Unvaccinated- Sad stories of kids getting sick

Hashem_Yaazor

Thu, Apr 19 2012, 10:16 am

small bean wrote:

HY, I agree with you a bit. I'm sure people who are vaccinated are carrying around many diseases and have not clue because they don't get ill. actually everybody, everyday is passing on some sort of 'germ' and have no idea, because our bodies are constantly fighting.

My question is why would someone who didn't vaccinate allow their kid in open areas with children who can be carrying around major bacteria?

Those of us who vaccinate, hope that our childrens bodies took to the vaccine. Obviously the vaccines aren't perfect and some bodies don't take, no matter how many times their vaccinated.

I can't answer that on behalf of everyone Smile

In the particular case mentioned, the baby was 1 week old and had to have a bris.

If people feel like blaming the parents of the child who was sick and attended the bris, I can understand why people would feel that way. It comes from outrage after such a tragedy (if there was no tragedy, I doubt anyone would think twice about it). I just wanted to point out that even if the child had been vaccinated, the same thing could have happened. It's too horrible for me to imagine, but it's really not so black and white that a vaccinated child is no danger to society and an un-vaccinated child is. It doesn't work like that.

I do think that some parents make decisions that differ based on whether their kids are in daycare or not because the chance of disease changes. There are many people who feel uncomfortable giving their little baby the assault of the current vaccination schedule, and feel comfortable with their decision because they do not really bring their young infants around places where germs are rampant. I feel like this is part of my philosophy that there is no right answer to the vaccination debate. Every single parent and every single child has different circumstances and there is hardly one solution that fits all.

tissues

Thu, Apr 19 2012, 11:07 am

Hi, everyone! It's amazing how this topic always gets emotional & heated up no matter when, where, or how the discussion takes place! I'd like to add my own two cents.
If the unvaxed boy at the bris would have been vaxed, it would still have been possible for him to have pertussis but then it would not be CALLED pertussis! Because if he'd be vaccinated, the dr.s believe it's not possible to catch pertussis (they can't admit to the possible ineffectiveness.....), it would be called croup! or a terrible, lingering cough!
And then e/o would just blame his parents for bringing him. Being that he was not vaxed, we can now successfully blame all unvaxed ppl!

elf123

Thu, Apr 19 2012, 11:12 am

Hashem_Yaazor wrote:

I can't answer that on behalf of everyone Smile

I disagree. If there was no tragedy, people may not have KNOWN about it (meaning that a non-vaccinating family allowed their sick child to attend a bris and COUGH ON A NEWBORN BABY), which was obviously a somewhat preventable tragedy and was certainly the responsibility of these parents to take precautions. However, the "thinking twice about it, " or the debate of vaccinating vs. non-vaccinating, would continue regardless..

tissues

Thu, Apr 19 2012, 11:23 am

And to those who wondered aboout the eradication of polio and smallpox:
You can check it up yourself and you'll see the timeline of polio in connection w/ the vaccine. Polio was already significantly on the decline when the vax was introduced! yes, the vaccine helped it get out more quickly, but withing another few years the disease would have gone away on its own just like the black plague & just like cholera and scarlet fever.... Do we here about these? No! Is it because e/o is completely vaccinated against it? Again, NO!
Diseases come and go. When there's an epidemic, nobody is safe (k'she neetan reshush... aino mavchin bein tzadik l'rasha) as has been proven w/ the mumps & w/ pertussus. There were plenty of examples of vaxed ppl getting the disease & also enough examples of unvaxed ppl, being in close proximity to those w/ the disease, not getting it.

ally

Thu, Apr 19 2012, 11:38 am

yunchkup wrote:

The whole vax-anti vax debate is based on statistical probability and risk.

So can you tell me, if two children are exposed to pertussis, what is the probability that the vaccinated child will have pertussis as opposed to the non-vaccinated child? Even without numbers, unless you want to claim that vaccines do nothing at all, it is obvious that the non-vaccinated child has a higher risk of contracting the disease.
So yes, the fact that the child who had this illness was unvaxed is very very relevant and it is ridiculous to claim that it is not relevant because he may have gotten the disease anyhow if he was vaxed.

Barbara

Thu, Apr 19 2012, 11:42 am

RoseT wrote:

yunchkup wrote:

If the unvaxed boy at the bris would have been vaxed, it would still have been possible for him to have pertussis but then it would not be CALLED pertussis! Because if he'd be vaccinated, the dr.s believe it's not possible to catch pertussis (they can't admit to the possible ineffectiveness.....), it would be called croup! or a terrible, lingering cough!

Doctors often correctly diagnose pertussis without the mother remembering someone coughing at her baby.

Doctors diagnose diseases in vaccinated children all of the time. Pertussis has a very distinct sound.

shirtsandskirts

Thu, Apr 19 2012, 12:00 pm

yunchkup wrote:

So would it have been better then, to wait a few years until these diseases were totally eradicated themselves and many more people died or were sick for life, rather than giving people vaccines? Too bad the vaccine came as late as it did. Sure these diseases come and go- but is it possible that one reason is due to vaccines? We don't hear about cholera and scarlet fever anymore because, people had vaccines so these diseases disappeared (except from foreign countries where there isn't proper medicine -I.e.-vaccines).

