Jump to content

Menu

measles outbreak...


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, maize said:

That's talking about people who had chickenpox getting shingles, not people who had the vaccine getting shingles.

Vaccinating one-year-olds against chickenpox could temporarily nearly double the incidence of shingles in the wider population, but in younger adults than previously thought. The effect occurs because vaccination reduces the likelihood of adults who experienced chickenpox as a child being re-exposed to the virus. Re-exposure boosts immunity to shingles, caused by the same virus, Varicella-zoster virus."

Note that the any increase is temporary, with the expectation that shingles cases will decrease dramatically as more of the population is vaccinated and never contracted wild virus infection.

 

I may well be wrong, but my understanding has been that one can get shingles after either the illness with chickenpox or after vaccination for chicken pox.  And that it isn’t clear what activates the lurking varicella into shingles.  I know people who seem to have gotten shingles after an emotional stressor.  (Rather than after exposure to wild chicken pox.) 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 787
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Here's the thing though-- a lot of the most vocal and knowledgeable "anti-vaxxers" are actually "ex-vaxxers." People who trusted the CDC's schedule, vaccinated according to their guidelines, and ended

In veterinary medicine we had people that didn't want to vaccinate and saw no reason to. And honestly, they were right in that their indoor only cat had little chance of exposure to rabies. But we sti

You are okay with kids dying because it is more fulfilling to insult people and call them names than actually practice empathy and have a respectful dialogue? Really? Gee, and you wonder why they don'

Posted Images

It’s interesting the relationship between chicken pox and shingles.  It reminds me of the way the original vaccine cane because people who got cowpox didn’t get small pox.  So it seems like the idea of vaccination cane because catching one mild virus prevented a severe virus.  Most vaccines now are based on the actual virus but in a modified/attenuated form as I understand it?  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Pen said:

 

I may well be wrong, but my understanding has been that one can get shingles after either the illness with chickenpox or after vaccination for chicken pox.  And that it isn’t clear what activates the lurking varicella into shingles.  I know people who seem to have gotten shingles after an emotional stressor.  (Rather than after exposure to wild chicken pox.) 

What I've read is that it is rare, but in some cases the modified virus in the vaccine can mutate and cause shingles, but as a general rule the modified virus in the vaccine cannot cause shingles. 

Whereas if you have had actual chicken pox the virus lingers for years and then under a period of stress it reactivates. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Pen said:

 

I may well be wrong, but my understanding has been that one can get shingles after either the illness with chickenpox or after vaccination for chicken pox.  And that it isn’t clear what activates the lurking varicella into shingles.  I know people who seem to have gotten shingles after an emotional stressor.  (Rather than after exposure to wild chicken pox.) 

Exposure to the wild type virus does not re-activate the latent virus. I mentioned wild type virus as the source of initial infection (i.e. chickenpox, usually in childhood) that resulted in the latent infection--as opposed to the weakened virus used in the vaccine which is thought to rarely cause a latent infection that can re-activate as shingles.. You are correct that stress or other immune-lowering factors often seems to contribute to re-activation.

Never wild type virus re-exposure, which actually has a beneficial effect in most cases by boosting immunity to re-activation as shingles. Certainly not re-exposure to the attenuated vaccine strain. Rarely a person who has had chicken pox before does catch chicken pox again from community re-exposure. Not shingles though.

So--the best hope we have for reducing shingles cases in the long run is vaccination in childhood. Fortunate for my children who got to get the vaccine rather than a wild type chickenpox infection.

Not so fortunate for me and the rest of my generation who did have chickenpox but aren't getting regular exposure to the virus anymore to remind our bodies to fight off shingles :) I wonder if they'll start giving the shingles vaccine to younger folk, right now I think it is recommended for ages 50+?

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Pen said:

 

I may well be wrong, but my understanding has been that one can get shingles after either the illness with chickenpox or after vaccination for chicken pox.  And that it isn’t clear what activates the lurking varicella into shingles.  I know people who seem to have gotten shingles after an emotional stressor.  (Rather than after exposure to wild chicken pox.) 

