 |
|
 |
 |
|
|
Forum
-> Children's Health
imamiri
|
 Wed, Aug 21 2013, 5:14 pm
| ally wrote: | | 5*Mom wrote: | | Ima_Shelli wrote: | Because herd immunity is negatively affected by the presence of a large cohort of non-vaccinated kids. And not every vaccinated kid mounts a completely perfect immune response, never mind the infants and immunocompromised people. When a lot if people opt out in a close-knit community, it is a setup for an epidemic where others can be adversely affected.
I'm glad you vaccinate. |
Let's talk about infants and immunocompromised people. It is generally understood that in certain situations, like these, for example, the risks of vaccination outweigh the potential benefits for these individuals. No one would accuse mothers of infants or the immunocompromised of selfishly considering only their own interests at the risk of endangering public health, although they may in fact be endangering the public. Likewise, there are parents of non-infants and non-immunocompromised children who feel that the risks of vaccination outweigh the potential benefits. Now you may not agree, but why would anyone feel entitled to make that decision for someone else? |
Because when anti-vaxers decide the risks outweigh the benefits, they forget that the reason the risk is small is because the majority vaccinate.
Noone in the 60's was like "Oh polio. Big deal. I'm not going to catch it anyway" or "It's better for me to have it naturally." |
Because photos like this were in the news. Now polio is a long lost memory. And people stupidly have short memories.
| |
|
| Back to top |
 0
 6
|
Barbara
|
Wed, Aug 21 2013, 5:14 pm
| 5*Mom wrote: | | Ima_Shelli wrote: | Because herd immunity is negatively affected by the presence of a large cohort of non-vaccinated kids. And not every vaccinated kid mounts a completely perfect immune response, never mind the infants and immunocompromised people. When a lot if people opt out in a close-knit community, it is a setup for an epidemic where others can be adversely affected.
I'm glad you vaccinate. |
Let's talk about infants and immunocompromised people. It is generally understood that in certain situations, like these, for example, the risks of vaccination outweigh the potential benefits for these individuals. No one would accuse mothers of infants or the immunocompromised of selfishly considering only their own interests at the risk of endangering public health, although they may in fact be endangering the public. Likewise, there are parents of non-infants and non-immunocompromised children who feel that the risks of vaccination outweigh the potential benefits. Now you may not agree, but why would anyone feel entitled to make that decision for someone else? |
Because the "sole" reason that the anti-vaccination movement is able to exist and thrive is because the majority of people do vaccinate. IOW, in weighing the risks and benefits of vaccination, you are assuming that others will take the risk for your kids.
Let's look at smallpox. About 30% of cases ended in death, an estimated 300 million deaths in the 20th century alone. Now, we don't need to vaccinate for it anymore. Its eradicated, because "everyone" got the vaccine. But let's think about the time before it was eradicated (1977). In 1910, you would have been glad for the vaccine. By 1975, it would have been much easier to say risk from vaccine is too great. But that's only because OTHERS took that risk.
In all honesty, if there were an outbreak of polio at your children's school, would you immunize them? Or would you take the chance of them getting polio and recovering? (And would you purposely expose them?) If you would immunize them, then you believe in immunization, you just want other people's kids to do it in order to protect your kids.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
13
|
5*Mom
|
Wed, Aug 21 2013, 5:18 pm
| Ima_Shelli wrote: | | 5*Mom wrote: | | Now you may not agree, but why would anyone feel entitled to make that decision for someone else? |
Because they went to med school, did residency, and are trained to make those decisions for a living. |
No, they are trained in the decision-making process and which factors need to be considered when making those decisions. However, how much weight to give to each factor varies from person to person, situation to situation. I certainly advocate consulting with a trusted medical professional, but don't kid yourself into believing that this issue is black and white. It isn't.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
2
|
5*Mom
|
Wed, Aug 21 2013, 5:20 pm
| Barbara wrote: | | 5*Mom wrote: | | Ima_Shelli wrote: | Because herd immunity is negatively affected by the presence of a large cohort of non-vaccinated kids. And not every vaccinated kid mounts a completely perfect immune response, never mind the infants and immunocompromised people. When a lot if people opt out in a close-knit community, it is a setup for an epidemic where others can be adversely affected.
