CNN: Children should get vaccinated. Period.

[JettaKnight]

Surely we can find common ground in that statement, can't we?

Sure. I'm willing to accept that the CDC may have covered up some evidence.

In my head I see:
"Hey, if this evidence gets out, it will fuel the anti-vax campaign."
"We're the CDC, and we know vax's are good, so we can't let this get out."

Definitely. Here is a list of the documented (by this agency) adverse reactions: https://www.hrsa.gov/sites/default/files/hrsa/vaccine-compensation/vaccine-injury-table.pdf

So far they have paid out $4 Billion of your tax dollars.

$4B, that'd get a good start on the wall.

 

[jamil]

Don't worry, Bug - I'm veeery limber.


So, the veggies, was hyperbolic, but the point still stands - Humans often suck at risk assessment.

That's up to the individual human to live with the inaccuracy of their risk assessment. You think it's safer to drive rather than fly? Knock yourself out.

 

[steveh_131]

There are vaccine injuries and a federal statute that makes federal vaccine claims the sole remedy for them.
....so?

Two issues.
1) Civil liability provides accountability. Vaccine manufacturers should be open to lawsuits based on false claims of effectiveness and safety. Without the threat of civil liability there is no real incentive to ensure that their products are safe or that they even work in their current form.
2) This leaves all accountability in the hands of the government, who has been fantastically inept at such things since forever.

 

[steveh_131]

Sure. I'm willing to accept that the CDC may have covered up some evidence.

In my head I see:
"Hey, if this evidence gets out, it will fuel the anti-vax campaign."
"We're the CDC, and we know vax's are good, so we can't let this get out."

Ok, but now factor in the fact that the CDC are the only ones keeping vaccine manufacturers honest - thanks to the law discussed before.

So if the free market can't keep them honest, and the courts can't keep them honest, and the CDC doesn't want to keep them honest - where does that leave us? How do we have confidence in a system such as this?

$4B, that'd get a good start on the wall.

Wow I was thinking about making this exact joke lol

 

[JettaKnight]

Ok, but now factor in the fact that the CDC are the only ones keeping vaccine manufacturers honest - thanks to the law discussed before.

So if the free market can't keep them honest, and the courts can't keep them honest, and the CDC doesn't want to keep them honest - where does that leave us? How do we have confidence in a system such as this?

How about the medical and academic scientific community at large?

 

[steveh_131]

How about the medical and academic scientific community at large?

I'd appreciate more involvement from them. So far most of the studies regarding vaccine safety and efficacy that I have seen are either performed by the CDC or funded by pharmaceutical companies.

In fact, I think JettaKnight kinda nailed it:

In my head I see:
"Hey, if this evidence gets out, it will fuel the anti-vax campaign."
"We're the CDC, and we know vax's are good, so we can't let this get out."

I don't really see much desire, on the whole, to properly investigate this issue. There are going to be at least some negative results - we know there will because of the $4 Billion in payouts about injuries, and the outbreaks of pertussis in fully vaccinated populations. We know they're failing to some extent. Exposing these failures would indeed throw more fuel on the anti-vaccine fire.

Which is why I think even the good-hearted, honest folks aren't really trying to investigate this.

But I think it's a huge mistake. The secrecy and outright dishonesty is what is truly fueling the fire. People want to know the quantified risks of vaccines. They want to compare those risks to the dangers of the diseases they prevent. They want some honesty, not to be treated like they don't need to know and that they're complete idiots for even asking.

 

[JeepHammer]

I'll let Penn & Teller speak for me...

Penn and Teller on Vaccinations - YouTube

Yup!

Your chances of dying before your 21st birthday we're about 50/50 before vaccines & anti-biotics.
Rotten teeth were a big killer if you survived everything else...

The argument can be made for culling of the herd, in that case about 50% of the morons we have running around today wouldn't be here, and the survivors would be stronger, the herd would be stronger.

Since there are WAY too many people now, and the over population issue is only going to get worse, removing modern drugs might be a good idea for the species... ?

 

[HoughMade]

Over population.....pfft

 

[jamil]

Yup!

Your chances of dying before your 21st birthday we're about 50/50 before vaccines & anti-biotics.
Rotten teeth were a big killer if you survived everything else...

The argument can be made for culling of the herd, in that case about 50% of the morons we have running around today wouldn't be here, and the survivors would be stronger, the herd would be stronger.

Since there are WAY too many people now, and the over population issue is only going to get worse, removing modern drugs might be a good idea for the species... ?

Overpopulation? In some countries they’re paying people to **** because they’re not making enough future taxpayers to pay for all the free ****.

 

[Mongo59]

How would you feel if your neighbor refused to give up his guns and they run around the neighborhood potentially having access to them?

Are you certain that you want to make policy decisions regarding our individual liberty based on fear?

I am not following you here at all. What is it you are trying to say? Who is "they"?

If this is you saying your neighbor owns guns, loads the weapon and gives it to his kid and says, "Here, go play with your friends..." and when the inevitable happens goes "Whoa, I am not the one who pulled the trigger" then yes, he needs his own private policy.

