St. Judes: No visitors who've recently received live vaccine

amother

Tue, Feb 03 2015, 12:30 pm

amother wrote:

as I said above, read my post - I said "recently vaccinated" - title didn't have enough characters to include that

also, you and many others misunderstand the meaning of herd immunity - it does not mean mass vaccination, it means that a majority of the population is actually IMMUNE, which is generally understood to mean they have had the illness already, since vaccination does not confer permanent immunity

yes, boosters help, but the reality is that there will always be many, many people who are not immune because of waning vaccine effectiveness or other reasons

so although people throw around the term "herd immunity," it is not really what people expect or assume it to mean

what you mean is that a certain critical mass of vaccinated people reduces the transmission of illness among that population

There. See. You could have done it. But why would you? This way you get to put VACCINATED in nice caps, and pretend that's what the hospital really said.

Wait. Who is writing this? Is this the OP?

amother

Tue, Feb 03 2015, 12:31 pm

but in practice, millions of recently vaccinated people are out there and very few know that they should stay away from vulnerable people or public places, and even if they do know, no one really knows the exact window precaution is needed

just because YOU are responsible in keeping kids home, etc., doesn't mean everyone is - most people aren't

the result, if you are honest, is that at the very least, many thousands of recently vaccinated people are out and about

how many unvaccinated people who are currently infectious but not symptomatic are out & about at any given time? is it more than the recently vaccinated?

I don't have the answer, but do you see that there is more than one side to this?

ora_43 wrote:

However, long term, a large group of unvaccinated individuals is a far greater threat to the immunocompromised than is the use of live virus vaccines. Especially since the threat posed by the latter can be dealt with simply by people being careful during the 1-4 weeks after getting the vaccine.

amother

Tue, Feb 03 2015, 12:34 pm

op continuing
nice try but the policy does not state that the "general population" cannot visit - however it goes into great detail about people who have been recently vaccinated, what kinds of vaccines

clearly it is an important precaution, otherwise it would "go without saying"...

imaima wrote:

2) Immunocompromised is not one homogenious group of people. I guess there are levels there. If someone is hospitalized in the first place, it shows that it is dangerous for them to be among general population. Nothing to do with an averagr toddler in a daycare.

amother

Tue, Feb 03 2015, 12:36 pm

op here
I do have loved ones with immune disorders, although b"h not children with cancer

my post used no straw man, and I didn't even make any argument! I just posted a hospital policy and summarized it

now I am spending my time responding to other people's straw-man arguments Smile

eli7 wrote:

OP, whatever your views about vaccines, it is in extremely poor taste to use gravely ill children as straw men in your argument.

May you never know what it means to have a loved one with an immune disorder.

Barbara

Tue, Feb 03 2015, 12:36 pm

amother wrote:

Can you please provide me with a citation to the medical literature that states that vaccinated people are not considered to be immune, and that vaccination does not provide herd immunity? As always, peer reviewed, or standard textbooks will be accepted.

Sorry if I don't trust the statements of an anonymous poster, but every science-based article I've ever read disagrees with you.

amother

Tue, Feb 03 2015, 12:37 pm

reading comprehension, people!! titles can't include everything - which title on imamother does? but read what I actually wrote - I said "recently vaccinated"

so who misread??

acemom wrote:

Title is very misleading IMHO.

If I recall correctly, the pediatrician mentioned that after any shot, there is a chance of a slight fever a few days later. For all the moms that freak out about it, that should be reassuring, as it is a sign of the body building up the immune system and fighting the "intruder". If the child would have had the disease itself, that is how long it would've taken the body to recognize and start fighting it.

To echo what Dolly Welsh said, the hospital's precaution makes total sense. They aren't banning ANYONE who has EVER gotten the vaccines, but only those that may still have the live disease in their systems.

(Not getting into the whole vaccine debate, but whatever proof you bring to support your theories/ideologies, has to be strong enough, not based on a sentence that YOU misread.....)

amother

Tue, Feb 03 2015, 12:42 pm

op

Barbara, you do realize that you are responding to things that have nothing to do with THIS thread. THIS thread is about what a hospital policy says. You are bringing in your preconceived ideas and your anger based on OTHER threads, none of which I have participated in.