I'm glad you vaccinate. |
Let's talk about infants and immunocompromised people. It is generally understood that in certain situations, like these, for example, the risks of vaccination outweigh the potential benefits for these individuals. No one would accuse mothers of infants or the immunocompromised of selfishly considering only their own interests at the risk of endangering public health, although they may in fact be endangering the public. Likewise, there are parents of non-infants and non-immunocompromised children who feel that the risks of vaccination outweigh the potential benefits. Now you may not agree, but why would anyone feel entitled to make that decision for someone else? |
Because the "sole" reason that the anti-vaccination movement is able to exist and thrive is because the majority of people do vaccinate. IOW, in weighing the risks and benefits of vaccination, you are assuming that others will take the risk for your kids.
Let's look at smallpox. About 30% of cases ended in death, an estimated 300 million deaths in the 20th century alone. Now, we don't need to vaccinate for it anymore. Its eradicated, because "everyone" got the vaccine. But let's think about the time before it was eradicated (1977). In 1910, you would have been glad for the vaccine. By 1975, it would have been much easier to say risk from vaccine is too great. But that's only because OTHERS took that risk.
In all honesty, if there were an outbreak of polio at your children's school, would you immunize them? Or would you take the chance of them getting polio and recovering? (And would you purposely expose them?) If you would immunize them, then you believe in immunization, you just want other people's kids to do it in order to protect your kids. |
Barbara, take a breath. I did say I vax.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
1
|
ally
|
Wed, Aug 21 2013, 5:24 pm
| 5*Mom wrote: | | ally wrote: | Because when anti-vaxers decide the risks outweigh the benefits, they forget that the reason the risk is small is because the majority vaccinate.
Noone in the 60's was like "Oh polio. Big deal. I'm not going to catch it anyway" or "It's better for me to have it naturally." |
Okay, but it's no different for infants or the immunocompromised. What I'm saying is that you cannot draw the line of acceptable risk for someone else.
Cost-benefit analysis is subjective by its very nature. Only you can decide on the acceptable level of risk for your child. I cannot decide for you and you cannot decide for someone else. |
Of course you can.
I can say I will not tolerate a risk of more than 1/100,000 (made up number).
The immunocompromised have a risk of 1/50,000. Therefore, they do not fall within the range of "acceptable risk".
This is aside from the fact that the only reason the risk of 1/100,000 is comparable to the risk of disease (questionable, depends on the disease and the country and again, made up number) is because the majority of people are immunised.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
0
|
5*Mom
|
Wed, Aug 21 2013, 5:30 pm
| ally wrote: | | 5*Mom wrote: | | Cost-benefit analysis is subjective by its very nature. Only you can decide on the acceptable level of risk for your child. I cannot decide for you and you cannot decide for someone else. |
Of course you can.
I can say I will not tolerate a risk of more than 1/100,000 (made up number).
The immunocompromised have a risk of 1/50,000. Therefore, they do not fall within the range of "acceptable risk". |
Acceptable to you. Sorry, but you do not get to decide what level of risk to someone else's child you will or will not accept.
| ally wrote: | | This is aside from the fact that the only reason the risk of 1/100,000 is comparable to the risk of disease (questionable, depends on the disease and the country and again, made up number) is because the majority of people are immunised. |
I don't get this argument either. When making a decision today, you take into consideration the facts on the ground today, regardless of how they got that way.
This argument is basically an "it's not fair!" argument. To the posters who take this position, it sounds to me like you too would like to opt out but feel compelled out of concerns for public health (noble, but a personal decision) and quite resentful. If you do not want to take the risk, then don't. If you believe in it, then where does the resentment come from?
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
1
|
Ima_Shelli
|
Wed, Aug 21 2013, 5:39 pm
| 5*Mom wrote: | | ally wrote: | | 5*Mom wrote: | | Cost-benefit analysis is subjective by its very nature. Only you can decide on the acceptable level of risk for your child. I cannot decide for you and you cannot decide for someone else. |
Of course you can.
I can say I will not tolerate a risk of more than 1/100,000 (made up number).
The immunocompromised have a risk of 1/50,000. Therefore, they do not fall within the range of "acceptable risk". |
Acceptable to you. Sorry, but you do not get to decide what level of risk to someone else's child you will or will not accept.
| ally wrote: | | This is aside from the fact that the only reason the risk of 1/100,000 is comparable to the risk of disease (questionable, depends on the disease and the country and again, made up number) is because the majority of people are immunised. |
I don't get this argument either. When making a decision today, you take into consideration the facts on the ground today, regardless of how they got that way.
This argument is basically an "it's not fair!" argument. To the posters who take this position, it sounds to me like you too would like to opt out but feel compelled out of concerns for public health (noble, but a personal decision) and quite resentful. If you do not want to take the risk, then don't. If you believe in it, then where does the resentment come from? |
I'll say it again. The resentment comes from the fact that your decision puts other kids at risk. Otherwise I could care less what you decide to do about your or your family's health.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
6
|
Tablepoetry
|
Wed, Aug 21 2013, 5:40 pm
Reminds me of the thread on 'borrowing' someone's wifi. The borrower wants to enjoy free internet without paying for it, because after all, it's not really costing or hurting the one who Paid their dues. So why should anyone care?