Did you follow either of my links? Yes, you can get it if you had the vaccination but it's extremely rare and is much milder than if you get it because you had actual chicken pox.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Ktgrok, following up on what you said earlier about people reluctant to do rabies vax at the vet’s office. Did people ever ask for titres and an exemption waiver? I ask because the friend I was talking to is trying to go this toute so her dogs don’t have to keep getting rabies updates. She’s upset because the vet is warning her it is hard to get an exemption from the state, titres or no titres. (I’m basically on the side of the state, here, because I think better a vaxxed dog than one we can’t be certain of.)

The other guy who was arguing with me on the FB thread cited a vet who worked for Banfield who was disciplined for giving half doses of rabies vax to dogs because he felt that chihuahuas and German Shepherds should not be dosed the same. (FB guy viewed him as a hero for standing up against Big Dog Pharma.) I am not a medical person but I said I think this is because the trials and licensing are with standard dosing and the dosing has nothing to do with the size of the dog; it is not like the dosing of Tylanol, for example. I *think* half-dosing vaccines is malpractice due to trials and licensing standards and could leave a dog without immunity. Tell me I’m correct about this so I can wallow in my right-ness, lol. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Quill said:

@Ktgrok, following up on what you said earlier about people reluctant to do rabies vax at the vet’s office. Did people ever ask for titres and an exemption waiver? I ask because the friend I was talking to is trying to go this toute so her dogs don’t have to keep getting rabies updates. She’s upset because the vet is warning her it is hard to get an exemption from the state, titres or no titres. (I’m basically on the side of the state, here, because I think better a vaxxed dog than one we can’t be certain of.)

The other guy who was arguing with me on the FB thread cited a vet who worked for Banfield who was disciplined for giving half doses of rabies vax to dogs because he felt that chihuahuas and German Shepherds should not be dosed the same. (FB guy viewed him as a hero for standing up against Big Dog Pharma.) I am not a medical person but I said I think this is because the trials and licensing are with standard dosing and the dosing has nothing to do with the size of the dog; it is not like the dosing of Tylanol, for example. I *think* half-dosing vaccines is malpractice due to trials and licensing standards and could leave a dog without immunity. Tell me I’m correct about this so I can wallow in my right-ness, lol. 

I never ever even attempted to get someone a rabies waiver, they just don't happen. And I don't think titers would help as we don't have proof of what titers prove immunity anyway. With a deadly disease, that's not good enough. 

As for the half dosing...yeah, vets do it. I've seen it done, for teeny tiny teacup dogs, and I'm fairly okay with it. You are right, it isn't standard of practice, but it happens all the time. It isn't that we know chihuahua need the same as a mastiff, it is that no one has bothered to shell out the money to find out how much a chihuahua needs. But experienced vets do often underdose tiny dogs. I wasn't the one making that call so haven't looked up the science behind it, to be honest. But vets I trusted, who were not quacks by any means, did it. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

So the 20 year olds getting shingles now—did they get wild CP and shingles now develops more often in much younger people than used to be the case? 

Or were they vaccinated and are getting the mild shingles following vaccination? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Pen said:

So the 20 year olds getting shingles now—did they get wild CP and shingles now develops more often in much younger people than used to be the case? 

Or were they vaccinated and are getting the mild shingles following vaccination? 

I think it’s the people that have been exposed to wild type that have problems with it.  I don’t know about us vaccines but chicken pox vax here came after my first child and he’s 12.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Pen said:

So the 20 year olds getting shingles now—did they get wild CP and shingles now develops more often in much younger people than used to be the case? 

Or were they vaccinated and are getting the mild shingles following vaccination? 

Mostly people who had wild chicken pox infection.

This article includes data for shingles rates in various age groups. Interestingly it suggests that the theory that shingles rates in older people are increasing because of lack of exposure to circulating virus may be incorrect. Apparently shingles rates were increasing in the US before the vaccine was introduced here and are also increasing in countries that do not vaccinate for chickenpox.

Shingles rates among children have decreased since the vaccine was introduced.

https://www.cdc.gov/shingles/surveillance.html

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, kdsuomi said:

Go ahead and celebrate that people are being denied the right to go to "public spaces" if you want to, but that is incredibly scary to many people. The government in no way has the authority to tell people that they don't have the right to go to a place of worship because of not having a vaccine. In fact, that directly violates the Second Amendment. 

First, I think you mixed up your amendments. The second amendment has nothing to do with worshipping or quarantines.

