Jump to content

Menu

measles outbreak...


Recommended Posts

2 hours 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.

 

A decade ago  I had to provide proof of up-to-date vaccinations for my children to attend daycare. That proof had to be updated quarterly for infants and at least annually for older children.  When one of my children was ineligible for a hepititis shot, I had to get a letter from his pediatrician stating that there was a shortage of the vaccine and that as my son was deemed low-risk, he could not be vaccinated at that time. (It was a form letter, so obviously the pediatrician was expecting push-back from childcare providers.)  While the daycare did accept children who had medical reasons for not being immunized, parental philosophical or religious opposition meant the parents had to look elsewhere for childcare - unlicensed daycare, babysitter, or nanny.     

I see measures requiring parents to either vaccinate their children or keep them at home during times of epidemic as an attempt to protect the children.  Measles is highly contagious.  People have forgotten how dangerous the complications can be.   But it is not a spontaneous ailment.  Only those exposed to the virus to contract the disease.  If the parents for whatever reason refuse immunization, the next best option is to try to prevent exposure.

  • Like 7
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

1 hour 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. 

 

Incorrect.  In time of a heath emergency public health officials can restrict to public places.  If they were only restricting access to places of worship or singling out specific groups then there would be a violation.  In the manner you are describing they would be acting within the law.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Sherry in OH said:

 

A decade ago  I had to provide proof of up-to-date vaccinations for my children to attend daycare. That proof had to be updated quarterly for infants and at least annually for older children.  When one of my children was ineligible for a hepititis shot, I had to get a letter from his pediatrician stating that there was a shortage of the vaccine and that as my son was deemed low-risk, he could not be vaccinated at that time. (It was a form letter, so obviously the pediatrician was expecting push-back from childcare providers.)  While the daycare did accept children who had medical reasons for not being immunized, parental philosophical or religious opposition meant the parents had to look elsewhere for childcare - unlicensed daycare, babysitter, or nanny.     

I see measures requiring parents to either vaccinate their children or keep them at home during times of epidemic as an attempt to protect the children.  Measles is highly contagious.  People have forgotten how dangerous the complications can be.   But it is not a spontaneous ailment.  Only those exposed to the virus to contract the disease.  If the parents for whatever reason refuse immunization, the next best option is to try to prevent exposure.

This is not a “during epidemic” move here.  It is a permanent thing requiring kids to be fully complying with the vaccination schedule for them to be in schools or care.

i do respect the right of private businesses to make their own decisions with regard to that just not the legislation.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

https://premier.sa.gov.au/news/first-no-jab-no-play-laws-introduced-into-parliament

this is the policy I am talking about.  Phase 1 is maintaining records and exclusions during epidemics.  Phase 2 is refusal to enrol kids without fully up to date vaccinations from schools and daycare.

And in victoria

https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-15/child-vaccination-exemption-letters-from-gps-no-longer-accepted/9151768?pfmredir=sm

even an exemption from a gp for medical reasons doesn’t count anymore.  You have to have an exemption from the Australian immunisation register.

After the second rotavirus vaccine my daughter had blood in her stool and severe prolonged crying and pulling up her legs like she was in pain.  I was told that was a perfectly normal reaction by the Australian immunisation help people and that she should still have the final vaccine.  I did decide not to go ahead with that.  Under this new legislation I wouldn’t have that choice unless I was prepared to homeschool my child for life.  Even a doctors opinion on that wouldn’t count.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Ausmumof3 said:

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.

 

Wealthy people everywhere have always had more choices than the masses or poor.  It's been that way since the beginning of time and I can't imagine anything changing it in the near future.  In your example, yes, they can afford home care, etc.  Such is life.  If the masses can't or choose not to, there's no reason they should be able to put others at risk, esp since the "scientific" reasoning many use is, well, not scientific.

If education were all it took, there wouldn't be a problem.  There is a problem.  Other methods that protect the masses have to be adopted.  If people want to isolate themselves, fine.  If they don't or can't, the health of the masses trumps the choice of the individual to put folks at risk.

There are plenty of kids who die from the flu each year.  Most parents I've heard from wish they had gotten the vax in hindsight.  Do-overs aren't possible though.

With any vaccine there's a risk either way, but a much greater risk not vaccinating.  The vast, vast majority of people have nothing but some temporary side effects from any vaccine.

Right now Temple U has a massive mumps outbreak - over 100 cases.  Roughly 2000 students updated their vaccine this past week (news story on TV).  I bet those 100+ wish they had done it earlier!  Doubt anyone has had a serious issue from the vaccine.  Plenty have needlessly missed classes and dealt with the pain, etc, from the disease.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 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?

If we want to examine choice, it’s only fair to look at it from all angles.
What about the immunocompromised? Or those who spend time with the immunocompromised? Or those with babies who are too young to be fully vaccinated? Or those who can’t afford to take time off for themselves or their child who might get a milder version of one of the diseases that vaccinating helps to minimize?  Etc., etc.  Where is their choice for avoiding exposure?

I currently choose to spend a lot of time with a lot of non-vaxers because it’s almost impossible for my homeschoolers to have group activities without them. If an epidemic grows much closer, I’ll have to pull my kids, including one who isn’t fully vaccinated, from just about everything if non-vaxers are going to insist their choices trump mine. And it has nothing to do with socio-economics.

