Jump to content

Menu

measles outbreak...


gardenmom5

Recommended Posts

24 minutes ago, gardenmom5 said:

I said it was a factor.

based on this response, I, gently, conclude you don't know what "factor" means.

definition:

1. a circumstance, fact, or influence that contributes to a result or outcome.

2. a number or quantity that when multiplied with another produces a given number or expression

3. any of a number of substances in the blood, mostly identified by numerals, which are involved in coagulation

 

iow: it is "one part" of an equation - not the sum of all the factors.

 

You said it was annoying to have autoimmune blamed on vaccines, she said it was annoying to have autoimmune blamed on diet.  the b#$%chy response (gently? come on) is unwarrented and overly defensive.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, SKL said:

It is also possible that your wishes were respected but the record was wrongly marked to say otherwise.

We thought about that--but I think that shot is usually given the day of birth. If it was just a mistake, I wonder why it is in the record as having been given the next day.

If we travel outside the country, maybe we'll have a titer test to make sure. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Skippy said:

I think this was a pretty common idea actually. You get an illness when you are young that doesn't usually have many terrible, lasting effects, like chicken pox or mumps, and then you have immunity and don't get it when you are older (or pregnant, for example) when there can be more complications. I think that is the meaning. 

 

9 hours ago, Bluegoat said:

 

Well, people did it for cp.  I am not sure they did for measles, I've read a fair number of older books that talk about doing things like sending kids who hadn't yet been exposed in a family away while a sibling was in quarantine for measles.  I think people thought that it was fairly serious.  Heck - putting quarantine signs on people's doors and telling them no one in the house can go out unless they are not a potential carrier is pretty serious in itself.

But even if they did do it before there was a vaccination, it doesn't make much sense once there is one.

 

7 hours ago, gardenmom5 said:

 

that had this on an episode of the brady bunch.  that was 60's/70's.   that was where I first learned about quarantining - people forget that was "a thing".   they didn't want diseases to spread through communities. they quarantined.

 

Yes, quarantine was normal. Again, I lived through those days when there weren't vaccines for the diseases we're discussing here. You did NOT try to expose your child. Parents kept us kids away from anyone who had measles, mumps, or chicken pox. All of them, not just measles. If a kid had one of them they were kept away from the rest of us, usually for a time even after the symptoms were gone.

I had chicken pox when my same age cousin made her First Communion. This was (is) a big deal in the Catholic community and as close as our two families were I expected to be at her First Communion and she at mine. I remember her coming to our house in her communion dress and standing on the sidewalk waving at me. I stood at our living room window and waved back. Quarantine was the rule not the exception. The whole idea of pox parties and such started in the late 20th century and became common among anti-vaxxers. Back when we didn't have the vaccine and kids regularly got those diseases adults did everything they could to keep their kids from getting or giving them. 

Edited by Lady Florida.
  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

UPDATE:

this was on our local news.   a number of those affected are from Russian speaking communittees that have a legitimate distrust of government - because they came from communist countries.  this is sad. these are not western-style antivaxxers who simply think they know more than scientists.  

It reminds me of a report out of india where there was a polio outbreak, so they were vaccinating in all the surrounding villages (to hopefully prevent it from spreading - like a firewall.)  the iman's came out and told the mothers it was a government trick to harm their children, and to not do it.  the Hindu and sihk mothers had their children vaccinated - their children didn't get sick. it did result in the muslim mothers not trusting their imans… I recall a quote by one muslim mother who was absolutely distraught as she was watching her child fight this crippling virus, and knowing how easily it could have been prevented.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, moonflower said:

 

You said it was annoying to have autoimmune blamed on vaccines, she said it was annoying to have autoimmune blamed on diet.  the b#$%chy response (gently? come on) is unwarrented and overly defensive.

 some antivaxxers on this thread blame autoimmune issues entirely on vaccines...and refuse to consider anything else.   

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Lady Florida. said:

The whole idea of pox parties and such started in the late 20th century and became common among anti-vaxxers. Back when we didn't have the vaccine and kids regularly got those diseases adults did everything they could to keep their kids from getting or giving them. 

With respect to chickenpox only, I disagree.  They didn't call them "pox parties" afaik, but my mom had friends who brought their preschool / elementary-aged kids over to our house so their kids could be exposed to our chickenpox.  The reason was that the disease is mild in young kids, but much more serious in older kids / adults.  This would have been early 70s.

I could see keeping very young or medically fragile kids (and their family members) away from these diseases, but given that almost 100% of Americans had measles by age 15 (pre-vax), it was a question of when, not if, they caught it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, gardenmom5 said:

UPDATE:

this was on our local news.   a number of those affected are from Russian speaking communittees that have a legitimate distrust of government - because they came from communist countries.  this is sad. these are not western-style antivaxxers who simply think they know more than scientists. 