Second, the government (local, state, and federal) has always put public health over an individual’s right to anything, even before there was a Constitution. There have been forced quarantines in times of epidemics or pandemics since ancient times. You may not agree with the practice, but it isn’t new or without legal precedent. 

  • Like 14
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, kdsuomi said:

Go ahead and celebrate that people are being denied the right to go to "public spaces" if you want to, but that is incredibly scary to many people. The government in no way has the authority to tell people that they don't have the right to go to a place of worship because of not having a vaccine. In fact, that directly violates the Second Amendment. 

Who is celebrating it? I posted a link to an article about it because I found it interesting and hadn’t heard about it before. We are also dealing with measles here and currently our Legislature is considering changing the criteria for allowing exemptions.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, kdsuomi said:

Go ahead and celebrate that people are being denied the right to go to "public spaces" if you want to, but that is incredibly scary to many people. The government in no way has the authority to tell people that they don't have the right to go to a place of worship because of not having a vaccine. In fact, that directly violates the Second Amendment. 

 

Actually, the government has to balance a variety of rights. Free exercise can still be accomplished in your home or via Skype. The right to assemble has to be balanced against the risk to the life health and liberty of everyone else. Our constitution provides cover for these types of restrictions when there is a public health emergency.

Edited by Sneezyone
  • Like 10
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kdsuomi said:

Go ahead and celebrate that people are being denied the right to go to "public spaces" if you want to, but that is incredibly scary to many people. The government in no way has the authority to tell people that they don't have the right to go to a place of worship because of not having a vaccine. In fact, that directly violates the Second Amendment. 

Reasonable quarantines and other measures to protect the public health do not violate the Constitution.

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/197/11.html

 

  • Like 9
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, ChocolateReignRemix said:

Reasonable quarantines and other measures to protect the public health do not violate the Constitution.

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/197/11.html

 

Correct. And just speaking as a fortysomething who was there when we all started stupidly and wrongly rethinking immunization...we used to know this. Back in the day, when it was all about home birth, no circ, anti-vax, and homeschooling, we *knew* that if there were an outbreak, we'd be lawfully quarantined. The understanding was that the laws didn't really allow for the physical assault of holding us down and injecting us, but the laws have always allowed for shooting us if we come out of the house with whatever contagious VPD we might have.

Back in those days, we honest-to-god did not know that we might be responsible, directly, for the return of these diseases. There was, obviously, a lot that we didn't understand. So the leaders of these movements didn't talk about "when measles comes 'round again." The scenarios were more likely to be about biological warfare. Smallpox weaponized by our enemies and released.

I can't time travel and I don't even have a spare moment for the internet Wayback Machine, but I promise, I was there. Back in the late 90s, we knew that we could be quarantined, lawfully and at gunpoint, if necessary, for failing to immunize during an epidemic. I don't know when people stopped understanding that.

(Disclaimers: 1. Back then, my stance was that if we had an epidemic, that meant the scales were tipped, right? If the disease is scarier than the vax and you are quarantined, is that not the time to get your shots? 2. My kids are all vaxed.)

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, ChocolateReignRemix said:

Reasonable quarantines and other measures to protect the public health do not violate the Constitution.

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/197/11.html

 

So what diseases should this apply to? Before the widespread use of the MMR about 500 people died from measles in the US every year. According to the CDC, during the 2017-2018 flu season, some 79,000 people died. What are we doing to protect the herd from all the people who are not getting their yearly flu shots? What makes the flu different from measles? 

According to the CDC, prior to the vaccine for pertussis there were 9000 deaths each year. Today we still see between 10,000 to 40,000 cases of pertussis each year and approximately 20 deaths. Why do we not have similar outrage over whooping cough outbreaks? Why no quarantine for that?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, DesertBlossom said:

So what diseases should this apply to? Before the widespread use of the MMR about 500 people died from measles in the US every year. According to the CDC, during the 2017-2018 flu season, some 79,000 people died. What are we doing to protect the herd from all the people who are not getting their yearly flu shots? What makes the flu different from measles? 

According to the CDC, prior to the vaccine for pertussis there were 9000 deaths each year. Today we still see between 10,000 to 40,000 cases of pertussis each year and approximately 20 deaths. Why do we not have similar outrage over whooping cough outbreaks? Why no quarantine for that?