Edited by Carrie12345
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Ausmumof3 said:

https://premier.sa.gov.au/news/first-no-jab-no-play-laws-introduced-into-parliament

this is the policy I am talking about.  Phase 1 is maintaining records and exclusions during epidemics.  Phase 2 is refusal to enrol kids without fully up to date vaccinations from schools and daycare.

And in victoria

https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-15/child-vaccination-exemption-letters-from-gps-no-longer-accepted/9151768?pfmredir=sm

even an exemption from a gp for medical reasons doesn’t count anymore.  You have to have an exemption from the Australian immunisation register.

After the second rotavirus vaccine my daughter had blood in her stool and severe prolonged crying and pulling up her legs like she was in pain.  I was told that was a perfectly normal reaction by the Australian immunisation help people and that she should still have the final vaccine.  I did decide not to go ahead with that.  Under this new legislation I wouldn’t have that choice unless I was prepared to homeschool my child for life.  Even a doctors opinion on that wouldn’t count.

I just read through Victoria's vaccination website, including the FAQ section for No Jab No Play. What you are saying here--if you refused a rotavirus vaccine you would have to homeschool for life--is inaccurate, the enrollment rule does not apply to primary or secondary school or to after school care.

"

The law does not apply to:

  • enrolment in primary or secondary school (however, please note an Immunisation History Statement from the AIR does need to be provided for enrolling in primary school, however there is currently no requirement for the statement to show the child is up to date with all immunisations)
  • children attending an outside school hours care service (after school care, before school care, vacation care)
  • enrolments of school children in long day care, family day care or occasional care
  • casual occasional care services that offer care for each child of no more than 2 hours per day and no more than 6 hours per week (for example, crèches at gyms and shopping centres) playgroups
  • services primarily providing instruction in particular activities (for example, sport, dance or music)
  • services primarily provided or shared by family members of the children (and a family member is readily available and retains responsibility for the child)."

https://www2.health.vic.gov.au/public-health/immunisation/vaccination-children/no-jab-no-play/frequently-asked-questions

 

Additionally, it only applies to vaccines that the child is able to receive and rotavirus cannot be given after the first few months so for that particular vaccine No Jab No Play would be irrelevant after the first year. 

 

Edited by maize
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, creekland said:

 

Wealthy people everywhere have always had more choices than the masses or poor.  It's been that way since the beginning of time and I can't imagine anything changing it in the near future.  In your example, yes, they can afford home care, etc.  Such is life.  If the masses can't or choose not to, there's no reason they should be able to put others at risk, esp since the "scientific" reasoning many use is, well, not scientific.

If education were all it took, there wouldn't be a problem.  There is a problem.  Other methods that protect the masses have to be adopted.  If people want to isolate themselves, fine.  If they don't or can't, the health of the masses trumps the choice of the individual to put folks at risk.

There are plenty of kids who die from the flu each year.  Most parents I've heard from wish they had gotten the vax in hindsight.  Do-overs aren't possible though.

With any vaccine there's a risk either way, but a much greater risk not vaccinating.  The vast, vast majority of people have nothing but some temporary side effects from any vaccine.

Right now Temple U has a massive mumps outbreak - over 100 cases.  Roughly 2000 students updated their vaccine this past week (news story on TV).  I bet those 100+ wish they had done it earlier!  Doubt anyone has had a serious issue from the vaccine.  Plenty have needlessly missed classes and dealt with the pain, etc, from the disease.

True poor people always have less choice. I just think when that choice comes to not being able to refuse a medical procedure that start impinging on peoples freedom.  And if you had time to read the articles I posted which were admittedly lengthy even doctors have reservations about denying access to early childhood education over vaccination choices.  Remember we are not talking about excluding people in an epidemic we are talking about permanently excluding children from getting an education because of their parents stupid vaccination choices.  Secondly one of the articles states that targeting strongly opposed to vaccines people is less effective than increasing access and providing incentives.  It’s a politically lazy and dubious solution.

remeber I am not arguing against vaccination myself.  I am concerned for people who’s kids have had a reaction to a vaccine that is not acknowledged by the Australian immunisation register (I personally know of this happening) and being forced to have a follow up vaccination even though they know it’s harming their child.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, maize said:

I just read through Victoria's vaccination website, including the FAQ section for No Jab No Play. What you are saying here--if you refused a rotavirus vaccine you would have to homeschool for life--is inaccurate, the enrollment rule does not apply to primary or secondary school or to after school care.

"

The law does not apply to:

  • enrolment in primary or secondary school (however, please note an Immunisation History Statement from the AIR does need to be provided for enrolling in primary school, however there is currently no requirement for the statement to show the child is up to date with all immunisations)
  • children attending an outside school hours care service (after school care, before school care, vacation care)
  • enrolments of school children in long day care, family day care or occasional care
  • casual occasional care services that offer care for each child of no more than 2 hours per day and no more than 6 hours per week (for example, crèches at gyms and shopping centres) playgroups
  • services primarily providing instruction in particular activities (for example, sport, dance or music)
  • services primarily provided or shared by family members of the children (and a family member is readily available and retains responsibility for the child)."

https://www2.health.vic.gov.au/public-health/immunisation/vaccination-children/no-jab-no-play/frequently-asked-questions

 

Additionally, it only applies to vaccines that the child is able to receive and rotavirus cannot be given after the first few months so for that particular vaccine No Jab No Play would be irrelevant after the first year. 