Goes to show that more authoritarian measures (mandatory vaxing, as has been suggested by some) will not likely lead to more rational behavior in the community.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the poster with the recorded in hospital vaccination - when my oldest son was born (in hospital), we went over his bill from the hospital and caught that we were charged for a very common but definitely NOT performed on my son procedure. We had to fight the hospital and a woman decided it would be helpful to explain to me what the procedure is (that we declined, and definitely knew what we were talking about) and how my son certainly had it, because it's "pretty much standard procedure". And it was in his record. I promise you  he did NOT have this procedure. So, a hospital recording mistake is not unheard of. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Roadrunner said:

Those are people protected because healthy people are vaccinated. Herd immunity anybody?  That’s the entire point. There are always going to be people who have medical issues and will rely on our protection. By vaccinating healthy humans, we protect those who are vaccinated along with those who can’t be.

"Herd immunity" is actually the WEAKEST of the arguments made in favor of vaccination because it smacks of noblesse oblige. I'm supposed to potentially sacrifice my child's well-being for the benefit of society at large? That's basically the same argument I hear made as to why I supposedly shouldn't homeschool but rather I should put my kids into public school.

The vaccines I have my kids get it's because I believe the benefit TO THEM outweighs the risk to them.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Crimson Wife said:

"Herd immunity" is actually the WEAKEST of the arguments made in favor of vaccination because it smacks of noblesse oblige. I'm supposed to potentially sacrifice my child's well-being for the benefit of society at large? That's basically the same argument I hear made as to why I supposedly shouldn't homeschool but rather I should put my kids into public school.

The vaccines I have my kids get it's because I believe the benefit TO THEM outweighs the risk to them.

 

Well, I would say the idea behind that is that by benefiting society at large you are ultimately benefiting yourself, your kids, other descendants etc. Obviously, there are instances in which personal benefit/disadvantage will outweigh the benefit to society at large (e.g. if there are medical problems that would make immunization more dangerous than normal). However, in other cases it will ultimately be to everybody's benefit. Example: If everyone vaccinated, the disease would eventually be eradicated. If for example one of your grandchildren had a health problem that made it impossible to vaccinate it would still pose no danger as the disease would no longer be around. That would of course also benefit your child (parent of grandchild). The problem is just that this potential "pay-off" is far in the future and uncertain.

  • Like 8
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Lady Florida. said:

Yes, quarantine was normal. Again, I lived through those days when there weren't vaccines for the diseases we're discussing here. You did NOT try to expose your child. Parents kept us kids away from anyone who had measles, mumps, or chicken pox. All of them, not just measles. If a kid had one of them they were kept away from the rest of us, usually for a time even after the symptoms were gone.

1

This, like many things, was no doubt different  from area to area.  I am old enough to be part of the timeframe we are talking here -- and  I was purposefully exposed to Mumps -- my brother had it and my Mom told MANY times how she had us play together the whole time he was sick hoping I would also get it but I failed to do so ( I was 2 years old at the time),  and later when I was the first on my street to get Chicken Pox neighbor kids were purposefully exposed to me (although nothing like a "chicken pox party' thing  -- just no isolation --so all my friends also ended up with chicken pox of course).. 

I also remember lining up at school for vaccinations -- pretty much ALL kids got the vaccinations -- through high school (although it is certainly possible that parent approval was required, that is not part of my memory).  It was clearly different mindset as to whether you would WANT to be vaccinated back when these diseases were more prevalent though..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SKL said:

Goes to show that more authoritarian measures (mandatory vaxing, as has been suggested by some) will not likely lead to more rational behavior in the community.

as was also brought forth in the article - a lot of the breakdown in vaccination was due to the fall of the soviet union.  they had mandatory vaccination with many large campaigns, but with the fall - could no longer hold the campaigns.  they naively thought parents would  protect their children by having them vaccinated.  then they come to the US, and there's also a language barrier.

the community of Russian speakers who have measles, aren't the only ones with measles.  clark county (across the river from Portland) is one of the lowest vaccination rates in the country.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, LaughingCat said:

 

I also remember lining up at school for vaccinations -- pretty much ALL kids got the vaccinations -- through high school (although it is certainly possible that parent approval was required, that is not part of my memory).  It was clearly different mindset as to whether you would WANT to be vaccinated back when these diseases were more prevalent though..

I remember the lining up at school.  and everybody had them.  

and parents who had those diseases in their childhoods (or siblings, or cousins, or childhood playmates) had a better understanding of what the vaccination was developed to prevent.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Crimson Wife said:

"Herd immunity" is actually the WEAKEST of the arguments made in favor of vaccination because it smacks of noblesse oblige. I'm supposed to potentially sacrifice my child's well-being for the benefit of society at large? That's basically the same argument I hear made as to why I supposedly shouldn't homeschool but rather I should put my kids into public school.

The vaccines I have my kids get it's because I believe the benefit TO THEM outweighs the risk to them.

 

Yeah, it's so much better when a society is based on doing what's best for you and yours, and to hell with the rest, and moral/ethical obligations.  Much better if we ran everything that way, like the mafia.  

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Crimson Wife said:

"Herd immunity" is actually the WEAKEST of the arguments made in favor of vaccination because it smacks of noblesse oblige. I'm supposed to potentially sacrifice my child's well-being for the benefit of society at large? That's basically the same argument I hear made as to why I supposedly shouldn't homeschool but rather I should put my kids into public school.

The vaccines I have my kids get it's because I believe the benefit TO THEM outweighs the risk to them.