As for the flu, some healthcare settings do require immunizations or masks for employees. Also, the flu shot is just an educated guess each year. It’s my understanding that at least where I live, it was not a good match for the main strain of flu this year. The MMR shot provides a much higher consistent rate of protection. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Lang Syne Boardie said:

Correct. And just speaking as a fortysomething who was there when we all started stupidly and wrongly rethinking immunization...we used to know this. Back in the day, when it was all about home birth, no circ, anti-vax, and homeschooling, we *knew* that if there were an outbreak, we'd be lawfully quarantined. The understanding was that the laws didn't really allow for the physical assault of holding us down and injecting us, but the laws have always allowed for shooting us if we come out of the house with whatever contagious VPD we might have.

Back in those days, we honest-to-god did not know that we might be responsible, directly, for the return of these diseases. There was, obviously, a lot that we didn't understand. So the leaders of these movements didn't talk about "when measles comes 'round again." The scenarios were more likely to be about biological warfare. Smallpox weaponized by our enemies and released.

I can't time travel and I don't even have a spare moment for the internet Wayback Machine, but I promise, I was there. Back in the late 90s, we knew that we could be quarantined, lawfully and at gunpoint, if necessary, for failing to immunize during an epidemic. I don't know when people stopped understanding that.

(Disclaimers: 1. Back then, my stance was that if we had an epidemic, that meant the scales were tipped, right? If the disease is scarier than the vax and you are quarantined, is that not the time to get your shots? 2. My kids are all vaxed.)

2

Bolding mine-- right now in Rockland County, NY there is a public ban on unvaccinated children in public. They aren't banning sick-with-the-measles children from being in public. They are banning healthy, unvaccinated children from being in public. Anywhere. In a town with a very high population of ultra-orthodox Jews during a time of several important religious holidays. 

ETA: New York allows for religious exemptions. So if a parent has chosen not to vaccinate, they have that legal right. But now they can't take healthy, unvaccinated children into public.

Edited by DesertBlossom
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Frances said:

As for the flu, some healthcare settings do require immunizations or masks for employees. Also, the flu shot is just an educated guess each year. It’s my understanding that at least where I live, it was not a good match for the main strain of flu this year. The MMR shot provides a much higher consistent rate of protection. 

So if the vaccine is more effective, then that gives the government more right to threaten jail time to those who have chosen not to vaccinate? That's going to be our measuring stick now?
What other vaccines are considered effective enough to force upon the people?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DesertBlossom said:

Bolding mine-- right now in Rockland County, NY there is a public ban on unvaccinated children in public. They aren't banning sick-with-the-measles children from being in public. They are banning healthy, unvaccinated children from being in public. Anywhere. In a town with a very high population of ultra-orthodox Jews during a time of several important religious holidays. 

 

Apparently, this is worth repeating:

1 hour ago, ChocolateReignRemix said:

Reasonable quarantines and other measures to protect the public health do not violate the Constitution.

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/197/11.html

 

 

Nobody wants healthy children excluded from regular, daily life. Nobody wants measles epidemics or any epidemics. The law allows the government to protect the public health. The state's attempt to do that will frequently fall somewhere between what makes sense to some people and what makes sense to other people, but the material point is that it is the decision of the authorities. Parents and citizens whose assessment of the risk level may be different, are not authorities over protecting the public health, and must abide by the law. 

 

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, DesertBlossom said:

So if the vaccine is more effective, then that gives the government more right to threaten jail time to those who have chosen not to vaccinate? That's going to be our measuring stick now?
What other vaccines are considered effective enough to force upon the people?

I think public health officials are working to balance the effectiveness of particular immunizations, the ease with which certain diseases spread, and the complications, including death, of different diseases.

Parents in Rockland county are still free not to vaccinate their children. There are now just more immediate consequences for that choice due to the measles outbreak that officials have not been able to contain with regular measures.

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Frances said:

I think public health officials are working to balance the effectiveness of particular immunizations, the ease with which certain diseases spread, and the complications, including death, of different diseases.

Parents in Rockland county are still free not to vaccinate their children. There are now just more immediate consequences for that choice due to the measles outbreak that officials have not been able to contain with regular measures.

There was a news report where it was quoted that the goal was vaccination compliance.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DesertBlossom said:

There was a news report where it was quoted that the goal was vaccination compliance.