 

I’m in South Australia not vic.  The legislation is different and is not current.  It is proposed legislation of which part is implemented.

 

you are probably correct about the rotavirus vaccination but what if it wasn’t.  What if it was dose one of MMR say or diphtheria or whatever.

Edited by Ausmumof3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ausmumof3 said:

I’m in South Australia not vic.  The legislation is different and is not current.  It is proposed legislation of which part is implemented.

I did look at the South Australia link but only saw reference to early childhood care and education. Does the proposed legislation apply to primary and secondary school?

Link to post
Share on other sites

“The Government will now go to community consultation on a further South Australian Bill on that aspect.  Given concerns raised by clinicians about potential detrimental impacts on children, the Government will shortly release a discussion paper which will draw on input received and assessments of the impact of interstate legislation.  We want to ensure we get our laws right.

this quote from the policy proposal references the fact that even many doctors are opposed to the policy.  The areas with lowest vaccination rates tend to be rural and lower socioeconomic - the target of the policy is kids who are already disadvantages and to whom quality early childhood education could actually make a significant difference.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, maize said:

I did look at the South Australia link but only saw reference to early childhood care and education. Does the proposed legislation apply to primary and secondary school?

Maybe not?  That’s how it was reported via news media last week, but it doesn’t appear to be from the legislation proposal I found online so I’m not sure where they were getting that from?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Carrie12345 said:

If we want to examine choice, it’s only fair to look at it from all angles.
What about the immunocompromised? Or those who spend time with the immunocompromised? Or those with babies who are too young to be fully vaccinated? Or those who can’t afford to take time off for themselves or their child who might get a milder version of one of the diseases that vaccinating helps to minimize?  Etc., etc.  Where is their choice for avoiding exposure?

I currently choose to spend a lot of time with a lot of non-vaxers because it’s almost impossible for my homeschoolers to have group activities without them. If an epidemic grows much closer, I’ll have to pull my kids, including one who isn’t fully vaccinated, from just about everything if non-vaxers are going to insist their choices trump mine. And it has nothing to do with socio-economics.

Well to be honest some of my concern is for those who can’t vaccinate.  We are talking about legislation that won’t accept a doctors recommendation that a child not be vaccinated.  The only acceptable reason for vaccine refusal is a letter from the Australian immunisation register people.  I’ve spoken to them about side effects post vaccine myself and while one experience was reasonably professional reassuring and positive the other was rude and dismissive.  I realise they probably get plenty of crazy phone calls but I don’t think I was I just rang the number to check whether I should go to the gp or not as per their recommendations.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, creekland said:

 

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.

 

There are certain times that you have to prove WHO you are, as in which precise individual that you are.  Banking is a good example.   

But, if they say that this group is allowed outside and that group isn't, then what you have to prove is which GROUP you are in.  It doesn't matter who you are.    This is a tiny step away from handling out patches, say with a syringe with an X through it, and making non-vaxxers wear them.   

But, just being out and about in public, in the U.S., you are not required to identify yourself unless the police have a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed a crime.  

In fact, walking up to people and demanding ID is a police intimidation tactic.   I remember when I was a teenager the outrage both locally and nationally when police started to demand ID of people at a certain park starting at twilight.  It was an anonymous gay s-- hook-up location.   It turns out that the Mayor had started it, and there was record turnout the next election as usually happens in "Get that bumm out" elections.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, shawthorne44 said:

 

There are certain times that you have to prove WHO you are, as in which precise individual that you are.  Banking is a good example.   

But, if they say that this group is allowed outside and that group isn't, then what you have to prove is which GROUP you are in.  It doesn't matter who you are.    This is a tiny step away from handling out patches, say with a syringe with an X through it, and making non-vaxxers wear them.   

But, just being out and about in public, in the U.S., you are not required to identify yourself unless the police have a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed a crime.  

In fact, walking up to people and demanding ID is a police intimidation tactic.   I remember when I was a teenager the outrage both locally and nationally when police started to demand ID of people at a certain park starting at twilight.  It was an anonymous gay s-- hook-up location.   It turns out that the Mayor had started it, and there was record turnout the next election as usually happens in "Get that bumm out" elections.  

 

The enforcement is retroactive. They are not requiring people to carry papers showing proof of immunization before they can enter a store or place of worship.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, shawthorne44 said:

 

There are certain times that you have to prove WHO you are, as in which precise individual that you are.  Banking is a good example.   

But, if they say that this group is allowed outside and that group isn't, then what you have to prove is which GROUP you are in.  It doesn't matter who you are.    This is a tiny step away from handling out patches, say with a syringe with an X through it, and making non-vaxxers wear them.   

But, just being out and about in public, in the U.S., you are not required to identify yourself unless the police have a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed a crime.  

In fact, walking up to people and demanding ID is a police intimidation tactic.   I remember when I was a teenager the outrage both locally and nationally when police started to demand ID of people at a certain park starting at twilight.  It was an anonymous gay s-- hook-up location.   It turns out that the Mayor had started it, and there was record turnout the next election as usually happens in "Get that bumm out" elections.  
 