“Society at large” includes your own newborn who is too young for the vaccine. Does it matter more if it’s in your own house? Is the neighbor’s newborn less important?

  • Like 10
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bluegoat said:

Yeah, it's so much better when a society is based on doing what's best for you and yours, and to hell with the rest, and moral/ethical obligations.  Much better if we ran everything that way, like the mafia.  

I don't consider it moral for the government to say "the hell with the risk of vaccine side effects, it's better for the herd as a whole for everyone to get immunized so we are going to force you to do it."

Now an argument that I never hear made but which is far more convincing IMHO is: "your taxes and insurance premiums will go up if large numbers of people get sick from vaccine-preventable disease so it's in your financial interest for everyone who can get immunized to do so." Hospitalizing someone for measles is very expensive even if the patient fully recovers. Not to mention the costs of special education and lifelong disability benefits if the patient winds up blind or brain-injured.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, KungFuPanda said:

“Society at large” includes your own newborn who is too young for the vaccine. Does it matter more if it’s in your own house? Is the neighbor’s newborn less important?

Agreed. Again, it is the culture of American Individualism where no one else is of any consideration.

I think that one thing that will eventually come into play could be a children's bill of rights or other type of amendment to the constitution that bestows constitutional rights to children which they do not have in this country at present. Children are largely, legally, chattel/property under the law hence the issues we have with family courts/custody/not considering the best interests of the child, medical rights issues for children, etc. At some point if something like this is adopted, it will be interesting to see how it plays out because then the wider community of children would have the right to be protected by vaccination programs.

I am not saying I am for parents losing their rights to make these decisions, but people like my niece that let her kids run like feral cats around the woods and won't allow them to get tetanus anti-toxin at the ER or rabies shots, and tries to cure everything with veggies, vitamin c, and EO's denying that there is any danger whatsover to childhood diseases (she even believes that people never died or were disabled by polio, that it is all made up by the government) may force the issue. It will always be the radical ones, the totally illogical ones that will force the parents truly trying to do the best they can by their children to lose their parental rights. The state most certainly has a vested interest in public health and safety so by not doing something in our culture with societal pressure, education, etc. to reign in the extremists, a time is likely coming when parental rights will be restricted in favor of children's rights.

As for my niece, I am fairly certain given the health problems her eldest child has which she refuses to treat in any competent way that she will lose her children to foster care where they will ping pong back and forth between her and the system and their fathers who are all rather bad men. My only hope is that during the time they are in foster care, they end up vaccinated and especially for tetanus, diphtheria, and polio, and hear some other messages about the good that medical science can do such as "If you get a bad cut, you go to the ER so they can close the wound to keep it from infecting and stop the bleeding. They will give you a shot if you need it to keep you from dying from tetanus infection." Another good message for them would be, "Paramedics are good people who want to help. If someone calls an ambulance for you, do not be afraid. They aren't trying to kill you poison." (Yup, she's told her kids that the drug box paramedics carry is full of poisons that could kill them.) Seriously folks, people like my niece have convinced me we need some sort of children's bill of rights. She has a whole mommy group of women just like her. 13 of them! I shudder to think.......

  • Like 1
  • Sad 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Faith-manor said:

Agreed. Again, it is the culture of American Individualism where no one else is of any consideration.

I think that one thing that will eventually come into play could be a children's bill of rights or other type of amendment to the constitution that bestows constitutional rights to children which they do not have in this country at present. Children are largely, legally, chattel/property under the law hence the issues we have with family courts/custody/not considering the best interests of the child, medical rights issues for children, etc. At some point if something like this is adopted, it will be interesting to see how it plays out because then the wider community of children would have the right to be protected by vaccination programs.

I am not saying I am for parents losing their rights to make these decisions, but people like my niece that let her kids run like feral cats around the woods and won't allow them to get tetanus anti-toxin at the ER or rabies shots, and tries to cure everything with veggies, vitamin c, and EO's denying that there is any danger whatsover to childhood diseases (she even believes that people never died or were disabled by polio, that it is all made up by the government) may force the issue. It will always be the radical ones, the totally illogical ones that will force the parents truly trying to do the best they can by their children to lose their parental rights. The state most certainly has a vested interest in public health and safety so by not doing something in our culture with societal pressure, education, etc. to reign in the extremists, a time is likely coming when parental rights will be restricted in favor of children's rights.

As for my niece, I am fairly certain given the health problems her eldest child has which she refuses to treat in any competent way that she will lose her children to foster care where they will ping pong back and forth between her and the system and their fathers who are all rather bad men. My only hope is that during the time they are in foster care, they end up vaccinated and especially for tetanus, diphtheria, and polio, and hear some other messages about the good that medical science can do such as "If you get a bad cut, you go to the ER so they can close the wound to keep it from infecting and stop the bleeding. They will give you a shot if you need it to keep you from dying from tetanus infection." Another good message for them would be, "Paramedics are good people who want to help. If someone calls an ambulance for you, do not be afraid. They aren't trying to kill you poison." (Yup, she's told her kids that the drug box paramedics carry is full of poisons that could kill them.) Seriously folks, people like my niece have convinced me we need some sort of children's bill of rights. She has a whole mommy group of women just like her. 13 of them! I shudder to think.......