I’m guessing in order to stem the outbreak and prevent future ones. As I understand it, the vaccination rate there for measles is well below the level needed for herd immunity.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, DesertBlossom said:

Bolding mine-- right now in Rockland County, NY there is a public ban on unvaccinated children in public. They aren't banning sick-with-the-measles children from being in public. They are banning healthy, unvaccinated children from being in public. Anywhere. In a town with a very high population of ultra-orthodox Jews during a time of several important religious holidays. 

ETA: New York allows for religious exemptions. So if a parent has chosen not to vaccinate, they have that legal right. But now they can't take healthy, unvaccinated children into public.

May I ask what you and others think SHOULD be done to curb the spread?
Are you and others of the belief that those who are spreading it were out and about while KNOWINGLY contagious?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, DesertBlossom said:

There was a news report where it was quoted that the goal was vaccination compliance.

That probably is the goal. For many people who refuse MMR, it is one thing to refuse it while it is a philosophical debate, but another matter when there are actual measles cases right now where you live. We already know the PNW is currently experiencing a surge in folks catching up and getting the vax because now, shit got real. I suspect that many strident non-vaxxers, either subconsciously or consciously, maintain their stance because they think it is extremely unlikely their kid will get the diseases. This is much more true in stricter states with fewer dissenters. (Like mine.) They will argue that vaccines are not the reason for disease elimination, and they will sit comfortably sure their kid will probably not get Polio or Measles or Mumps because so many other people do vaccinate there is little risk. 

 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, DesertBlossom said:

Bolding mine-- right now in Rockland County, NY there is a public ban on unvaccinated children in public. They aren't banning sick-with-the-measles children from being in public. They are banning healthy, unvaccinated children from being in public. Anywhere. In a town with a very high population of ultra-orthodox Jews during a time of several important religious holidays. 

ETA: New York allows for religious exemptions. So if a parent has chosen not to vaccinate, they have that legal right. But now they can't take healthy, unvaccinated children into public.

People can shed measles virus well before a rash shows up. Measles is so ridiculously contagious that it just doesn't work to say "wait until a confirmed diagnosis and then tell them not to go in public".

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/27/2019 at 1:40 AM, Ktgrok said:

What I've read is that it is rare, but in some cases the modified virus in the vaccine can mutate and cause shingles, but as a general rule the modified virus in the vaccine cannot cause shingles. 

Whereas if you have had actual chicken pox the virus lingers for years and then under a period of stress it reactivates. 

The chickenpox vax hasn't been around long enough for us to know for sure how it will impact shingles incidence.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/26/2019 at 7:26 PM, Quill said:

When I was talking about vaccines on FB, one person said, “doctors cause more deaths than all the people killed in Vietnam!” Umm...okay. I don’t even know how to begin to sort the logical fallacies in that statement. It’s like saying, “More people have died after having eaten sandwiches than any other food!” 

Maybe they were talking about the incredibly high rate of deaths from medical mistakes.  It blew my mind when I saw it - probably because nobody ever talks about it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, SKL said:

Maybe they were talking about the incredibly high rate of deaths from medical mistakes.  It blew my mind when I saw it - probably because nobody ever talks about it.

 

They would still be incorrect as the statistic for medical mistakes /= "doctors cause more deaths".   Medical mistakes is a broad category that includes a lot more than malpractice/mistakes by caregivers.

https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/media/releases/study_suggests_medical_errors_now_third_leading_cause_of_death_in_the_us

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, SKL said:

Maybe they were talking about the incredibly high rate of deaths from medical mistakes.  It blew my mind when I saw it - probably because nobody ever talks about it.

That might have been where the “kernel of truth” came from, but this particular person was more of the doctors-are-evil variety. I had to stop conversing with him. He was messing up my cloud. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Quill said:

That might have been where the “kernel of truth” came from, but this particular person was more of the doctors-are-evil variety. I had to stop conversing with him. He was messing up my cloud. 

 

Can you explain “messing up my cloud”? It seems like possibly a helpful expression I might want to adopt, but I want to be sure I understand it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Pen said:

 

Can you explain “messing up my cloud”? It seems like possibly a helpful expression I might want to adopt, but I want to be sure I understand it.

Lol, I say this to mean someone is just disturbing my peace. It stems from The Rolling Stones “Get Off of My Cloud.” 