 

Banking may be a good example of proving who I am, but it doesn't explain why I need to have/show proof of insurance every time my car gets inspected or reregistered.  I've yet to need to wear that on my sleeve in order to get in my car and drive.  When we applied for aid for college we had to show/prove a lot of things regarding finances.  Of course, we had the choice of being full pay or skipping college instead.  My lads had to have certain vaccinations then too (meningitis along with the basics).  Medical Missions lad needed some to travel overseas and work in a clinic.  The other option was not to go.

If you seriously believe having to show proof of some basics is a tiny step away from patches, well, I just don't know what to say other than I completely disagree and find that thinking way out there.  I wear ID every day I go to work - in a public school.  Every kid has ID.  Car insurance has to be shown.  Membership cards to clubs - even grocery/retail stores - need to be shown or scanned. It hasn't hurt anyone yet, nor do I ever expect it to.  I don't spend even a minute worrying about it or Big Brother.  I consider having healthy folks vaccinated good for all of us.  If someone doesn't care to do it and has no valid health reason, then stay out of the public - esp if there's an epidemic going around.  The rest of us and the immunocompromised folks don't have to suffer from faulty "scientific" reasoning.  My mom with her end stage cancer or kids at school who have cancer shouldn't have to worry about measles in public places.  The measles vaccine is very effective.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

Your rights end where my rights start.  If you have HIV, you can't have unprotected sex with unsuspecting people.  If you are unvaccinated for anything other than medical reasons, you shouldn't be out in public with unsuspecting people - especially if a highly contagious disease is going around.  (And honestly if I was unvaccinated for medical reasons I wouldn't be out in public if a highly contagious disease was going around just to protect myself.  It is why I masked myself in years past when I was immunocompromised enough to not be able to take normal precautions against illness.) 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

Your rights end where my rights start.  If you have HIV, you can't have unprotected sex with unsuspecting people.  If you are unvaccinated for anything other than medical reasons, you shouldn't be out in public with unsuspecting people - especially if a highly contagious disease is going around.  (And honestly if I was unvaccinated for medical reasons I wouldn't be out in public if a highly contagious disease was going around just to protect myself.  It is why I masked myself in years past when I was immunocompromised enough to not be able to take normal precautions against illness.) 

This might be asking too much, but can we have a conversation about exactly which vaccines people feel should be necessary in order to be able to walk around freely in public? Can we talk about exactly which highly contagious vaccine-preventable diseases people are most concerned about? You can't say "all of them." I'd like an honest list, please. And maybe we could come to some kind of consensus.

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

This might be asking too much, but can we have a conversation about exactly which vaccines people feel should be necessary in order to be able to walk around freely in public? Can we talk about exactly which highly contagious vaccine-preventable diseases people are most concerned about? You can't say "all of them." I'd like an honest list, please. And maybe we could come to some kind of consensus.

 

Where?  

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

Here. Right now. People talk about the resurgence of these highly contagious vaccine-preventable diseases, and I would genuinely like to know which of the many diseases we vaccinate for that people are most worried about.

 

Here=planet earth?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/28/2019 at 5:12 PM, SKL said:

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.

It’s a good point. I was thinking about this a little bit when I just recently registered DS for public high school. On the phone, the secretary was somewhat emphatic about the paperwork I had to bring, which included vaccination record. The thought went through my head, “She’s emphasizing this because I told her he had always been homeschooled.” But when I did hand over my papers, they barely glanced at it. (Although they did photocopy them so it may be the person who copied them looked at them more carefully.) But as much as she seemed to emphasize it on the phone, IRL behavior didn’t seem terribly concerned. 

I had considered that I might need to explain his record because I had delayed some vaccines for several years. I wondered if they would discuss that with me. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Quill said:

It’s a good point. I was thinking about this a little bit when I just recently registered DS for public high school. On the phone, the secretary was somewhat emphatic about the paperwork I had to bring, which included vaccination record. The thought went through my head, “She’s emphasizing this because I told her he had always been homeschooled.” But when I did hand over my papers, they barely glanced at it. (Although they did photocopy them so it may be the person who copied them looked at them more carefully.) But as much as she seemed to emphasize it on the phone, IRL behavior didn’t seem terribly concerned. 

I had considered that I might need to explain his record because I had delayed some vaccines for several years. I wondered if they would discuss that with me. 

Do you not have a register there?  Here we have a database with every kid and every vaccine they’ve received.  They just have to check it to know.  Lying would be pretty pointless.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to admit I am pretty flabbergasted that people actually think people should be confined to their homes unless they inject whichever medication the government think they should into their body.  While the current set of vaccines may be well and good, once they have the power there is nothing to stop them adding new, less proven, less tested vaccines.

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

Do you not have a register there?  Here we have a database with every kid and every vaccine they’ve received.  They just have to check it to know.  Lying would be pretty pointless.

Here the registry is voluntary. We vaccinate but declined to participate.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Valley Girl said:

Here the registry is voluntary. We vaccinate but declined to participate.

Here you have to have it to enrol in school or preschool or whatever.  At this point it doesn’t have to state that you are vaccinated but that’s changing.  I’m not sure if you can legally opt out.  They have this health database with all your records - you can opt out of that. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, DesertBlossom said:

This might be asking too much, but can we have a conversation about exactly which vaccines people feel should be necessary in order to be able to walk around freely in public? Can we talk about exactly which highly contagious vaccine-preventable diseases people are most concerned about? You can't say "all of them." I'd like an honest list, please. And maybe we could come to some kind of consensus.