The question is, is it moral to count on someone else to Pay their Dues (or vaccinate)? Or is it taking advantage?
Also, what is the risk of this system to the one who Paid his Dues? Will his wifi be too slow? Will someone use his account for criminal activity?
Will an entire community be more at risk for serious disease?
Last edited by Tablepoetry on Wed, Aug 21 2013, 5:43 pm; edited 1 time in total
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
15
|
5*Mom
|
Wed, Aug 21 2013, 5:42 pm
| Ima_Shelli wrote: | | 5*Mom wrote: | | ally wrote: | | 5*Mom wrote: | | Cost-benefit analysis is subjective by its very nature. Only you can decide on the acceptable level of risk for your child. I cannot decide for you and you cannot decide for someone else. |
Of course you can.
I can say I will not tolerate a risk of more than 1/100,000 (made up number).
The immunocompromised have a risk of 1/50,000. Therefore, they do not fall within the range of "acceptable risk". |
Acceptable to you. Sorry, but you do not get to decide what level of risk to someone else's child you will or will not accept.
| ally wrote: | | This is aside from the fact that the only reason the risk of 1/100,000 is comparable to the risk of disease (questionable, depends on the disease and the country and again, made up number) is because the majority of people are immunised. |
I don't get this argument either. When making a decision today, you take into consideration the facts on the ground today, regardless of how they got that way.
This argument is basically an "it's not fair!" argument. To the posters who take this position, it sounds to me like you too would like to opt out but feel compelled out of concerns for public health (noble, but a personal decision) and quite resentful. If you do not want to take the risk, then don't. If you believe in it, then where does the resentment come from? |
I'll say it again. The resentment comes from the fact that your decision puts other kids at risk. Otherwise I could care less what you decide to do about your or your family's health. |
And round and round we go. So does the decision of moms of infants and the immunocompromised put others at risk. The argument is not consistent.
And again, for those who are reading-comprehension challenged, I.do.vax. It's not a personal discussion here; it's a philosophical one.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
2
|
ally
|
Wed, Aug 21 2013, 5:43 pm
| 5*Mom wrote: | | ally wrote: | | 5*Mom wrote: | | Cost-benefit analysis is subjective by its very nature. Only you can decide on the acceptable level of risk for your child. I cannot decide for you and you cannot decide for someone else. |
Of course you can.
I can say I will not tolerate a risk of more than 1/100,000 (made up number).
The immunocompromised have a risk of 1/50,000. Therefore, they do not fall within the range of "acceptable risk". |
Acceptable to you. Sorry, but you do not get to decide what level of risk to someone else's child you will or will not accept.
| ally wrote: | | This is aside from the fact that the only reason the risk of 1/100,000 is comparable to the risk of disease (questionable, depends on the disease and the country and again, made up number) is because the majority of people are immunised. |
I don't get this argument either. When making a decision today, you take into consideration the facts on the ground today, regardless of how they got that way.
This argument is basically an "it's not fair!" argument. To the posters who take this position, it sounds to me like you too would like to opt out but feel compelled out of concerns for public health (noble, but a personal decision) and quite resentful. If you do not want to take the risk, then don't. If you believe in it, then where does the resentment come from? |
Not at all.
It's not just public health. It's my health too.
Vaccines are not 100% foolproof. Noone thinks they are. Their efficiency is improved by herd immunity.
If there is no herd immunity, the probability that I or my children or my elderly family member will get the disease increases.
If I think tyou are increasing MY probability of disease and the probability of vulnerable populations based on junk science, why shouldn't I be angry.
To say that we should decide based on the facts on the ground today is short sighted and shows a lack of understanding of how vaccines work.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
9
|
ally
|
Wed, Aug 21 2013, 5:51 pm
| 5*Mom wrote: | | Ima_Shelli wrote: | | 5*Mom wrote: | | ally wrote: | | 5*Mom wrote: | | Cost-benefit analysis is subjective by its very nature. Only you can decide on the acceptable level of risk for your child. I cannot decide for you and you cannot decide for someone else. |
Of course you can.
I can say I will not tolerate a risk of more than 1/100,000 (made up number).