I have my concerns about these "children's bill of rights' because it can make it harder for conscientious parents.

but then there are parents like your niece...

if her kids have been taken away, and then given back - that is a big problem with the cps system.  some kids shouldn't ever be given back because the parents are just that bad.

whatever will she do if any of her kids get super sick?  will she break down and seek medical care?  or let them die?  and if she's caught - she will likely be arrested.  there are cases that make the news of parents like her, and their child died.  they went to jail and the rest of their kids put in foster care.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, gardenmom5 said:

I have my concerns about these "children's bill of rights' because it can make it harder for conscientious parents.

but then there are parents like your niece...

if her kids have been taken away, and then given back - that is a big problem with the cps system.  some kids shouldn't ever be given back because the parents are just that bad.

whatever will she do if any of her kids get super sick?  will she break down and seek medical care?  or let them die?  and if she's caught - she will likely be arrested.  there are cases that make the news of parents like her, and their child died.  they went to jail and the rest of their kids put in foster care.

She is so entrenched in her beliefs and so illogical, that I think she could end up killing one of her children through medical neglect. I have no doubt. The eldest has scarring not only from the pertussis but from the pneumonia that she got in the throes of the disease which went untreated until the father's mother threatened legal action which prompted a visit to the ER which prompted chest x rays which of course netted treatment that she is totally against but reluctantly agreed to. The ex mother in law now lives in Florida so no watchful eyes there, the father is useless, and because she is determined to do things her way, she now restricts all extended family visitation to her children. The other father of the younger two is a knucklehead though at least loving and gentle, and his mother is every bit as radical as niece. Since my brother has been taken in by his wife's equally dangerous philosophies, the one person who could be advocating for their safety isn't. I haven't seen these kids in months since she knows where I stand. I do get facebook posts from other people in the community whom she hasn't blocked who share some of the nuttier things she believes, an occasional "update" on the family none of which sounds remotely healthy or safe.

And she is in a mothering group of 13 other women who think the same way she does. THIRTEEN! Fourteen total mothers who are willing to put their children's lives in total peril over delusional beliefs about the evils of "allopathic medicine". That's a substantial number in an area of such low population which makes me wonder how many of them are out there. Are there enough of them that we are on the brink of some pretty radical state or federal legislation to take parents rights away in order to save some kids? I don't know. But I have to honestly say that social media allows them to rapidly disseminate their beliefs, fight for their cause, etc., rile each other up, and as a result, what might only be a very tiny minority of parents could appear to officials to be a much larger number than it may actually be. I mean, I know people who have "liked" her pages and what not because they don't want to get blocked or want to keep the "friendship" open in order to kind of keep an eye out. However, for the powers that be they can't tell the difference between a "like so I can keep an eye on you" and a "like because I believe what you believe" kind of thing which could cause the numbers to appear inflated. Then again maybe not. Maybe that many people have no ability to think critically at all. We talk all the time about lack of critical thinking skills in this nation. Is it far fetched that there could be hundreds of thousands, if not millions of parents who would rather put EO on a cut than get a tetanus anti toxin shot? 

i don't have the answer to that. Feelings aren't facts by any stretch of the imagination though we kind of have a society who thinks they are. But if I went off "feeling", I'd have to say it feels like the number of radical anti-medicine parents is growing to a scary number. This is where I hope feelings are radically overblown compared to the actual fact.

  • Like 2
  • Sad 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, LaughingCat said:

 

I also remember lining up at school for vaccinations -- pretty much ALL kids got the vaccinations -- through high school (although it is certainly possible that parent approval was required, that is not part of my memory).  It was clearly different mindset as to whether you would WANT to be vaccinated back when these diseases were more prevalent though..

We lined up for the polio vaccine in the form of sugar cubes. I remember all of us kids thinking how fun it was that we got to eat sugar cubes. I'm sure the parents had thoughts of relief on their minds. They had just lived through a terrifying outbreak of polio. 

10 hours ago, SKL said:

With respect to chickenpox only, I disagree.  They didn't call them "pox parties" afaik, but my mom had friends who brought their preschool / elementary-aged kids over to our house so their kids could be exposed to our chickenpox.  The reason was that the disease is mild in young kids, but much more serious in older kids / adults.  This would have been early 70s.

 

You're talking about a different decade. I'm talking about the early 60s. The early 70s would count as the late 20th century as I pointed out.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Crimson Wife said:

I don't consider it moral for the government to say "the hell with the risk of vaccine side effects, it's better for the herd as a whole for everyone to get immunized so we are going to force you to do it."

Now an argument that I never hear made but which is far more convincing IMHO is: "your taxes and insurance premiums will go up if large numbers of people get sick from vaccine-preventable disease so it's in your financial interest for everyone who can get immunized to do so." Hospitalizing someone for measles is very expensive even if the patient fully recovers. Not to mention the costs of special education and lifelong disability benefits if the patient winds up blind or brain-injured.

 

This should not even BE an argument, and it is unfortunate that it is in the U.S.  But who possibly thinks that financial interest is more important than saving kids from dying, even if they are not your own kids?  I don't think I'm understanding you correctly, because if I am.....I am speechless that anyone would say such a thing out loud.