Well, I do tend to want to say “all those which are on the schedule,” but since you’re asking in good faith, here’s my full belief about this:*

Measles, absolutely, because it is spread through snot droplets and is one of the most extremely contagious diseases. Therefore, maximum number of immunized population is desirable because it has a good chance of being eliminated here and that is A-OK with me. 

Rubella, absolutely, because it is dangerous to developing fetuses. Before rubella was widely used, thousands of babies were aborted because they were expected to have CRS. Others miscarried; others were born deaf, blind or with cognitive impairments. 

Mumps, because it is already combined with measles and rubella so there is no good reason to drop it. Fewer people with mumps is certainly worthwhile.

Varicella - I could debate this one but if it can be combined with MMR anyway, then I feel similarly to how I feel about Mumps. 

Polio, definitely until it is known to be erradicated everywhere in the world, because it is a horrid disease and I’m all for getting rid of it.

Pertusis, absolutely without question, because it is like Measles in terms of extremely contagious and spread through droplets. It is likely to be deadly to babies. It is highly dependant upon maximum vaccination in order to not break through. It is not acceptable to put babies at risk of coughing to death so someone else can feel they have autonomy to not vaccinate for “philosophical reasons.” 

Tetanus, not because it’s contagious but because people apparently have to be saved from their own stupidity on this front. It’s much easier to address Tetanus by prevention than after potential infection. And since it is combined with Pertussis, might as well keep it. 

Diphtheria because it is highly contagious, spread through droplets, and already is combined with Pertusis and Tetanus. 

Meningococcal B before college or group living situations.

I cannot speak knowledgably about Hib and pneumonicoccal. I cannot speak knowledgeably about Hep vaccines. I think people should get HPV vaccine before teen years, but I am on the fence about whether or not it should be required. 

*My list is for the US, because a) I can’t speak knowledgeably about other countries and; b) differents countries have different threats.

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

Do you not have a register there?  Here we have a database with every kid and every vaccine they’ve received.  They just have to check it to know.  Lying would be pretty pointless.

I don’t know. I think we do not have this in the US because I know there is protection for medical privacy that is different from many (most?) other developed countries. 

I get a printout from my kid’s doctor that has all the records. Maybe it is from a database; I’m not sure. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Quill said:

I don’t know. I think we do not have this in the US because I know there is protection for medical privacy that is different from many (most?) other developed countries. 

I get a printout from my kid’s doctor that has all the records. Maybe it is from a database; I’m not sure. 

While I think some states might have registries, there definitely is not some central federal database. My son’s vaccines were done in three different states, so I’m virtually certain a school or university would not be able to verify his handwritten records. And I know they didn’t when he needed to provide proof of the MMR in order to get a registration hold lifted.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DesertBlossom said:

This might be asking too much, but can we have a conversation about exactly which vaccines people feel should be necessary in order to be able to walk around freely in public? Can we talk about exactly which highly contagious vaccine-preventable diseases people are most concerned about? You can't say "all of them." I'd like an honest list, please. And maybe we could come to some kind of consensus.

MMR because all three are contagious and can be picked up through casual contact  - especially measles. 

TdaP - especially pertussis because again contagious in casual contact. While I think that parents who don’t vaccinate for tetanus are negligent, this isn’t a health risk to the general public and doesn’t depend on herd immunity. 

I am in the fence on the chickenpox vaccine. It is contagious but I don’t see it as as big a health risk. 

 

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

Here you have to have it to enrol in school or preschool or whatever.  At this point it doesn’t have to state that you are vaccinated but that’s changing.  I’m not sure if you can legally opt out.  They have this health database with all your records - you can opt out of that. 

 

It’s complicated.  There’s a thing called IIS, if you want to look that up.  

 

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

It’s a good point. I was thinking about this a little bit when I just recently registered DS for public high school. On the phone, the secretary was somewhat emphatic about the paperwork I had to bring, which included vaccination record. The thought went through my head, “She’s emphasizing this because I told her he had always been homeschooled.” But when I did hand over my papers, they barely glanced at it. (Although they did photocopy them so it may be the person who copied them looked at them more carefully.) But as much as she seemed to emphasize it on the phone, IRL behavior didn’t seem terribly concerned. 

 

Here the school admins doing the annual enrollment would check that immunization and TB tests are current. My kids’ TB test results were too old and the admin said I have to give them a current one before first day of school. The admin even wrote that on the photocopy of my kids’ immunization cards. The admins are back in office a month before the first day of school so it isn’t a hard task to bring in updated immunization records before school starts.

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

I have to admit I am pretty flabbergasted that people actually think people should be confined to their homes unless they inject whichever medication the government think they should into their body.  While the current set of vaccines may be well and good, once they have the power there is nothing to stop them adding new, less proven, less tested vaccines.

All the vaccines that are now not-new and proven were at one time new, less tested and less well proven. A lot of people, mostly kids, died in early trials for the vaccines that are now NBD. We would not have made the strides on polio or the erradication of smallpox had governments around the world made vaccinating against those diseases optional. 

And while I’m always a little skeptical of government - I still have a strong libertarian streak in me - it’s hard for me to imagine Merck colluding with Trump....oh, wait. Maybe that’s not so hard to imagine. 😂 

I’m kidding.I’m reading two fascinating books right now and both of them talk about how government nudges people to make wise choices and how people come up with all kinds of kooky fears about what the govt is trying to do. In the one book, tribal peoples in Africa feared bringing kids in for free vaccinations because they have a conspiracy theory that the govt is sterilizing people this way. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting.  TB test not required for most students in my state.  