The immunocompromised have a risk of 1/50,000. Therefore, they do not fall within the range of "acceptable risk". |
Acceptable to you. Sorry, but you do not get to decide what level of risk to someone else's child you will or will not accept.
| ally wrote: | | This is aside from the fact that the only reason the risk of 1/100,000 is comparable to the risk of disease (questionable, depends on the disease and the country and again, made up number) is because the majority of people are immunised. |
I don't get this argument either. When making a decision today, you take into consideration the facts on the ground today, regardless of how they got that way.
This argument is basically an "it's not fair!" argument. To the posters who take this position, it sounds to me like you too would like to opt out but feel compelled out of concerns for public health (noble, but a personal decision) and quite resentful. If you do not want to take the risk, then don't. If you believe in it, then where does the resentment come from? |
I'll say it again. The resentment comes from the fact that your decision puts other kids at risk. Otherwise I could care less what you decide to do about your or your family's health. |
And round and round we go. So does the decision of moms of infants and the immunocompromised put others at risk. The argument is not consistent.
And again, for those who are reading-comprehension challenged, I.do.vax. It's not a personal discussion here; it's a philosophical one. |
It is consistent if you realise that the aim is to protect the greatest number of people with the least side effects. And this takes into account herd immunity.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
2
|
5*Mom
|
Wed, Aug 21 2013, 6:19 pm
| ally wrote: | | If I think tyou are increasing MY probability of disease and the probability of vulnerable populations based on junk science, why shouldn't I be angry. |
Ah, here we agree. I don't support junk science either. You might be surprised to learn, though, that real science is not black and white.
| ally wrote: | | To say that we should decide based on the facts on the ground today is short sighted and shows a lack of understanding of how vaccines work. |
Actually, this is exactly how public health policy decisions are made by the medical establishment all the time, including with respect to vaccines. Take polio vaccine (as my pediatrician explained it to me): From 1960 to about 2000, everyone received OPV (live virus); it was the standard. In about 2000, *the facts on the ground* showed that polio was essentially eradicated in the US and a new cost-benefit analysis was conducted, weighing the risks of OPV (which include contracting polio from the vaccine itself) against the risks of a polio outbreak. The conclusion was that the risks from OPV outweighed the risks of contracting polio and the OPV was discontinued in favor of the IPV (inactive) which confers immunity but does not prevent against infection and transmission to others. This was a decision made by the medical establishment based on the facts on the ground and shows exactly how public vaccination policy works.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
4
|
5*Mom
|
Wed, Aug 21 2013, 6:38 pm
Not only that, but the CDC (US public health) and the WHO (global health) have been known to disagree on public health policy. How can that be? They give different weight to the various factors involved in the decision making process, depending on what their particular priorities are. It could just as easily be said that the US decision to switch from OPV to IPV, thereby providing immunity to its citizens while failing to prevent infection and transmission to unvaxed populations, is a selfish decision that puts others at risk.
It's really the same issue and the same process; the difference is scale.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
4
|
amother
|
Wed, Aug 21 2013, 8:53 pm
| 5*Mom wrote: | | Ima_Shelli wrote: | | So 'respect for opposing views' is a bit harder to muster when you feel that the health of your own kids is at risk. |
This is an argument I don't quite get. If your children are vaxed, why would their health be at risk? And if it is at risk regardless of the fact that they have been vaxed, then how would other people's children getting vaxed safeguard your children's health if you feel that their own vaccinations cannot do so? It's a bit of a convoluted argument.
(FTR, I vax, mostly, but on an alternate schedule.) |
 
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
0
|
BusyBeeMommy
|
Wed, Aug 21 2013, 8:58 pm
| In the kitchen wrote: | I am a bit shocked at how hateful that reply of yours was. Attacking people doesn't strengthen your argument. I didn't say who is right or wrong, and how would I know? I simply was explaining why there are many people who don't trust doctors because yes there have been many tragic mistakes. Doctors do NOT know everything, they are not G-d and they are not perfect (they are only human). We can only hope they are good shluchim. Just like Gemara says, every great doctor has a place in gehennom.
I think it would be good for you to reevaluate how you reacted to my post because I found it to be hateful and out of line. I also think the other poster who keeps insulting that Rebbetzin should reevaluate what she is saying and putting out there because you do not know how or why she made that decision. |
Aside from my sarcastic remark at the end of the post, I'm not seeing what was hateful about my reply, but apologies to you if that's how you feel. My post was passionate about my belief, but there was no implication to the subtlest degree of attack in it. The opinions I expressed are different from yours, but that's no reason to feel it was out of line.