I don’t like debating with people who can’t argue with any cohesive logic. I call that messing up my cloud. 🙂

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting read, though I'll admit I skipped a few pages considering how long it is.

I'll just add it boggles my mind that anyone without a known allergic reaction or compromised immune system would avoid vaccines.  I think it's far more of a "rebellion" attitude than anything at all health/science related.  The same people, if vaccinations were reserved for an elite class of some sort, would be totally up in arms about it and trying to get them via any method they could.

Personally I'm glad I can cut myself on our farm and not worry about tetanus or whether I cleaned my wound properly.  I'm glad I kept up on my pertussis vaccine and missed getting Whooping Cough when my mom and dh got it (him because they were out of DPT vax when he updated tetanus).  I don't want anyone getting polio and risking life in a wheelchair like an older friend I had in my younger years.  I don't feel anyone needs their immune system messed up for years by measles.

And if someone is so sure the Gov't or big Pharma is out to get us by trying to nip these things that can be nipped in the bud?  Yes, stay in your house.  Big Brother is watching you outside, after all!  (I have no problem with bans, other than I think adults without vaccines should be banned in public places too - not just kids - when there's an epidemic around.  Other folks shouldn't have to suffer from anti-vaxxers actions.)

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, maize said:

People can shed measles virus well before a rash shows up. Measles is so ridiculously contagious that it just doesn't work to say "wait until a confirmed diagnosis and then tell them not to go in public".

But why wouldn't people who are actively ill with the disease ALSO be prohibited from being in public? I'm clearly missing something.

ETA: Maybe it's an issue with what news source people see. I found one that also said people with symptoms are supposed to call their doctor before going out in public.  But it doesn't sound like there's the force of law behind that, although, again, that might depend on who's reporting.

Edited by Valley Girl
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, shawthorne44 said:

The part that really bugs me about the restriction on being in public if unvaccinated is the idea of people/kids having to carry around and show PAPERS if demanded.   (shudders)   Yeah, that always works out well.  

Yeah, I was wondering how that would work exactly.  Do we really all need to get our vax records?  I can find my kids' if given enough time, but my own?  Really?  My parents, who had measles as kids 70 years ago - do they need proof?  What about immigrants whose records are half a world away if they exist at all?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, SKL said:

Yeah, I was wondering how that would work exactly.  Do we really all need to get our vax records?  I can find my kids' if given enough time, but my own?  Really?  My parents, who had measles as kids 70 years ago - do they need proof?  What about immigrants whose records are half a world away if they exist at all?

Anyone can get blood titers drawn, which would prove immunity, if it is there. This is what I did when I had to provide my immunization records to the hospital where I volunteer. I imagine at some point they may require me to repeat them, and I'm fine with that. The blood tests take the place of my hard, if not impossible to find, immunization records.

At this point, no one is asking the general public to prove on demand that they are immunized, so unless you want to know for the sake of your own health and those around you, don't worry about it. I think it's a bit premature to think this would one day be required of everyone, especially in a country that doesn't even have any type of personal ID requirement. If that were to happen one day (doubtful) - then providing immunization records could be tied to that ID, but that's not likely to happen.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The other thing is that it is pretty easy to lie about vaxes.  I've had to provide my kids' vax history various times, and they always accept whatever I say without any "proof."  When I was a kid, all that stuff was hand-written onto a card and could easily be faked.  I would not lie personally, but we all know that lots of humans do so without hesitation.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a pretty negative feeling toward any measures aimed at forcing vaccination on people who don’t want it even though I vaccinated my own kids.  Friends who’s kid had a severe life threatening complication from vaccination but it took a couple of years before medical people acknowledged it.  so under current regulations here he would now be excluded from day care or school in that two years it took to acknowledge the problem.  Seems like a pretty harsh way to treat someone.  

It seems like it violates some fundamental right to not have something inserted into your body against your will.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

I have a pretty negative feeling toward any measures aimed at forcing vaccination on people who don’t want it even though I vaccinated my own kids.  Friends who’s kid had a severe life threatening complication from vaccination but it took a couple of years before medical people acknowledged it.  so under current regulations here he would now be excluded from day care or school in that two years it took to acknowledge the problem.  Seems like a pretty harsh way to treat someone.  

It seems like it violates some fundamental right to not have something inserted into your body against your will.