Please respond to THIS thread only. There are plenty of other places for everyone to rehash all of the same angry arguments. I'm not here for that.

Barbara wrote:

I wouldn't keep my child home from school. I would schedule the vaccinations for the beginning of a vacation, in order to avoid the issue.

But I'm not boiling over that unvaccinated kids are out in the population. I'm boiling over that in a case when a child was specifically at risk from children whose parents don't vaccinate, the universal consensus of all of the anonymous people here -- because although the rules don't allow you to post anonymously, you don't have the courage of your convictions to use your name(s) -- was tough luck, the sick child should stay home, I'm not vaccinating. And I'm boiling over that when I suggested that the unvaccinated children could be segregated into different classrooms or schools to protect the vulnerable child, the universal consensus was no, we would never agree to any restrictions on our kids in order to protect the life of another; let the compromised child stay home. And I'm boiling over that when I posted an article in which an anti-vaxer proudly stated that even if he knew that his children were putting other vulnerable children at risk, he wouldn't care, because after all, people die, and ergo he would have no reason to feel guilty is his children caused the death of a vulnerable child, not a single anti-vaxer said "that's not what we stand for."

I"m boiling over that a baby, too young to be vaccinated, was diagnosed with measles. And that other infants at the daycare center are at risk. And that the attitude of the anti-vaxers is tough luck, who cares about that baby.

And I hope and I pray that when the anti-vaxers are in the hospital with their babies who contract measles -- and about 15% to 25% of kids with measles wind up hospitalized -- praying that their babies are okay -- they hear someone say "well, there's something less than 1 in a million chance of a serious or permanent side effect
from MMR, so I'm not taking that chance in order to save you from the 25% chance of hospitalization, or 1/1000 chance of death. Because, hey, my kid isn't likely to get measles anyway."

Scrabble123

Tue, Feb 03 2015, 12:44 pm

My aunt has an auto immune disorder called psoriatic arthritis and is on a medication that severely suppresses her immune system. Her rhuematologist told her not to go around unvaccinated individuals, and does not allow unvaccinated individuals to enter his practice during times of outbreaks because of the risk to the individuals who are on the immune suppressants. He told my aunt that before she starts her treatment she should go and get the shingles vaccine and that although the risk of shedding is considered extremely low with this vaccine (as opposed to the OPV which is not available in US - that sheds which is actually considered a good way to "vaccinate" everyone, but I discussed that on another thread) she should still wait 2 weeks to start her immune suppressant medication and before entering his office. Everyone who comes into contact with my aunt knows that they must either get the flu shot or not see her for 2 weeks if they received the nasal shot. This thread just showed a limited understanding of vaccines, medicine, science, and how they work.... It's not "new" that individuals vaccinated with live viruses should avoid those who are severely immune compromised (patients with cancer, hiv, or who take immune suppressants for other conditions), and unvaccinated individuals pose a great danger to these individuals as well, especially times of outbreaks. Trust me, if someone in Anaheim wanted to visit someone in a hospital, I'm sure the hospital will have a policy that because of the risk of measles, unvaccinated individuals should not be entering at this time. Nurses and health care personnel have to have their titers checked.

Last edited by Scrabble123 on Tue, Feb 03 2015, 12:45 pm; edited 1 time in total

amother

Tue, Feb 03 2015, 12:44 pm

op
THANK YOU, YES, EXACTLY!!!! Thanks for reading carefully and understanding, and for mixing up this thread with all the others. Smile

amother wrote:

New Amother here.
Wadr, I think the OP brought this up because the past few threads re vaccines on Imamother were specifically about immunocompromised cancer children maybe catching measles from unvaxxed kids who walk around outside. Why can't this side of the issue also be discussed? And for all those saying it's very obvious, I have to disagree. If it's so obvious why is it never mentioned in vax discussions as a precaution for the immunocompromised? My group of doctors/nurses have never told me after vaccinating my many kids k''h to keep them out of public places for 3 weeks post live-vaccines due to the vaccine's possibility to shed. I only learned that after reading up about vaccines myself. So I think it's very logical to bring this up since isn't this also a very real threat?
I'm just wondering, isn't this an even bigger threat than an unvaxxed child? An unvaxxed child just means they are not protected against the disease should they come in contact with it. They may or may not catch it. But a recently vaxxed child, it's not a maybe, it was def injected into them and they can shed it.