5 minutes ago, Arcadia said:

 

Here the school admins doing the annual enrollment would check that immunization and TB tests are current. My kids’ TB test results were too old and the admin said I have to give them a current one before first day of school. The admin even wrote that on the photocopy of my kids’ immunization cards. The admins are back in office a month before the first day of school so it isn’t a hard task to bring in updated immunization records before school starts.

 

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

Interesting.  TB test not required for most students in my state.  

 

The new ruling after June 2014 for my county. Before that a TB test was required for students and school volunteers.

“What are the tuberculosis (TB) screening requirements for school entrance in Santa Clara County?
Students must undergo a TB risk assessment prior to entering kindergarten or upon transfer to Santa Clara County schools. Each student must be evaluated by a primary care provider who will complete the Santa Clara County Public Health Department TB Risk Assessment for School Entry form.
TB risk assessment and test results (if indicated) must be submitted prior to school entry; documented TB risk assessment up to twelve months prior to registration for school is considered valid.
Students who have a positive risk assessment should have a TB test. All children with a positive TB test should undergo medical evaluation, including a chest x-ray. Chest x-ray is not required for children with documented prior treatment for TB disease, documented prior treatment for latent TB infection, or BCG-vaccinated children who have a positive TST and negative IGRA. The results of the chest x-ray should be included on the form. If the chest x-ray is normal and the child has no TB symptoms, they may start school. If the child has symptoms or an abnormal chest x-ray consistent with TB disease, the child must undergo further evaluation and cannot enter school unless active TB disease has been excluded or treatment has been initiated.
Please fax any forms reporting an abnormal chest x-ray to the TB Prevention and Control Program at (408) 885-2331.


2) How were the risk assessment questions chosen?
The questions on the TB Risk Assessment for School Entry form were adapted from the American Academy of Pediatrics Guidelines and the Pediatric Tuberculosis Collaborative Group recommendations and based on the epidemiology of childhood tuberculosis in Santa Clara County.” https://www.sccgov.org/sites/phd/DiseaseInformation/TbResources/Documents/tb-school-entrance-faq.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Quill said:

All the vaccines that are now not-new and proven were at one time new, less tested and less well proven. A lot of people, mostly kids, died in early trials for the vaccines that are now NBD. We would not have made the strides on polio or the erradication of smallpox had governments around the world made vaccinating against those diseases optional. 

And while I’m always a little skeptical of government - I still have a strong libertarian streak in me - it’s hard for me to imagine Merck colluding with Trump....oh, wait. Maybe that’s not so hard to imagine. 😂 

I’m kidding.I’m reading two fascinating books right now and both of them talk about how government nudges people to make wise choices and how people come up with all kinds of kooky fears about what the govt is trying to do. In the one book, tribal peoples in Africa feared bringing kids in for free vaccinations because they have a conspiracy theory that the govt is sterilizing people this way. 

And then you have morons who actually used vaccination to gather information on Bin Laden. 

Way to increase suspicion toward vaccination forever!

as far as I understand it though vaccines have always been optional up until now?  I mean people who tried these unproven vaccines did so of their own free choice because the diseases were present and it seemed like a better option.  

Has there been forced vaccinations in the history of the western world?  I realise my history is a little flaky on this.

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

And then you have morons who actually used vaccination to gather information on Bin Laden. 

Way to increase suspicion toward vaccination forever!

as far as I understand it though vaccines have always been optional up until now?  I mean people who tried these unproven vaccines did so of their own free choice because the diseases were present and it seemed like a better option.  

Has there been forced vaccinations in the history of the western world?  I realise my history is a little flaky on this.

YES. Numerous times, for numerous diseases in numerous populations and numerous countries. Enforcement was not always easy, though. 

Although it is true that the earliest vaccines were often tested on the scientist’s own self/families. Salk did this. And the first trials of Polio were all voluntary, I am pretty certain. 

Here is a link to a site I love: https://www.historyofvaccines.org/timeline#EVT_63

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

It’s a good point. I was thinking about this a little bit when I just recently registered DS for public high school. On the phone, the secretary was somewhat emphatic about the paperwork I had to bring, which included vaccination record. The thought went through my head, “She’s emphasizing this because I told her he had always been homeschooled.” But when I did hand over my papers, they barely glanced at it. (Although they did photocopy them so it may be the person who copied them looked at them more carefully.) But as much as she seemed to emphasize it on the phone, IRL behavior didn’t seem terribly concerned. 

I had considered that I might need to explain his record because I had delayed some vaccines for several years. I wondered if they would discuss that with me. 

 

The school nurse will look at the records eventually.   The school wants the vaccination dates because some vaccinations require boosters.  Delaying his first tetnus shot isn't an issue, his most recent one not being current is. 

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

And then you have morons who actually used vaccination to gather information on Bin Laden. 

Way to increase suspicion toward vaccination forever!

as far as I understand it though vaccines have always been optional up until now?  I mean people who tried these unproven vaccines did so of their own free choice because the diseases were present and it seemed like a better option.  

Has there been forced vaccinations in the history of the western world?  I realise my history is a little flaky on this.

