Vaccinations thread.

[Johnnypenso]

Kids becoming couch potatoes isn't a danger to others - but them not getting vaccinated potentially is. That's an important difference in my opinion.

Is it also an important difference that your risk of complications or death from Measles is close to zero but the risk of complications and death from obesity related causes is infinitely higher?

And it's not like vaccinations are high-risk, experimental treatments, either.

Force injecting children is a principle independent of the contents of the injection. The flu is a far, far, far deadlier affliction than measles and has been for more than half a century since we got measles under control but we don't force inject people with flu vaccine nor do we take their government benefits away if they don't vaccinate. Why not?

 

[Scaff]

Is it also an important difference that your risk of complications or death from Measles is close to zero but the risk of complications and death from obesity related causes is infinitely higher?

As Famine pointed out earlier is not close to zero.

So without immunisation the rates are:
Infection: 90%
Hospitalisation: 10%
Life changing effects: 3%
Death: 0.1%

In any modern population those percentages represent a significant risk (if the US were un-vaccinated it would be circa 3 million dead)

Force injecting children is a principle independent of the contents of the injection.

Its not forced, its still a choice, you may not like the choice or see it as fair, but its still a choice.

The flu is a far, far, far deadlier affliction than measles and has been for more than half a century since we got measles under control but we don't force inject people with flu vaccine nor do we take their government benefits away if they don't vaccinate. Why not?

The Flu operates in a very different way and mutates at a far greater rate, as such its not a like for like comparison.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Is it also an important difference that your risk of complications or death from Measles is close to zero but the risk of complications and death from obesity related causes is infinitely higher?
Force injecting children is a principle independent of the contents of the injection. The flu is a far, far, far deadlier affliction than measles and has been for more than half a century since we got measles under control but we don't force inject people with flu vaccine nor do we take their government benefits away if they don't vaccinate. Why not?

Not so, and measles is something against which a long-term vaccine works on nearly all strains. See @Famine's post for more information on the dangers of this vaccinable condition. (Tree'd by @Scaff on that advice )

The flu is a far, far, far deadlier affliction than measles and has been for more than half a century since we got measles under control but we don't force inject people with flu vaccine nor do we take their government benefits away if they don't vaccinate.

That's not a single illness and a long-term vaccination for one type can be ineffective against others. This year's CDC-advised vaccination, for example, protects against three specific strains.

 

[Johnnypenso]

As Famine pointed out earlier is not close to zero.

So without immunisation the rates are:
Infection: 90%
Hospitalisation: 10%
Life changing effects: 3%
Death: 0.1%

So how many people have died in Australia in the last 10 years from measles? And how many have died from obesity related causes?

In any modern population those percentages represent a significant risk (if the US were un-vaccinated it would be circa 3 million dead)

The US is vaccinated, why are we talking about fantasy stats?

The Flu operates in a very different way and mutates at a far greater rate, as such its not a like for like comparison

So you're saying that zero lives would be saved if everyone had a flu shot? Zero?

 

[TenEightyOne]

The US is vaccinated, why are we talking about fantasy stats?

Because you seemed to be asking why measles vaccines should be taken? And the US isn't vaccinated, incidentally.

So you're saying that zero lives would be saved if everyone had a flu shot? Zero?

Lives would be saved by this round of vaccines. You seem to be continuing to think that last year's flu is this year's flu. It very isn't.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Because you seemed to be asking why measles vaccines should be taken? And the US isn't vaccinated, incidentally

Lives would be saved by this round of vaccines. You seem to be continuing to think that last year's flu is this year's flu. It very isn't..

Don't be simple. I'm not asking why they should be taken, I'm saying I object to withdrawing government benefits from those who don't. We don't take benefits away from people who don't get the flu vaccine. We don't take benefits from people who allow their children to become blimps and die early deaths from obesity related causes or poor diets. So I ask, how many people have died say in the last 10 years in Australia from obesity related causes or flu related causes vs. those that died from measles? And as I mentioned earlier which no one commented on conveniently, if their own government recognizes that they main source of current infections if from travelers bringing the disease back from foreign countries, why not focus efforts on the root causes rather than punishing people who choose not to inject their kids?

