This explains my request for safety studies done in the US

amother

Sun, Jun 30 2019, 5:07 pm

amother [ Magenta ] wrote:

By that argument, diseases like pertussis should also not be mandated, as herd immunity is not protective with pertussis. People can be carriers without actually contracting it, so the vaccine is only beneficial for the one inoculated, but does not actually help anyone else. (Note: This is as per the CDC.)

Not to mention vaccines of questionable efficacy such as the flu vaccine.

Absolutely. I agree. Do you have a link for CDC statement regarding asymptomatic pertussis carriers?

southernbubby

Sun, Jun 30 2019, 5:13 pm

amother [ Magenta ] wrote:

I don't know what, if not vaccines, is the reason that we don't have diphtheria in the US but it still exists in other countries and has a high mortality rate. Apparently there is a medication that treats it and I don't know if that works all the time. It might pose no threat to society if people only got the vaccine if they were going to be in a country where the disease is active. These are questions to ask a reliable epidemiologist and not a group with an anti-vax agenda.
I personally think that mandates should be for diseases that are harmful to public health but that insurers should be allowed to deny coverage or require vaccines for high risk individuals (such as people who travel or in regards to tetanus, farmers). There may be a risk of tetanus in overnight camps and bungalows.

Last edited by southernbubby on Sun, Jun 30 2019, 5:15 pm; edited 1 time in total

amother

Magenta

Sun, Jun 30 2019, 5:14 pm

https://www.cdc.gov/pertussis/.....unity

Q: Doesn’t herd immunity protect most people?

A: When enough of a population is immune to an infectious disease, through vaccination or prior illness, its spread from person to person is unlikely. Public health experts call this ‘herd immunity’ (or community immunity). Even people not vaccinated (such as newborns and those with chronic illnesses) typically have protection because the disease has little opportunity to spread within their community. Public health experts cannot rely on herd immunity to protect people from pertussis since:

- Pertussis spreads so easily
- Vaccine protection decreases over time
- Acellular pertussis vaccines may not prevent colonization (carrying the bacteria in your body without getting sick) or spread of the bacteria

Vaccines are the most effective tool doctors have to provide protection against pertussis. It’s important that everyone get their recommended pertussis vaccines to protect themselves.

(emphasis mine)

amother

Magenta

Sun, Jun 30 2019, 5:22 pm

southernbubby wrote:

I don't know what, if not vaccines, is the reason that we don't have diphtheria in the US but it still exists in other countries and has a high mortality rate. Apparently there is a medication that treats it and I don't know if that works all the time. It might pose no threat to society if people got it only if they were going to be in a country where the disease is active. These are questions to ask a reliable epidemiologist and not a group with an anti-vax agenda.
I personally think that mandates should be for diseases that are harmful to public health but that insurers should be allowed to deny coverage or require vaccines for high risk individuals (such as people who travel or in regards to tetanus, farmers).

If they also mandate things like exercise, avoidance of high-risk activity, etc. I will be supportive. But for insurance to ONLY mandate vaccines, in the name of health, while ignoring other more serious health risks would be hypocritical and indicative of an agenda.

amother

Sun, Jun 30 2019, 5:40 pm

southernbubby wrote:

Who mentioned diptheria?

amother

Sun, Jun 30 2019, 6:01 pm

amother [ Magenta ] wrote:

https://www.cdc.gov/pertussis/about/faqs.html#immunity

Q: Doesn’t herd immunity protect most people?

A: When enough of a population is immune to an infectious disease, through vaccination or prior illness, its spread from person to person is unlikely. Public health experts call this ‘herd immunity’ (or community immunity). Even people not vaccinated (such as newborns and those with chronic illnesses) typically have protection because the disease has little opportunity to spread within their community. Public health experts cannot rely on herd immunity to protect people from pertussis since:

- Pertussis spreads so easily
- Vaccine protection decreases over time
- Acellular pertussis vaccines may not prevent colonization (carrying the bacteria in your body without getting sick) or spread of the bacteria

Vaccines are the most effective tool doctors have to provide protection against pertussis. It’s important that everyone get their recommended pertussis vaccines to protect themselves.

(emphasis mine)

Thanks for the link.

southernbubby

Sun, Jun 30 2019, 6:12 pm

amother [ Magenta ] wrote:

The kid who most recently had tetanus, cost insurers $800k before rehab. Skipping workouts doesn't carry that high of a price tag. Smokers pay higher premiums. Maybe non vaccinated should be charged more.

amother

Magenta

Sun, Jun 30 2019, 6:16 pm

Actually, regular exercise reduces risk of heart failure, by up to 35%.