This is what we are referencing as far as responsibility and liability. My statement above has the same potential for harm as the one which you quoted. So who is responsible? Who is liable? The kid? He doesn't know, he didn't make the choice. He didn't read a pamphlet the size of a shopping list and assumes he is now some authority on the subject.

This sword cuts both ways, it doesn't have to be you vs me. Have you ever seen or taken care of someone dying from varicella pneumonia? What if your unvax'd kid gets sick and wipes out 2 or 3 generations of your family?
Little Stevie: What ever happened to grandma and grandpa?
Big Stevie: Well, uh, you killed them...

Before disregarding this and planning some form of retaliation, think about it. It is not as if this hasn't ever happened.

A runny nose for one child can mean death by RSV to a newborn. A rash to one sibling could mean blindness to one and meningitis with brain injury to another. It isn't "you either get sick or you don't".

Ask a PICU nurse about it sometime. The mantra for the crying parents goes like this: "But i didn't know, but I didn't know, but I didn't know..."

 

[steveh_131]

What I'm saying is that the same pediatricians who tell you to vaccinate your kids also tell you not to keep guns in your home.

But you don't want to force people to get rid of their guns, do you?

Here's the principle that is being promoted: Behaviors that may be statistically risky to others should be criminalized.

This principle applies to gun ownership just as it applies to vaccine refusal.

Do you agree with the principle or not?

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[Mongo59]

It isn't that simple. Having an unvax'd kid in a community would be the like letting him do target practice down main street. It isn't if there is a gun, it is what you do with the gun.

As a gun owner we take on the responsibility of keeping a device that is capable of inflicting great harm as safe as possible. We take precautions.

Having a child is every bit of that responsibility and more. But what precautions are you taking by freely willing your child to become a bio-hazard and setting them loose in a society? The only factor that decreases their chance of illness from "when" to "if" is that others have taken on the responsibility to have their children immunized. Infected children can give the illness to others BEFORE they even feel sick themselves.

Comparing gun ownership to not "believing" in childhood immunization IS possible, it is called Russian roulette. Not everyone who plays Russian roulette dies, not everyone who refuses vaccination dies, but no one dies from Russian roulette if they don't play.

To what do you attribute the dramatic decrease in infant mortality we enjoy today?

 

[steveh_131]

There are tens or maybe even hundreds of thousands of parents in the US who either refuse vaccines or greatly delay or decrease them.

If what you're saying holds water, there should be a lot of kids dead from measles, polio, varicella, something.

I've heard of maybe one. That one was even debatable.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[steveh_131]

Some vaccines don't even prevent transmission, they just prevent symptoms sometimes. This is becoming very evident with the pertussis vaccine. I suspect we will start to see evidence of it with others as well.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[Mongo59]

OK, I am a healthcare worker, but what do I know. The MSM is much more reliable than I. Confidentiality laws restricts reporting to anyone but the CDC. Good luck to ya...

 

[JeepHammer]

There are tens or maybe even hundreds of thousands of parents in the US who either refuse vaccines or greatly delay or decrease them.

If what you're saying holds water, there should be a lot of kids dead from measles, polio, varicella, something.

I've heard of maybe one. That one was even debatable.

You clearly don't understand how herd protection works.

Unvaxed are protected simply because they aren't exposed since about all others are.
Brought into the country, we now have a small scale epidemic of measles...

Personally, I got about every vax the military had to offer, and I keep up on vax since I'm older and in somewhat bad shape.
When the grandkids came along, I had the vaxes to keep them safe before they were old enough to have their own vaxes...
I'm not much on small kids, but I darn sure don't want to to kill them.

The herd does need thinking, feel free to oppose vaxes...

 

[eldirector]

It isn't that simple. Having an unvax'd kid in a community would be the like letting him do target practice down main street. It isn't if there is a gun, it is what you do with the gun.

More like allowing that un-vaxed child to play Russian Roulette.

If the rest of the community is vaccinated for a particular thing (in general), then they are not at risk from the un-vaccinated child (in general). Heck, even that unvaccinated child is at very low risk to themselves, as there isn't a source for the infection in the first place.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

More like allowing that un-vaxed child to play Russian Roulette.

If the rest of the community is vaccinated for a particular thing (in general), then they are not at risk from the un-vaccinated child (in general). Heck, even that unvaccinated child is at very low risk to themselves, as there isn't a source for the infection in the first place.

I believe one of the arguments for increasing border security is to keep immigrants that come from countries where some of these diseases haven't been eradicated from coming in, unvaccinated and possibly spreading them to those that have not been vaccinated here. So that's a potential source for infection.

 

[Ziggidy]

I believe one of the arguments for increasing border security is to keep immigrants that come from countries where some of these diseases haven't been eradicated from coming in, unvaccinated and possibly spreading them to those that have not been vaccinated here. So that's a potential source for infection.

Excellent point......and very true.

 

[KLB]