Also re: your first comment:  I don't hear anyone saying "to hell with the risk of vaccine side effects". Maybe there are people out there who think there is no risk.  I'm not one of them, nor is any mom that I know personally.  The CDC is not hiding the risks, they are there on the website, and they are there in the handout the doctor gives.  The concept is that the risks are rare.  And they are, in fact, relatively rare.  I was fully aware that my DD could have had an anaphylactic reaction to ANY of her vaccines.  I am aware she could have had another reaction that left her compromised and ill for life.  The risks are rare and the benefits to her directly AND to society at large both outweigh the risks after I looked at the numbers.  

  • Like 11
  • Thanks 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, kbutton said:

Anecdotally, when I hear older generations of people talk about the childhood diseases they got, the list almost always starts with measles, and it's not unusual for it to be followed by several diseases they got in the same year after they got measles. My mom got measles, mumps, and chicken pox all in the same year (as did her sibling).

 

 

Anecdotally, I personally got them spread out over 16 years, even though I was deliberately exposed to them in early childhood to try to get me to catch them all and get it over with at a time when risk was thought to be fairly low— which was a thing sometimes deliberately done in that era.   (I feel like I should write “long, long ago, ...   😉  )

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am in general agreement with the argument I keep hearing that the risks are rare and the benefits substantial, so from a whole population risk/benefit standpoint full immunization seems to make sense. The problem I have with this argument is that it seems to treat the risk as if it were random. Even the CDC doesn't do this. They do identify categories of people that are at heightened risk. But the categories are vague. So while the risk for some people may be one in a million it is decidedly greater for others. We accept that immune compromised people, for example, should be exempted, but there seems to be great fear that discussing an apparently healthy child's potential risk as greater than typical would undermine the entire project. For example, in my family the list of neuropathologies is extensive - OCD, Tourettes, depression, anxiety, autism, ADHD and learning disabilities abound. So it sees fair to say that we are a differently wired genetic pool. We also have celiac and scleroderma in the family - both immune system related diseases. Since we don't really have a firm grip on the origin of these problems, it always seemed logical to me that a doctor should sit down and take all that into account when planning how to immunize a child in this sort of family. Obviously, you might want to be especially careful about avoiding know neurotoxins and you should be more cautious when it comes to altering the immune system. I know the autism connection has not been shown to be true, but it certainly makes sense that that would have worried people when the studies first emerged. It's not like the Lancet was some internet rag....

Never, once did a doctor who wanted to vaccinate my children initiate such a conversation. Never once did they ask me for family history, either of vaccine reactions or any of the above concerns. I had to initiate all these conversations myself, even though the family history was a part of the medical record. I would love to see some sort of algorithm developed that would help patients to better understand the risk to their particular child (using genetic information or family health history). Because when we say the risks are rare, that same level of rarity doesn't apply to everyone. So it is simply not fair or true to say that we all assume a tiny risk in return for a great benefit. Some of us assume a much greater risk than others. I agree vaccination is important, but right now the conversation is not honest and doctors are refusing to even discuss particular risks. 

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, gardenmom5 said:

I remember the lining up at school.  and everybody had them.  

 

I remember this for polio and rubella.

Out Of curiosity, if you got the line up at school for injection type immunizations, do you recall a “gun”-like apparatus used to shoot the vaccine rapidly into arm after arm?  

 I recall this for rubella, and that it was much less painful and scary than the syringe method, but don’t know if that was available for things other than rubella.  Nor if it is still a thing possible nowadays.

If it were, some of the emotional distress for some children about needles might be helped. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, LaughingCat said:

This, like many things, was no doubt different  from area to area.  I am old enough to be part of the timeframe we are talking here -- and  I was purposefully exposed to Mumps -- my brother had it and my Mom told MANY times how she had us play together the whole time he was sick hoping I would also get it but I failed to do so ( I was 2 years old at the time),  and later when I was the first on my street to get Chicken Pox neighbor kids were purposefully exposed to me (although nothing like a "chicken pox party' thing  -- just no isolation --so all my friends also ended up with chicken pox of course).. 

I also remember lining up at school for vaccinations -- pretty much ALL kids got the vaccinations -- through high school (although it is certainly possible that parent approval was required, that is not part of my memory).  It was clearly different mindset as to whether you would WANT to be vaccinated back when these diseases were more prevalent though..

 

Similar for me.  Except that I was encouraged to play with friends sick with chicken pox—but didn’t catch it at the desired childhood stage.  This did work for my mumps though.  Chicken pox didn’t attack me till college (when probably stress, poor nutrition, and crowded dorms caused an outbreak) and it was very bad that late.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Pen said:

Out Of curiosity, if you got the line up at school for injection type immunizations, do you recall a “gun”-like apparatus used to shoot the vaccine rapidly into arm after arm?  

 I recall this for rubella, and that it was much less painful and scary than the syringe method, but don’t know if that was available for things other than rubella.  Nor if it is still a thing possible nowadays.

I remember that.  And I've since wondered about it.  Were the same needles puncturing everyone's arms?  I still have a little "spider" scar on my arm from it.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, KungFuPanda said:

“Society at large” includes your own newborn who is too young for the vaccine. Does it matter more if it’s in your own house? Is the neighbor’s newborn less important?