I sincerely apologize for being anonymous but I have many family members on here and if I bring up anything questioning vax I will be excommunicated and that's so not fair. Everyone is entitled to have questions Sad

Scrabble123

Tue, Feb 03 2015, 12:55 pm

Scrabble123 wrote:

I'd like to clarify: Many of the doctor's patients cannot and never have been able to receive vaccines: he allows them in his practice during outbreaks. He does not allow others who are unvaccinated during outbreaks to accompany these individuals to appointments, and does not allow those recently vaccinated with live viruses to enter as well.

amother

Tue, Feb 03 2015, 12:56 pm

sure, I'd be happy to change the title

honestly, I just wrote it quickly in the middle of the night Smile

and I was trying to differentiate it from all the other vaccine threads

I naively assumed people would realize that a title doesn't tell the whole story, and that they would actually read the post !

but the title doesn't matter to me and I'm fine with changing it
Smile

anon for this wrote:

Hi OP,

I came up with a new post title that's includes more information and fits perfectly:

"St. Judes: No visitors who've recently received live vaccine"

The link describes the policy regarding all visitors, so there's no need to include the word "immunocompromised".

Would you like to change it now?

anon for this

Tue, Feb 03 2015, 1:02 pm

amother wrote:

sure, I'd be happy to change the title

honestly, I just wrote it quickly in the middle of the night Smile

No one thinks the title tells the entire story. But your title isn't accurate, so I do think you ought to change it. Obviously you don't have to use mine, you can probably come up with a better one. I just suggested that one to give an example of a factual title that fit into the character limits.

Barbara

Tue, Feb 03 2015, 1:11 pm

amother wrote:

Really? You really have the temerity to try to control what people may or may not say? While you post anonymously?

And your question expressly referred to other threads -- why are vaxers boiling over.

But since you don't have a substantive response -- any more than you have a substantive response to your misstatements about the general population being at risk from shedding MMR, or your blatant lies that vaccinated people are not medically considered to be "immune." So instead you try to make a personal attack, or control the conversation.

Don't look behind that curtain. Nothing there.

Nothing but someone who creates incendiary titles, then pretends "who me" when called on it.

amother

Tue, Feb 03 2015, 1:45 pm

op

Barbara, my point was that I have had nothing to do with any other threads. I haven't read them. I am responding to your angry responses to me that seem to be mixing me up with other threads and other posters. I said none of the things you were accusing "anti-vaxers" of (and I am not an "anti-vaxer" - some of my children are vaccinated, some are not).

not sure why you keep making personal attacks when I have been respectful? because you disagree with some of what I wrote or think I was not accurate? then have a conversation, or ask questions - don't attack.

(I made no statements about MMR shedding - other posters may have. I will look for more info about the definition of herd immunity to back up what I said.)

Barbara wrote:

Scrabble123

Tue, Feb 03 2015, 1:57 pm

Hashem_Yaazor wrote:

There are many pediatricians out there who do not do so.

And that is a reflection of the pediatrician.

Think1st wrote:

Most adults did NOT receive 65 % of vaccines kids get today

Where'd you get the number 65% from?

Also, Think1st, adults did not receive those vaccines because they were not yet available or were only available to a certain group. Rotavirus is rarely harmful in healthy adults, but I know more individual who passed on vaccination and ended up in the hospital with a child clinging onto life (BH the babies of the two individuals I know who did this made it). Hep A and B shots were not routinely available when I was a child so I got them in 6th grade (it was actually mandatory in my school). Both of my parents and even my grandparents have received the Hep A and B shots.... Also, it's fair to point out that even with more vaccines the vaccine load is much lower than it was years ago. Actually, if you wouldn't understand that correlation does NOT equal causation you could premise that a higher vaccine load actually protects against autism (it's not related BTW)