 

As I mentioned upthread, I remember from the past that the first anti-vaxers were aware of quarantine laws. That included the knowledge that it's not seen as decent or humane to force an injection on someone in a non-emergency* situation. People should be able to refuse treatment, that is a universal belief, even if they will die due to that choice. That's why the laws were about quarantine and containment, not about holding people down and injecting them against their will.

*I'm differentiating between an emergency situation like an epidemic, wherein quarantine by force is reasonable but injection by force is not, and a personal health emergency such as requiring a lifesaving medication in an ambulance or ER. General consent allows for whatever is necessary at that time. But a vaccination wouldn't fall under that second category, anyway. 

I remember reading in the late 90s that even a biological warfare attack with smallpox would not automatically bring forced injections. Quarantine at gunpoint would happen first.

I can't back any of this up with links and laws. It's a perception of what I think I remember. Willing to be educated otherwise, if the Patriot Act or other legislation since the late 90s allows or requires forced medication now.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, shawthorne44 said:

The part that really bugs me about the restriction on being in public if unvaccinated is the idea of people/kids having to carry around and show PAPERS if demanded.   (shudders)   Yeah, that always works out well.  

 

Really?  I've had to produce my passport and/or other forms of identification many times I choose to do things (even banking) or go somewhere.  Haven't noticed any ill effects yet.  I carry identification on me pretty much all the time, esp since I drive.  I even have to have proof of insurance when I drive - still hasn't hurt me at all to have it and produce it when asked.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

We have selectively delayed some vaccines. This was for several reasons, one of which was that I didn't want my babies to associate the doctor with numerous needle jabs (one was enough), another was that if they had a reaction, I wanted to have some idea what they were reacting to. Priority on what didn't get delayed was to things that presented the highest real risk,.For instance, we didn't delay HiB at all, because if you don't get it on schedule there's no point, as it's protecting against what is really only a high risk in infancy.  Polio waited as the odds were extremely slim to zero that my kids would be within 10000 miles of an outbreak. Hep B waited, because my kids were low risk (no maternal exposure risk). Hep A was on time, because both kids were going to be in daycare settings for a while, and in my state it's a known risk in communal settings of lots of small kids. We delayed MMR some; wouldn't have if there was an active measles or pertussis outbreak in the state. They will be fully vaccinated eventually.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Lang Syne Boardie said:

 

As I mentioned upthread, I remember from the past that the first anti-vaxers were aware of quarantine laws. That included the knowledge that it's not seen as decent or humane to force an injection on someone in a non-emergency* situation. People should be able to refuse treatment, that is a universal belief, even if they will die due to that choice. That's why the laws were about quarantine and containment, not about holding people down and injecting them against their will.

*I'm differentiating between an emergency situation like an epidemic, wherein quarantine by force is reasonable but injection by force is not, and a personal health emergency such as requiring a lifesaving medication in an ambulance or ER. General consent allows for whatever is necessary at that time. But a vaccination wouldn't fall under that second category, anyway. 

I remember reading in the late 90s that even a biological warfare attack with smallpox would not automatically bring forced injections. Quarantine at gunpoint would happen first.

I can't back any of this up with links and laws. It's a perception of what I think I remember. Willing to be educated otherwise, if the Patriot Act or other legislation since the late 90s allows or requires forced medication now.

I’m in Aus and legislation floating around here is excluding unvaccinated kids from schools not just during an epidemic but permanently.  I don’t actually know whether it passed or not.

excluding kids from schools/childcare and removing family payments effectively forces anyone without a pretty decent financial situation to vaccinate.  Or places people who legitimately can’t vaccinate but haven’t yet been recognised as such by the legal system in a very difficult situation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

It seems like it violates some fundamental right to not have something inserted into your body against your will.

 

I haven't seen where anyone has forced vaxs on folks, though maybe if one considers military members deployed overseas but in signing up these folks sign away their lives (BTDT).  Otherwise, it's always choices.  If you want to work here or attend here or go here, etc, then these are the requirements.  It's really not any different than traveling in that aspect.  Some countries require proof of vax in order to enter.  One can always opt not to work/attend/go.