 

Mankato, Minnesota 1995 - after a menigitis outbreak in schools, all students, teachers, and childcare workers under the age of 30 had to be vaccinated or not attend school and if college students could not live in dorms.   Free vaccinations were provided at the armory.  College students lined up with secondary, elementary, and pre-school students.  Everyone was scared.  Many either knew the children who had died or knew someone who knew them.

There were many other times in history.  

I remember getting immunizations in school.  I'm sure notifitications went home to parents but I don't recall anyone not getting in line for the shots.

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

YES. Numerous times, for numerous diseases in numerous populations and numerous countries. Enforcement was not always easy, though. 

Although it is true that the earliest vaccines were often tested on the scientist’s own self/families. Salk did this. And the first trials of Polio were all voluntary, I am pretty certain. 

Here is a link to a site I love: https://www.historyofvaccines.org/timeline#EVT_63

Timeline is not working perfectly on my phone but the only one I could find that was actually mandatory was smallpox and that was in the 1800s.  Medical ethics has certainly changed since then!  What about in the last 50 years?

i may be reading too much into your original post but I was taking from is that there were large scale mandatory use of untested vaccines that is the only way that we now have safe tested ones?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Sherry in OH said:

 

Mankato, Minnesota 1995 - after a menigitis outbreak in schools, all students, teachers, and childcare workers under the age of 30 had to be vaccinated or not attend school and if college students could not live in dorms.   Free vaccinations were provided at the armory.  College students lined up with secondary, elementary, and pre-school students.  Everyone was scared.  Many either knew the children who had died or knew someone who knew them.

There were many other times in history.  

I remember getting immunizations in school.  I'm sure notifitications went home to parents but I don't recall anyone not getting in line for the shots.

Yeah we got shots at school.  I think parents had to sign a consent form though or something.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/5/2019 at 1:31 AM, moonflower said:

You know what I think, that no one ever seems to mention?

For me, it is hard to take in an infant or a small child to get shots.  I don't let my babies cry - that is to say, I have not had colicky babies, by the grace of God, and I attend to their needs and desires before they get to crying, so mine don't cry.  For most of my kids, the first set of shots at 3 months or so is the first time they cry; it is definitely the first time anyone has hurt them deliberately.  

I know in my rational mind that at least some of the vaccinations will provide them a desirable immunity, and that the trade off is worth it.  But my instinctive mind doesn't know that, and I can see how it would be very easy to say, as it has been for me at some times, I don't want to cause this pain to my infant for the sake of protection from a disease she'll never get (Polio) or to provide herd immunity for someone else's kid.  I know that is selfish and somewhat short-sighted, but I don't think that makes it either a rare response or an entirely unreasonable one.

I think if they could magically make shots into orally-administered liquids or something, compliance would go way up.  I really think that.

My two youngest recently participated in a study using a patch to administer vaccine. A small bandaid-like thing is put on the child and left there a couple minutes, then removed. It does have to be applied a little more forcefully than a bandaid, but neither child reacted as though it hurt. I'm really hoping this will be used routinely to administer vaccines soon as it seems much "nicer" than giving babies shots. From the questions they asked, I think they are looking to do flu vaccines this way first, as well as vaccines in places in the world where it is logistically harder to give injections.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, xahm said:

My two youngest recently participated in a study using a patch to administer vaccine. A small bandaid-like thing is put on the child and left there a couple minutes, then removed. It does have to be applied a little more forcefully than a bandaid, but neither child reacted as though it hurt. I'm really hoping this will be used routinely to administer vaccines soon as it seems much "nicer" than giving babies shots. From the questions they asked, I think they are looking to do flu vaccines this way first, as well as vaccines in places in the world where it is logistically harder to give injections.

And we have the rotavirus given orally in a nice sweet liquid!  My dd sucked up the first lot and was mildly ill afterward.  The second time she had to have it squirted in because she was refusing.  May have been developmental stage but I can’t help wondering if she had associated the taste with illness in some way the same way you end up turned off a food if you got sick shortly after having it.

i do think finding less unpleasant ways to administer it could be part of the picture for some people.  Not diehard antivaxxers who strongly believe it’s harmful.  But the kind of mums who are ambivalent then someone mentions it’s potentially harmful and so she doesn’t go through with it.  

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

Timeline is not working perfectly on my phone but the only one I could find that was actually mandatory was smallpox and that was in the 1800s.  Medical ethics has certainly changed since then!  What about in the last 50 years?

i may be reading too much into your original post but I was taking from is that there were large scale mandatory use of untested vaccines that is the only way that we now have safe tested ones?

Grrr...I was trying to paste some for you but I lost the post. There are several important dates on the history timeline I linked, including 1905 when the US Supreme Court declared it within the State’s authority to mandate vaccination. 1922 talks about how many or most schools require a certificate verifying kids have been vaccinated against smallpox in order to register; this point is also upheld by the Supreme Court. Other countries also mandated certain vaccines; Germany is listed on there as one of them but I don’t remember the date. I don’t seem to be able to move between the screens without losing the post so, I’m sorry, but that will have to suffice for now.