 

Newborns, babies up to around a year, generally used to be protected from measles via their mother’s immunity.

In switching to vaccinations for a large number of current mother stage people in developed countries, rather than getting the illness, has this stopped being true?

Eta: read what I wrote and it seems unclear.

Let me try again.

Are newborns no longer protected via their mother’s immunity if the mother got vaccinated for measles rather than sick with measles?

Edited by Pen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Pen said:

 

I remember this for polio and rubella.

Out Of curiosity, if you got the line up at school for injection type immunizations, do you recall a “gun”-like apparatus used to shoot the vaccine rapidly into arm after arm?  

 I recall this for rubella, and that it was much less painful and scary than the syringe method, but don’t know if that was available for things other than rubella.  Nor if it is still a thing possible nowadays.

If it were, some of the emotional distress for some children about needles might be helped. 

 

I remember the "gun." I have no memory of what vaccination(s) we were all getting, but I vividly remember that device.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, klmama said:

I remember that.  And I've since wondered about it.  Were the same needles puncturing everyone's arms?  I still have a little "spider" scar on my arm from it.

 

 

My recollection was that there was alcohol applied to both arms and device—. But also, weirdly, that it was some sort of high pressure blowing thing that penetrated and not an actual needle.  

We were told we had to relax arm so it could penetrate properly.  And one boy who tightened his muscle instead of relaxing had his arm open and start bleeding.  Very exciting!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there weren't needles, how would I have a scar?  It's a circle with little dots/lines coming off of it.  Maybe I tightened and bled, too?  I don't know.  Of course. my memory is that it was for smallpox, but I may have just remembered wrong and it was really rubella.  This would have been 1970-72.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, klmama said:

If there weren't needles, how would I have a scar?  It's a circle with little dots/lines coming off of it.  Maybe I tightened and bled, too?  I don't know.  Of course. my memory is that it was for smallpox, but I may have just remembered wrong and it was really rubella.  This would have been 1970-72.

Small pox was given with a bunch of little needles.  They weren't the bigger needles of a "regular" syringe.  They were on an injection gun.  You can see pictures on the internet but I am too lazy (and busy) to link to a picture here. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, klmama said:

I remember that.  And I've since wondered about it.  Were the same needles puncturing everyone's arms?  I still have a little "spider" scar on my arm from it.

 

jet injectors/pneumatic injectors?  They are needleless.  The vaccine fluid is forced through the skin by being shot at the skin at high pressure.  The device does not penetrate the skin.  So risk of contamination is low (but not zero.  sometimes some of the vaccine can "splash back" onto the device.  I know they were used by the Canadian military for a while.

Edited by wathe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Jean in Newcastle said:

Small pox was given with a bunch of little needles.  They weren't the bigger needles of a "regular" syringe.  They were on an injection gun.  You can see pictures on the internet but I am too lazy (and busy) to link to a picture here. 

I googled smallpox scar pictures, and they are very similar to my scar.  It was definitely some kind of injection gun.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even states that don't have "philosophical exemptions" (like Washington has), still has religious exemptions for vaccines and at the very least has "medical exemptions".  Medical exemptions are for those people who are at high risk from vaccines.  I was in that list for a long time.  I am not now due to immunotherapy which has strengthened my immunity to the point of being able to handle vaccines.  But I am closely monitored when I do get them - as in I sit in the doctor's office for an hour or two afterwards to make sure that I don't have an immediate reaction and then after I go home I know what would need help.  I haven't had a reaction since the immunotherapy but they are not cavalier about it.

No one (that I know of) who is on the medical exemption list wants to be on the medical exemption list.  They would love to have their child vaccinated.  They would love to get vaccinated themselves.  In fact, when I was on the medical exemption list other family members were super careful to get vaccinations as early as possible (esp. for things like the flu but also to keep on schedule) so that I would not be exposed to the illnesses themselves.  This was no joke.  I was masked in public all winter and if someone in the family was sick, was masked in my own home. 

  • Like 6
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, klmama said:

I googled smallpox scar pictures, and they are very similar to my scar.  It was definitely some kind of injection gun.  

 

Mmy own smallpox vaccination scar looks like a little crater. (It’s the mark left as from after a single pox sore after having crusted and healed.  I have similar much smaller scars from chickenpox).  But I don’t recall the vaccination for it because I was very very young, prior to Family departure for South America.  I do recall vaccinations given while I was in South America— boosters for various things (yellow fever, cholera, typhoid etc, probably) with nasty huge thickish and not so sharp needles which were autoclave cleaned and reused.  

 

Btw the weird mid sentence capitals are being done by my cellphone, not me trying to emphasize a word.  It also seems to randomly change my words.  😕

Edited by Pen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Parents, please look into the issues with liability-free vaccines. We should all be reading the science, which is why I provided it here.

You can’t sue the pharmaceutical industry for your child’s vaccine injury. The CDC is a vaccine distributor and holds over 20 vaccine patents and generates over $4 Billion in revenue for vaccine sales.

Can you imagine if you couldn’t sue the pharmaceutical industry for Vioxx or fen-phen?