And regarding your quote about the malach hamaves- it's true when there is an epidemic no one is totally safe, but those who are vaccinated are much less likely to contract it than those who are not.

m in Israel

Thu, Apr 19 2012, 1:37 pm

amother wrote:

A coughing child should not have been brought to a bris. Even it was a common cold. A sick child does not belong at a bris!

I know it's been said already a few times, and it is not really on the main topic of this thread, but I think this point needs to be stressed. Any sick child should be kept away from a newborn baby, and certainly from a bris where the babies already vulnerable immune system is even more compromised. This has nothing to do with where you stand on the vax debate!

I'm sure most people would prefer you don't come at all if you have no other arrangements for your sick child, rather than bring even a slightly sniffly kid to a bris!

sequoia

Thu, Apr 19 2012, 1:41 pm

newima wrote:

yunchkup wrote:

There's no vaccine for cholera. It's a matter of proper sanitation.

There's cholera every summer in Ukraine, you just take precautions in terms of food and water. All vaccines that exist are certainly available there.

anon for this

Thu, Apr 19 2012, 1:45 pm

Hashem_Yaazor wrote:

Ally, I started agreeing with your logic until you brought this specific case into it.

Pertussis can be transmitted whether the child is sick or not. So even if he didn't get sick and vaccination spared him that, it doesn't mean that he can't carry the disease and pass it on to others.

But if the child had been vaccinated, even if he'd been carrying pertussis germs, he'd have been significantly less likely to be "sick"--that is, he likely wouldn't have been exhibiting symptoms such as coughing/ sneezing. In that case the infant might not have been exposed to his germs (unless the child also handled the baby).

Barbara

Thu, Apr 19 2012, 2:02 pm

yunchkup wrote:

Really?

In 1952 and 1953, the U.S. experienced an outbreak of 58,000 and 35,000 polio cases, respectively, up from a typical number of some 20,000 a year. The 1952 outbreak was the worst in U.S. history; 3,145 people died and 21,269 were left with mild to disabling paralysis, with most of the victims being children.

Salk's vaccine was introduced in 1955.

The FACT is that better nutrition and hygiene did reduce infection rates, but were far from eradication of the respective diseases. The FACT is also that infection rates tended to be cyclical, with heavier outbreaks at some times than others.

By the way, there apparently IS vaccine against cholera. Its been used in Haiti recently to try to stop the post-earthquake outbreak of cholera.

ElTam

Thu, Apr 19 2012, 5:11 pm

Quote:

Polio was already significantly on the decline when the vax was introduced! yes, the vaccine helped it get out more quickly, but withing another few years the disease would have gone away on its own just like the black plague & just like cholera and scarlet fever.... Do we here about these? No! Is it because e/o is completely vaccinated against it? Again, NO!

Please provide proof. My research shows that you appear to be wrong on virtually everything in this paragraph.

1. Please explain the continued existence of polio in other parts of the world, particular its surge in years following anti-vaxing propaganda (In. With the global mobility of our society and the incubation period of the disease, I do not wish to risk my child dying or being paralyzed. In fact, polio is currently being transmitted in the United States.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11.....d=all (Interesting story about recent recurrence of polio in the U.S.)
http://ucatlas.ucsc.edu/health......html (Maps showing how polio rates dropped sharply after vaccination campaigns in parts of the world with low vaccination rates.)
http://www.time.com/time/healt......html (This is particularly interesting because it talks about how polio made a comeback in India after Muslim clerics began saying the vaccine would cause people to be sterile.)

2. the plague, aka the black death has not been eradicated. And it is not a disease that is vaccinated for, so lumping it with polio is mixing apples and oranges. It is carried by fleas, primarily on mice and other rodents. People continue to die in the United States of the plague. Yes, it is rare, but it still happens. This is a disease reduced but not eradicated by different living conditions and better sanitation.
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvbid/plague/ (Basic info on the plague. I remember several people dying of the plague in Arizona, New Mexico, etc. just in the last few years.)

3. Cholera was not wiped out. It was reduced doctors and public health officials finally figuring out the method of transmission of the disease and eliminating it. Cholera continues to break out in the wake of many natural disasters, when proper sanitation is unavailable. A few Americans contract it each year. In other countries, it is epidemic.
http://www.cdc.gov/safewater/p.....1.pdf (Studies of Americans who contracted cholera as well as info on the disease worldwide.)

4. Scarlet fever has also not been wiped out. Scarlet fever is simply a variant form of the strep virus. One of my children had it. I freaked out, as I was pregnant at the time, and said, "Who gets scarlet fever? That's like something from Little House on the Prairie. Nobody gets scarlet fever." Except that it is common enough that my pediatrician knew exactly what it was the second she saw the rash. Lab tests confirmed it, but it is common enough in my community that it was an easy diagnosis.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07.....?_r=1 (First-person story by a NYT reporter whose child got scarlet fever.)
http://emedicine.medscape.com/.....rview (Basic scarlet fever explanation.)
http://emedicine.medscape.com/.....a0199 (More details on scarlet fever.)