The second paragraph: No, that is not what I meant. AFAIK, all vaccines have always been tested before they are even licensed, much less mandated. I just meant that vaccines we have now used for decades were, at one time, the new vaccines without a long history. But you still had to get your shots in order to register for school. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Quill said:

Grrr...I was trying to paste some for you but I lost the post. There are several important dates on the history timeline I linked, including 1905 when the US Supreme Court declared it within the State’s authority to mandate vaccination. 1922 talks about how many or most schools require a certificate verifying kids have been vaccinated against smallpox in order to register; this point is also upheld by the Supreme Court. Other countries also mandated certain vaccines; Germany is listed on there as one of them but I don’t remember the date. I don’t seem to be able to move between the screens without losing the post so, I’m sorry, but that will have to suffice for now.

The second paragraph: No, that is not what I meant. AFAIK, all vaccines have always been tested before they are even licensed, much less mandated. I just meant that vaccines we have now used for decades were, at one time, the new vaccines without a long history. But you still had to get your shots in order to register for school. 

Thanks.  That makes more sense.  I thought you were saying there were large scale mandatory vaccination programs using untested vaccines.  Glad to know that’s not the case.

yes I see the compulsory thing historically with smallpox.  Maybe that’s why they actually managed to eliminate it. 

I have more sympathy toward extreme measures during and actual outbreak than in my country where there is very few cases per year and they are generally linked to overseas visitors.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sherry in OH said:

 

The school nurse will look at the records eventually.   The school wants the vaccination dates because some vaccinations require boosters.  Delaying his first tetnus shot isn't an issue, his most recent one not being current is. 

Most likely the school just wants them because they are legally required to have them on file. Schools get audited, they have to have their paperwork in order.

They're not going to care if something was delayed as long as they can check the boxes they need to.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Quill said:

I don’t know. I think we do not have this in the US because I know there is protection for medical privacy that is different from many (most?) other developed countries. 

I get a printout from my kid’s doctor that has all the records. Maybe it is from a database; I’m not sure. 

I don’t know if there’s a state to state issue. Ds got a dTap in the ER across state lines when he cut his leg. It didn’t show up on his vax record, and I’ve been having difficulty getting the hospital to send their record over to the ped, who is “sort of” taking my word for it for now, but I really need to check up on that before his next appointment!

dTap? Tdap? Whatever the heck it is now.

Edited by Carrie12345
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Carrie12345 said:

I don’t know if there’s a state to state issue. Ds got a dTap in the ER across state lines when he cut his leg. It didn’t show up on his vax record, and I’ve been having difficulty getting the hospital to send their record over to the ped, who is “sort of” taking my word for it for now, but I really need to check up on that before his next appointment!

dTap? Tdap? Whatever the heck it is now.

There is no national vaccination registry in the US; some states have registries but yeah they aren't coordinated with other states. With my older kids the only record I had was the yellow vaccination card I had to get stamped it signed each time they got a vaccination.

Our current state has an online registry which I much appreciate as I am terrible at record keeping with seven kids.

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

This might be asking too much, but can we have a conversation about exactly which vaccines people feel should be necessary in order to be able to walk around freely in public? Can we talk about exactly which highly contagious vaccine-preventable diseases people are most concerned about? You can't say "all of them." I'd like an honest list, please. And maybe we could come to some kind of consensus.

 

I think such discussions are incredibly useful TBH.  I'm back on the road today, but will toss in a few of my off the cuff thoughts quickly.

1) Measles - which comes with mumps and rubella.  These diseases are so contagious and dangerous - esp measles since it destroys the immune system for a time period.  It's really, really important for those who have compromised immune systems that these are eliminated.  A quick google search shows that approx 100,000+ folks died from measles in 2017 (worldwide).  A good number of these are likely to be due to that destruction of the immune system.  Folks in countries where it's been mostly eliminated have quickly forgotten the problems this one can cause and in today's age where it's easily possible to jet from one place to another, keeping it contained to other countries isn't always possible (as we can see).

2) Pertussis - which comes with tetanus and diphtheria.  Whooping cough is around and very annoying.  Both my mom and dh caught it a few years ago.  My mom because she didn't know to update her vax.  Dh because when he updated his tetanus they didn't have it with the pertussis and it later got forgotten.  Both will tell you it's one you don't want to catch - along with all family members who need to listen to the endless coughing.  (My mom broke ribs.)  If my mom caught it now, it'd be the end of her.  My lads and I had the DPT vax updated and none of us caught it even with dh living with us.

I'd say those two are the most important IMO.

I also want to keep polio vaxes around because I personally know someone who was in a wheelchair for life from polio and don't wish that on anyone.  She told me she thought of herself as a lucky one because others she knew IRL died from it.  A quick google search shows this disease is hopefully on it's way out.  Let's keep it that way, but TBH, right now I wouldn't worry about those who don't have it in the US walking among us - even for my mom.

Personally, I wish everyone without a serious reaction would also get the flu vaccine.  I know it's not as helpful as the others, but I've seen way too many stories of people who have lost loved ones, including kids, and including one that hit our church's prayer chain this year where a single mom lost her only child to the flu and her dh had died from an accident.  It's way too sad listening to all these folks afterward saying, "I wish..."  My heart breaks.  If your loved one dies anyway, at least you know you did all you could instead of wishing you had tried it.  Flu is also super contagious, but TBH, with my mom, it's one we try hard to have her avoid because there's such a low vaccination rate and the vaccine isn't as helpful as the others.

I'm fine with folks splitting vaxs or even delaying vaxs for a little bit if they feel it's better, but watch where you go and in cases of epidemics nearby (as with measles now in many states - mumps in Philly), stay home.

  • Like 2
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...