There are many issues with the vaccine schedule. It has never been cumulatively safety studies. There are no vaccines on the childhood schedule save 1 that were ever safety studied using a placebo control group. 

If you want to read the science, look into this document sent to the HHS in response to the recent lawsuit filed by environmental lawyer Robert F Kennedy Jr who just won a landmark court case against Monsanto:

http://icandecide.org/wp-content/uploads/whitepapers/ICAN Reply - December 31%2C 2018.pdf

Here is a recent news piece by independent news broadcaster Sharyl Attkisson on Full Measure: 

Today we investigate one of the biggest medical controversies of our time: vaccines. There’s little dispute about this much-- vaccines save many lives, and rarely, they injure or kill. A special federal vaccine court has paid out billions for injuries from brain damage to death. But not for the form of brain injury we call autism. Now—we have remarkable new information: a respected pro-vaccine medical expert used by the federal government to debunk the vaccine-autism link, says vaccines can cause autism after all. He claims he told that to government officials long ago, but they kept it secret.” http://fullmeasure.news/news/cover-story/the-vaccination-debate

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Pen said:

 

I remember this for polio and rubella.

Out Of curiosity, if you got the line up at school for injection type immunizations, do you recall a “gun”-like apparatus used to shoot the vaccine rapidly into arm after arm?  

 I recall this for rubella, and that it was much less painful and scary than the syringe method, but don’t know if that was available for things other than rubella.  Nor if it is still a thing possible nowadays.

If it were, some of the emotional distress for some children about needles might be helped. 

 

tbh: I have no memory of what was used.  I do remember after one, my arm was really sore.  Probably pertussis... last summer, dd required all of us to have the Tdap booster, and my arm swelled up, red and hot.  and sore.   then she was taking him out in public..... 

 

4 hours ago, klmama said:

I remember that.  And I've since wondered about it.  Were the same needles puncturing everyone's arms?  I still have a little "spider" scar on my arm from it.

 

dh remembers the "gun thing", and his small pox vaccination scar.  kinda like a pock, or a spider that has gathered its legs up against its body.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Lady Florida. said:

We lined up for the polio vaccine in the form of sugar cubes. I remember all of us kids thinking how fun it was that we got to eat sugar cubes. I'm sure the parents had thoughts of relief on their minds. They had just lived through a terrifying outbreak of polio. 

You're talking about a different decade. I'm talking about the early 60s. The early 70s would count as the late 20th century as I pointed out.

I wouldn't call 1970 "late century," it is closer to mid-century.

Anyway, this was not a new thing when I was a kid.  And this was before anyone even thought there would be a vax for chickenpox.

I guess I could ask my mom if they did similar in her childhood.  Point is, the logic of "get it early so you don't get it later" certainly predated the vaccination, at least for chickenpox.  I would not be surprised if the same were true of measles, given that kids were almost 100% sure to get it sooner or later.  But I would have to ask older people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Crimson Wife said:

I don't consider it moral for the government to say "the hell with the risk of vaccine side effects, it's better for the herd as a whole for everyone to get immunized so we are going to force you to do it."

Now an argument that I never hear made but which is far more convincing IMHO is: "your taxes and insurance premiums will go up if large numbers of people get sick from vaccine-preventable disease so it's in your financial interest for everyone who can get immunized to do so." Hospitalizing someone for measles is very expensive even if the patient fully recovers. Not to mention the costs of special education and lifelong disability benefits if the patient winds up blind or brain-injured.

 

😮

This is just a different way of saying I'll do what is good for me and mine.  Who cares about the disabled kid, unless it costs me money.

  • Like 11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, SKL said:

I wouldn't call 1970 "late century," it is closer to mid-century.

 

Actually, 7/10th of the century = 1970. Only 3/10th was left, so it was towards the end of the century. Mid-Century was 1950.

There was a very real cultural shift between 1950 and 1970. 1950 medical support for communicable diseases was new. Parents were still tuned into the concept of quarantine and cold fear, and very afraid of those diseases, particularly polio. They'd grown up with it, My grandmother had young children in 1950, and her older brother had died of diphtheria, the family was quarantined, and they didn't even get to have a funeral. He was interred by some of the neighbors who wore the best gear they could come up with to protect themselves from the virus.Well, we think he was interred. There is some reason to believe that the town constable and firemen were actually going off and burning the bodies because they weren't sure if it could infect the ground and water supply. So many children had died that they were pretty darn desperate to stop the spread. I've seen my uncles grave, and suspect that the headstone was a nice ruse pulled together by the town leadership. I think they burned his body along with a bunch of other corpses. 

Parents of the 1970's had not experienced that.

Pox parties, per se, or the concept of deliberate exposure was in vogue in our town when I was a child, and the idea did not come from the mothers, but from the school districts who were sick of shutting down school when pox went around. So if someone in the community got pox during in the late spring or during summer break, school secretaries actually sent letters to the parents asking them to please seek out the infected child so that kids could get the disease and have it over with before school resumed in the fall. My mother saved one of the letters. Honestly, I have to wonder about the stupidity of those administrators. One of the kids in my elementary school died of pox on the brain. Can you imagine if a child whom the school encouraged to "get exposed" died these days? The lawsuit and pay out would be epic!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Pawz4me said:

I remember the "gun." I have no memory of what vaccination(s) we were all getting, but I vividly remember that device.