 

[TRGTspecialist]

Is it also an important difference that your risk of complications or death from Measles is close to zero but the risk of complications and death from obesity related causes is infinitely higher?

1) As explained, the risk is definitely not zero in an unvaccinated population. And the risks are low in reality because of initiatives to raise vaccination rates.

2) Again, if someone kills themselves over one too many bargain buckets that's their choice, doesn't kill anyone else. As @TenEightyOne explained on the previous page with the case of MMR, if a child A is not vaccinated that could kill a child B who is too young to be vaccinated yet. In that scenario is the right to free choice of child A's parents not less important than the right to life of child B?

 

[Scaff]

So how many people have died in Australia in the last 10 years from measles? And how many have died from obesity related causes?

In which group? The vaccinated, unvaccinated, immuno-compromised? Via cross infection as a result of a loss of herd immunity?

Once again you are not comparing like for like. Tell you what I'm more than happy to accept your comparison if you can show that a single person has caught obesity from an obese person.

The US is vaccinated, why are we talking about fantasy stats?

Hence the reason why I used the word 'if', and it illustrates quite clearly that your claim that the risk from measles if you are not vaccinated is close to zero is simply not true.

So you're saying that zero lives would be saved if everyone had a flu shot? Zero?

Quote me.

I didn't say anything like that at all and I know full well the advantages of the Flu shot to those who are in the high risk groups and the importance of those close to them also having the shot (my wife is one, being type 1 diabetic and having asthma).

What I said (and you ignored) is that Flu and Measles operate in totally different ways and as such you can't apply a one size all solution to both. Flu exists in multiple strains that mutate on an annual basis, as such the vaccine, while important, is not even close to as effective as the Measles vaccine. The Flu shot (each and every year) reduces the risk of contracting the most common strains around at that time. Measles has had only 21 strains and has a very, very low mutation rate and as such the vaccine is extremely effective.

As such they are not even close to being the same in terms or treatment effectiveness and as such not a valid comparison at all.

Don't be simple.

Play the ball not the man, or risk a time out.

I'm not asking why they should be taken, I'm saying I object to withdrawing government benefits from those who don't. We don't take benefits away from people who don't get the flu vaccine. We don't take benefits from people who allow their children to become blimps and die early deaths from obesity related causes or poor diets. So I ask, how many people have died say in the last 10 years in Australia from obesity related causes or flu related causes vs. those that died from measles?

Because they are very different things, with very different causes, risk periods, transmission vectors and mutation rates. A one size all policy doesn't work across all of them.

And as I mentioned earlier which no one commented on conveniently, if their own government recognizes that they main source of current infections if from travelers bringing the disease back from foreign countries, why not focus efforts on the root causes rather than punishing people who choose not to inject their kids?

A vaccinated person can still carry a virus, as such that alone is simply not enough to provide protection to those who are too young or can't be immunized.

Herd immunity is known to work and can result in stopping some virus forever (Smallpox and we are getting closer with Polio).

Its not something that only affects those who do not vaccinate their offspring, but rather it has resulted in the death of others.

 

[huskeR32]

So how many people have died in Australia in the last 10 years from measles?

You do know that that number is small because most people already get the vaccine, right?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

You do know that that number is small because most people already get the vaccine, right?

Yes, he does. He's just being argumentative for the sake of it.

 

[Barra333]

Don't be simple. I'm not asking why they should be taken, I'm saying I object to withdrawing government benefits from those who don't. We don't take benefits away from people who don't get the flu vaccine. We don't take benefits from people who allow their children to become blimps and die early deaths from obesity related causes or poor diets.

By comparing the measles and polio vaccines to the flu vaccine to obesity, you are trying to compare apples, oranges and a chocolate bar. It doesn't work.