It gets a little trickier when one is talking about kids.  Are they truly their parent's property even when the parents make bad decisions?  Our society has said "no" when abuse or neglect is concerned.  So far, medical decisions are on the "varies" side.  When a kid dies from something fixable and the parents opted not to get help (relatively recent case of this happening with pneumonia in PA) the parents were convicted, but I don't think it's happened yet when unvaxed kids die from something preventable.  The flu shot doesn't bring charges with death, but OTOH, losing your child is quite the punishment.

http://www.witf.org/news/2018/04/parents-spared-jail-time-in-2016-pneumonia-death-of-girl.php

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, creekland said:

 

I haven't seen where anyone has forced vaxs on folks, though maybe if one considers military members deployed overseas but in signing up these folks sign away their lives (BTDT).  Otherwise, it's always choices.  If you want to work here or attend here or go here, etc, then these are the requirements.  It's really not any different than traveling in that aspect.  Some countries require proof of vax in order to enter.  One can always opt not to work/attend/go.

It gets a little trickier when one is talking about kids.  Are they truly their parent's property even when the parents make bad decisions?  Our society has said "no" when abuse or neglect is concerned.  So far, medical decisions are on the "varies" side.  When a kid dies from something fixable and the parents opted not to get help (relatively recent case of this happening with pneumonia in PA) the parents were convicted, but I don't think it's happened yet when unvaxed kids die from something preventable.  The flu shot doesn't bring charges with death, but OTOH, losing your child is quite the punishment.

http://www.witf.org/news/2018/04/parents-spared-jail-time-in-2016-pneumonia-death-of-girl.php

It is a choice.  I guess.  The choice between being able to earn an income and feed your children or not.  Is that a real choice?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ausmumof3 said:

It is a choice.  I guess.  The choice between being able to earn an income and feed your children or not.  Is that a real choice?

 

Have they said folks can't open their own business - perhaps online if needed?

Any choice humans make comes with restrictions.  Places of work often dictate clothing, work hours, language that can be used, cleanliness requirements, and more.  Folks can truly choose not to work there if they don't like the rules.  If making that choice means they can't come up with something else sustainable, then they might have to modify their standards on whatever it was they had issues with, but that's how life works.  Dh owns his own company.  He gets to make the rules.  😉 That's always a choice others can make too.  (But even then, he does what is needed sometimes - vs wanted - because it works better for clients/income.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, kdsuomi said:

 

Is there a gun to your head? No. Does the single parent who has a religious problem with certain vaccines but can't practically homeschool her child and lives in CA have a choice? Not in reality.

The previously linked article mentioned that a government is banning people from places of worship. That is absolutely 100% unconstitutional and wrong. No government should think it's ok to ban people from places of worship. If the preacher/priest/rabbi/imam/etc wants to, fine. 

 

Some choices are difficult, but yes, there is a choice.

And in an epidemic situation, yes people can be banned from public places of all sorts.  It's happened throughout US history.  I've yet to hear of any court case regarding it, though feel free to link one if there's one out there.  Quarantine signs used to be put on family's doors, etc.  No one is banning anyone from a place of worship in a non-epidemic "worry" situation that I've seen.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, creekland said:

 

Some choices are difficult, but yes, there is a choice.

And in an epidemic situation, yes people can be banned from public places of all sorts.  It's happened throughout US history.  I've yet to hear of any court case regarding it, though feel free to link one if there's one out there.  Quarantine signs used to be put on family's doors, etc.  No one is banning anyone from a place of worship in a non-epidemic "worry" situation that I've seen.

I guess my issue with these strategies of financial coercion is that they target the most vulnerable by making it difficult for them to survive financially while leaving the wealthy pretty much free to make their own choices.  If you don’t need child support and can afford to have someone home to care for your child you can choose not to vaccinate but if you are a single mum tough bikkies.  And we are looking at the vaccines we have now.  But once the government have those powers there is literally nothing to prevent them adding more vaccines to the schedule that aren’t as safe or well verified.  We had a flu vax here that caused 50 kids to be hospitalised and left at least one with permanent brain and organ damage.  These kind of legislations mean that if parents realise something is not quite right but it hasn’t yet been verified or confirmed their hands are tied.

to state again I am absolutely pro vaccinating kids but I honestly do not want to see it as a coercive thing but a massive effort to actually educate how herd immunity works and encourage people to do the right thing.  It’s not a vax thing for me but a civil rights thing.  I am very wary of anything that borders on coercion in matters of medical stuff.

  • Like 4
Link to post
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...