"According to the American Heart Association journal Circulation, as many as 250,000 deaths per year in the United States can be attributed to a lack of regular exercise. Living a sedentary, or inactive, lifestyle has consistently been one of the top five risk factors for heart disease. Other risk factors include high blood pressure, high cholesterol, smoking, and obesity. Those with low levels of physical fitness also experience a higher rate of cardiovascular events, like heart attack and death."
https://www.healthline.com/hea.....ise#1

Average cost of a LESS SEVERE heart attack is, as per google, $760,000 (also before rehab). A severe heart attack is about 1 million. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/h.....-you/

Risk of getting tetanus while unvaccinated is far lower than the risk of getting a heart attack in a sedentary individual.

amother

Sun, Jun 30 2019, 6:17 pm

southernbubby wrote:

My questions are regarding government mandates, not insurance companies. With insurance companies there's at least (hopefully) an open market competition. With government mandates, and removed liability from vaccine manufacturers, proving the safety of the products is a governmental responsibility especially where it's not even a question of public health such as non-contagious diseases.

southernbubby

Sun, Jun 30 2019, 6:46 pm

amother [ OP ] wrote:

Who mentioned diptheria?

I mentioned it because it is contagious but is no longer common in the US, probably due to vaccines. The discussion at this point is compromising with anti-vaxers by only mandating those vaccines that prevent someone from being a danger to society.

southernbubby

Sun, Jun 30 2019, 6:51 pm

amother [ OP ] wrote:

As pro-vax as I am, I agree with the compromise because I worry more about my family catching something then I worry about the livers of the anti-vaxers who risk Hepatitis. So basically, if it can be caught through respiratory droplets and is controlled by herd immunity, it should be mandated.

southernbubby

Sun, Jun 30 2019, 6:54 pm

amother [ Magenta ] wrote:

Many insurance companies charge more if a person is overweight and out of shape so why can't they charge more if a person refuses to vaccinate? What if the increase in premiums is the same?

amother

Sun, Jun 30 2019, 7:06 pm

southernbubby wrote:

Well then you could say the same thing about polio and up until a couple of months ago measles. I purposely didn't go there because of the points you brought up. I'm questioning the mandate on non-contagious diseases, even if rampant where there's no question of herd immunity or the lack thereof, no issue regarding protecting the vulnerable, etc. If it were truly a question of public health, the non-contagious vaccines could still be optional.

amother

Sun, Jun 30 2019, 7:08 pm

southernbubby wrote:

Nu? So why isn't it this way? Why is mine and your common sense not public health policy? Mandating vaccines in a non-discriminatory manner causes mistrust and increases vaccine hesitancy.

amother

Sun, Jun 30 2019, 7:10 pm

southernbubby wrote:

Many insurance companies charge more if a person is overweight and out of shape so why can't they charge more if a person refuses to vaccinate? What if the increase in premiums is the same?

They can. This still leaves vaccinations as an individual choice.

(And I wouldn't be surprised if they conclude that non-vaxxers overall cost them less, even if the occasional tetanus... but that's mere speculation.)

However, my questions are about government mandate of vaccines in order to attend school, which is also mandatory, in essence forcing vaccinations. Without sufficient demonstration of safety.

amother

Blonde

Sun, Jun 30 2019, 7:17 pm

And schools and yeshivos demand vaccination in the name of health while freely dispensing soda and candy and turning a blind eye to bochurim smoking....
Smoking is way more contagious and deadly than measles, mumps and rubella. Just saying...

southernbubby

Sun, Jun 30 2019, 7:19 pm

amother [ OP ] wrote:

Nu? So why isn't it this way? Why is mine and your common sense not public health policy? Mandating vaccines in a non-discriminatory manner causes mistrust and increases vaccine hesitancy.

Let your state rep know that the anti-vaxers are willing to give those vaccines that impact public safety in exchange for not being forced to give the rest of the vaccines.
That being said, would there still be large percentages of anti-vaxers who won't cooperate with the compromise?

southernbubby

Sun, Jun 30 2019, 7:27 pm

amother [ Blonde ] wrote:

Smoking usually damages the body over a period of time where an infectious disease can damage the body in a matter of days. It is not safe to smoke around infants and children, including pregnant women.
Luckily there are laws that restrict smoking in many public places.
I do agree with you that I have felt sicker being around a lit cigarette than I felt with mumps and rubella. (Mumps really hurt).
There is some truth to what you are saying.

amother

Sun, Jun 30 2019, 9:53 pm

southernbubby wrote:

I don't consider myself representative of "anti-vaxxers." I am pro common sense, pro safety, and pro health for ALL children. Why aren't our politicians on the same page?