Your posts however, do belittle the vast knowledge and expertise of medical professionals which I take offense to. As I've written in my post, all are just humans, there are no G-ds. The risk for adverse reactions are way too minute to even compare to those of communicable diseases, which as we see about yearly, creep up and are not eradicated as of yet. Anyone can sit for endless hours reading all there is to read online, opinions of who-knows-who, individual personal accounts, etc. They do not spend years in training, learning the mechanisms of multitudes of diseases and health processes, learning how to evaluate and critically appraise quality research studies. Even published research is not quality research, it needs to meet a lot of criteria. Compare that with all the junk on the website that untrained laymen are reading.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
3
|
BusyBeeMommy
|
Wed, Aug 21 2013, 9:04 pm
[quote="amother"] | 5*Mom wrote: | | Ima_Shelli wrote: | | So 'respect for opposing views' is a bit harder to muster when you feel that the health of your own kids is at risk. |
This is an argument I don't quite get. If your children are vaxed, why would their health be at risk? And if it is at risk regardless of the fact that they have been vaxed, then how would other people's children getting vaxed safeguard your children's health if you feel that their own vaccinations cannot do so? It's a bit of a convoluted argument.
(FTR, I vax, mostly, but on an alternate schedule.) |
Actually, a small percentage of vaccinations do not take and the patient may not have the serum antibodies to the vaccination. It is not a 100% protection. When there is a mumps outbreak, as there have been several of recent within the Jewish community in NY, those vaccinated children can still contract the disease. These outbreaks are a result of children not getting vaccinated. One person brings it in from another country and it spreads. If that person were to be vaccinated, as most people should, the likelihood of that would decrease greatly.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
8
|
groisamomma
|
Wed, Aug 21 2013, 9:32 pm
| 5*Mom wrote: | | Barbara wrote: | | 5*Mom wrote: | | Ima_Shelli wrote: | Because herd immunity is negatively affected by the presence of a large cohort of non-vaccinated kids. And not every vaccinated kid mounts a completely perfect immune response, never mind the infants and immunocompromised people. When a lot if people opt out in a close-knit community, it is a setup for an epidemic where others can be adversely affected.
I'm glad you vaccinate. |
Let's talk about infants and immunocompromised people. It is generally understood that in certain situations, like these, for example, the risks of vaccination outweigh the potential benefits for these individuals. No one would accuse mothers of infants or the immunocompromised of selfishly considering only their own interests at the risk of endangering public health, although they may in fact be endangering the public. Likewise, there are parents of non-infants and non-immunocompromised children who feel that the risks of vaccination outweigh the potential benefits. Now you may not agree, but why would anyone feel entitled to make that decision for someone else? |
Because the "sole" reason that the anti-vaccination movement is able to exist and thrive is because the majority of people do vaccinate. IOW, in weighing the risks and benefits of vaccination, you are assuming that others will take the risk for your kids.
Let's look at smallpox. About 30% of cases ended in death, an estimated 300 million deaths in the 20th century alone. Now, we don't need to vaccinate for it anymore. Its eradicated, because "everyone" got the vaccine. But let's think about the time before it was eradicated (1977). In 1910, you would have been glad for the vaccine. By 1975, it would have been much easier to say risk from vaccine is too great. But that's only because OTHERS took that risk.
In all honesty, if there were an outbreak of polio at your children's school, would you immunize them? Or would you take the chance of them getting polio and recovering? (And would you purposely expose them?) If you would immunize them, then you believe in immunization, you just want other people's kids to do it in order to protect your kids. |
Barbara, take a breath. I did say I vax. |
5*Mom, do you agree with the bolded in Barbara's statement?
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
0
|
rosenbal
|
Thu, Aug 22 2013, 12:35 am
| Barbara wrote: |
In all honesty, if there were an outbreak of polio at your children's school, would you immunize them? Or would you take the chance of them getting polio and recovering? (And would you purposely expose them?) If you would immunize them, then you believe in immunization, you just want other people's kids to do it in order to protect your kids. |
Barbara! I can't like this enough!!! You've hit the nail on the head. You're RIGHT - they all DO believe in immunization because who in their right mind would "just take the risk" in the example you mentioned. Brilliant point.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
3
|
eschaya
|
Thu, Aug 22 2013, 2:18 am
|
Just want to point out that the website you (one of the anti-vaxers) use to disprove the need to vaccinate is called "realfarmacy.com". Like ToysRUs and Kars4Kids and all those other highly reputable and serious institutions that need to misspell their names to be cute. Just saying, but I wouldn't jump to place my trust in them.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
4
|
|
Imamother may earn commission when you use our links to make a purchase.
© 2024 Imamother.com - All rights reserved
|  |
 |
|
 |
|
|