I've heard my mother talk about the "gun" too. And she has a round scar on her arm similar to what other poster describe. I remember looking at it when I was young and being terrified of getting shots. (It really it not very noticeable but as a kid it looked scary to me for some reason.)

She's 64 so this would have been... early '60's?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, PeachyDoodle said:

I've heard my mother talk about the "gun" too. And she has a round scar on her arm similar to what other poster describe. I remember looking at it when I was young and being terrified of getting shots. (It really it not very noticeable but as a kid it looked scary to me for some reason.)

She's 64 so this would have been... early '60's?

 

For me the “gun” was used for rubella which left no scar at all. ..  

 

small pox pox vaccination was often done with a two pronged needle (very thin prongs , not fat like word prong might sound)

the small pox scar is because it’s small pox...    it leaves scars like that...   and people who were vaccinated for small pox have that characteristic single small pox vaccination scar.  

 if someone had small pox as an illness and recovered they’d probably have scars like that, and possibly a lot bigger and worse ones,  all over.  There are novels from the small pox epidemics times where beautiful heroines get small pox, recover, but are left very  scarred with those crater like scars all over their faces and no longer physically beautiful.  It was supposed to be pretty common irl not just in fiction.

Edited by Pen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Great Brain, By John D Fitzgerald, published in 1967 describes his brother's being put to bed with him to catch the mumps. While it is "fiction", it is based on his growing up years.  Maybe loosely and maybe that scene is not based on truth but I just think it is interesting as everyone is saying that the idea of getting these diseases over with younger and all at once on purpose is being touted as a more modern phenomenon.  I wish I could think of other examples in literature but I did remember this one and went to look it up for sure and it is there.  I have a picture of the page if anyone wants it 😉

I'm not an anti vaxxer for the record but I do think there are things we don't know. Like with shingles. Why is it so much more common than it used to be in younger ages?  The theory I've heard is that repeat exposure to the virus (siblings, while caring for your own children, out in public etc) keeps the antibodies strong and it doesn't take off and cause shingles. Since we are now no longer exposed to CP regularly, shingles is happening more often to younger people. Yeah I know there is a vax for that too. But I do think it is ok to be cautious. I put off the CP until my kids were teens and hadn't had it. They got it then but I really felt like it was the best of two bad choices.  Getting it as a young child would have been preferred IMO. Even my ped with my oldest two, which was the years it was just coming out as an option, said if I wasn't worried about missing work it was no big deal and they didn't need the vax. He flat out told me it was to reduce missed work days for the parents and not because it was a super dangerous disease.  He was in his 70s then (late 90s) so I really trusted his opinion. But alas they never got it so got the vax later. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Faith-manor said:

Actually, 7/10th of the century = 1970. Only 3/10th was left, so it was towards the end of the century. Mid-Century was 1950.

There was a very real cultural shift between 1950 and 1970. 1950 medical support for communicable diseases was new. Parents were still tuned into the concept of quarantine and cold fear, and very afraid of those diseases, particularly polio. They'd grown up with it, My grandmother had young children in 1950, and her older brother had died of diphtheria, the family was quarantined, and they didn't even get to have a funeral. He was interred by some of the neighbors who wore the best gear they could come up with to protect themselves from the virus.Well, we think he was interred. There is some reason to believe that the town constable and firemen were actually going off and burning the bodies because they weren't sure if it could infect the ground and water supply. So many children had died that they were pretty darn desperate to stop the spread. I've seen my uncles grave, and suspect that the headstone was a nice ruse pulled together by the town leadership. I think they burned his body along with a bunch of other corpses. 

Parents of the 1970's had not experienced that.

Pox parties, per se, or the concept of deliberate exposure was in vogue in our town when I was a child, and the idea did not come from the mothers, but from the school districts who were sick of shutting down school when pox went around. So if someone in the community got pox during in the late spring or during summer break, school secretaries actually sent letters to the parents asking them to please seek out the infected child so that kids could get the disease and have it over with before school resumed in the fall. My mother saved one of the letters. Honestly, I have to wonder about the stupidity of those administrators. One of the kids in my elementary school died of pox on the brain. Can you imagine if a child whom the school encouraged to "get exposed" died these days? The lawsuit and pay out would be epic!

 

Parents of 70s could be 60s generation hippies, but could also be people who were alive in the Great Depression and WWII.

With regard to chicken pox and brain I think this is interesting:

 

https://www.bcm.edu/news/cancer/chicken-pox-may-reduce-risk-of-brain-cancer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's interesting.  I wonder if it's true if one had it as an adult.  We moved several times when I was a kid, and everywhere we moved they'd had the chicken pox go through the previous year, so we missed it every time.  I got it as an adult and took antiviral medication, so it really wasn't a big deal.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Bluegoat said:

 

😮

This is just a different way of saying I'll do what is good for me and mine.  Who cares about the disabled kid, unless it costs me money.

And this attitude is precisely why I believe we will not see any form of universal healthcare in the US in my lifetime. 

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...