1. The incidence of polio and measles is low BECAUSE OF VACCINATION. High levels of vaccinations over time has reduced the incidence to very low levels, but not so low that the vaccinations can be stopped, as is the case with smallpox. If people keep up the vaccinations on these diseases, then in a generations time, we may be able to stop because the disease has been eradicated. But, while there are people opposing vaccination based on one flawed and since retracted study, then the eradication will not happen. Unvaccinated people will probably be fine due to herd immunity, as long as a non zero number of people catch the disease, then on it goes.

2. The flu vaccine is a different beast - each year a vaccine is produced based on the current seasons strain. Since the flu virus mutates so quickly, last years vaccine is useless this year, and whatever vaccine is produced next year is useless today. The flu shot is not mandatory because it would be wildly impractical to expect everyone to get the shot every year, but it is recommended for high risk demographics.

3. Obesity is a completely different argument - it is a chronic condition that comes on over time, and can be reversed at any time, unlike the diseases above. And where do you draw the line?

So I ask, how many people have died say in the last 10 years in Australia from obesity related causes or flu related causes vs. those that died from measles? And as I mentioned earlier which no one commented on conveniently, if their own government recognizes that they main source of current infections if from travelers bringing the disease back from foreign countries, why not focus efforts on the root causes rather than punishing people who choose not to inject their kids?

I am not going to look up the numbers, but I know they would be there if you go digging at http://abs.gov.au/
Anyway, for measles, I would say not many, but since it is 100% preventable by simple means, then the government has taken steps to ensure that it is 100% prevented.
For the flu, a few more, but as I mentioned above, vaccination is a year to year prospect, and most of the flu deaths are in people who have other conditions (age, immunocompromised etc).
For obesity, too many, but that is completely irrelevant to this argument. Besides, kids who become blimps are generally known to a doctor of some sort, who would be trying to manage the case.

That is enough time wasted typing this - I need to get some work done today so I can leave work early tomorrow to get my daughter's first immunisations done.

 

[Johnnypenso]

You do know that that number is small because most people already get the vaccine, right?

You do know that hundreds of people die from the flu every year, right? How many have died from measles in the last 10-20 years in Australia? How many lives would be saved if they told people, "take your annual flu shots or you don't get this government benefit?", or, "Tell your kid to put down the Ho-Ho's and Ding Dongs and get outside and play"?

Yes, he does. He's just being argumentative for the sake of it.

No, he's not, and he'd appreciate it if you didn't speak on his behalf.

By comparing the measles and polio vaccines to the flu vaccine to obesity, you are trying to compare apples, oranges and a chocolate bar. It doesn't work.

1. The incidence of polio and measles is low BECAUSE OF VACCINATION. High levels of vaccinations over time has reduced the incidence to very low levels, but not so low that the vaccinations can be stopped, as is the case with smallpox. If people keep up the vaccinations on these diseases, then in a generations time, we may be able to stop because the disease has been eradicated. But, while there are people opposing vaccination based on one flawed and since retracted study, then the eradication will not happen. Unvaccinated people will probably be fine due to herd immunity, as long as a non zero number of people catch the disease, then on it goes.

2. The flu vaccine is a different beast - each year a vaccine is produced based on the current seasons strain. Since the flu virus mutates so quickly, last years vaccine is useless this year, and whatever vaccine is produced next year is useless today. The flu shot is not mandatory because it would be wildly impractical to expect everyone to get the shot every year, but it is recommended for high risk demographics.

3. Obesity is a completely different argument - it is a chronic condition that comes on over time, and can be reversed at any time, unlike the diseases above. And where do you draw the line?


I am not going to look up the numbers, but I know they would be there if you go digging at http://abs.gov.au/
Anyway, for measles, I would say not many, but since it is 100% preventable by simple means, then the government has taken steps to ensure that it is 100% prevented.
For the flu, a few more, but as I mentioned above, vaccination is a year to year prospect, and most of the flu deaths are in people who have other conditions (age, immunocompromised etc).
For obesity, too many, but that is completely irrelevant to this argument. Besides, kids who become blimps are generally known to a doctor of some sort, who would be trying to manage the case.

That is enough time wasted typing this - I need to get some work done today so I can leave work early tomorrow to get my daughter's first immunisations done.

