, I will definitely say that refusing to vaccinate children would be devastating for our society and the only way you could justify it morally would to say that the effects of overpopulation would be worse than the consequences shown.

Keep in mind that this is not the only way to limit a population, and even though it would be more brutal and worse in the short term effects, outright infanticide would be better in the bigger picture than this to curb overpopulation. It is a good thought but I think a massive backfire would be inevitable and there are other ways to curb overpopulation and as long as we have vaccinations, raising the fitness of our population would never be worth it.

[DanaC]

Because of the recent scares in the UK, linking MMR to Autism (a link which has now been discredited), growing numbers of parents have been refusing to immunise their children with the MMR vaccine. The result is that over the last two or three years recorded rates of measles have gone up noticably. Last year we had our first measles death for about fifteen years.

From the BBC News site:

Health experts are issuing a warning about measles after an unexpectedly high number of cases this summer.
Parents are being urged to make sure their children have had both doses of the jab against measles, mumps and rubella before the return to school.

The Health Protection Agency has recorded 480 cases of measles this year - and more samples are arriving each day, with about half testing positive.

Doctors and HPA experts said they were concerned about the number of cases.

HPA immunisation expert Dr Mary Ramsay said: "We've been very worried because the cases have stayed up over the summer holidays.

.....................Ollie Mullen is one of this summer's measles statistics. Aged eight months, he was too young for vaccination.

His mother, Anna-Maria, was astonished to find that her youngest son's runny nose, temperature and rash were symptoms of a serious disease.

She said: "I feel quite shocked and disappointed that people still haven't got their children vaccinated against measles - and also that I was walking around with an infectious child.

"It's a really horrible illness. Ollie was very miserable and quite lethargic for a week. I would say definitely do get your children immunised."

The latest figures on measles in Britain show high numbers in the east and south-east of England, Yorkshire and Humberside and London.

Doctors' surgeries at Hackney in the east of the capital are feeling the consequences of the backlash against vaccination.



There have been more than 120 measles cases in the borough in the past three months - most of them in children aged under five who have not been immunised.

Dr Michael Fitzpatrick is a GP in Hackney who is vehement about the need for parents to get behind MMR.

"I am angry that the effect of this campaign against the MMR vaccine has ended up in outbreaks of measles like this," he said.

....................................

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6970525.stm