The principle is the same. You have control over whether you take flu shots. You have control over whether you get measles shots. You have control over what you put into your mouth. Same goes for your kids. Why does the principle of threatening to withdraw government benefits not apply to those scenarios, and many others?

 

[TenEightyOne]

Why does the principle of threatening to withdraw government benefits not apply to those scenarios, and many others?

I'm still not sure what you're arguing about... in the context of this thread it does. Re-read the OP perhaps?

 

[Scaff]

You do know that hundreds of people die from the flu every year, right? How many have died from measles in the last 10-20 years in Australia? How many lives would be saved if they told people, "take your annual flu shots or you don't get this government benefit?", or, "Tell your kid to put down the Ho-Ho's and Ding Dongs and get outside and play"?

No, he's not, and he'd appreciate it if you didn't speak on his behalf.

The principle is the same. You have control over whether you take flu shots. You have control over whether you get measles shots. You have control over what you put into your mouth. Same goes for your kids. Why does the principle of threatening to withdraw government benefits not apply to those scenarios, and many others?

Your question has been answered many times already and in great detail.

These are different conditions and different drivers and as such differing solution can and are looked at for them, you clearly don't like or accept those explanations. That however is unlikely to change simply by repeating the question over and over again.

Flu has too many variants, and most of those variants do not carry the same risk as Measles (only certain mutations and they can't be predicted - as such its not an effective route).

Obesity is not a short term condition with an immediate risk of death, as such longer term and 'softer' approaches can be used.

In other words, its not a one size fits all solution.

 

[huskeR32]

You do know that hundreds of people die from the flu every year, right?

Yes I do. And for reasons that several other people have already pointed out to you, it's not nearly as easy or effective to vaccinate against the flu as it is for MMR.

It's an utterly irrelevant comparison.

How many have died from measles in the last 10-20 years in Australia?

Not very many. But, one more time:

This is because a vast majority of Australians have been vaccinated against it.

How many lives would be saved if they told people, "take your annual flu shots..."

Still not as many as the MMR vaccination, because of the nature of the flu virus.

or you don't get this government benefit?"

The government should restrict the freedoms of those who endanger the lives of others. Murderers belong behind bars. And ignorant 🤬 who endanger other people's live because they think they know better than the vast majority of the medical community (not to metion the mounds of scientific evidence supporting them) should be punished too.

or, "Tell your kid to put down the Ho-Ho's and Ding Dongs and get outside and play"?

I'll echo @Scaff here: Find one case of obesity being infectious, and I'll give this a serious response.

 

[Touring Mars]

The government should restrict the freedoms of those who endanger the lives of others.

But if those others are not vaccinated either, you can't blame another unvaccinated person for killing them. And good luck trying to prove from whom someone got the virus! I guess the issue is really about the added economic burden of treating preventable conditions, hence I reckon the comparison to other preventable conditions is not without merit.

I'll echo @Scaff here: Find one case of obesity being infectious, and I'll give this a serious response.

In the case of obesity and other conditions that are to some extent or another 'self-inflicted', it is not as simple as dismissing it as being only something that affects the person with the problem - in a system where healthcare is wholly or partly publicly funded anyway, as it is in most developed countries. Of course, someone else's obesity doesn't pose the same direct threat to one's health as say someone with Ebola might - but the collective impact of unhealthy eating/drinking/smoking etc. doesn't have no effect at all, and in the grand scheme of things could end up having a pretty tangible effect on the availability and/or cost of one's own healthcare, possibly constituting an indirect threat to one's health. The burden of such activities is significant and growing...

 

[huskeR32]

But if those others are not vaccinated either, you can't blame another unvaccinated person for killing them.

What of those who can't be vaccinated? (Depending on the vaccine, this could include pregnant women, very young children, people with compromised immune systems, or people with a severe allergy to the vaccine itself.)

The great part of herd immunity is that those people are still protected when the majority of those who can receive the vaccination do so. But when people who can receive the vaccine choose not to, we run the risk of losing herd immunity, therefore endangering people who have no choice but to to be un-vaccinated. That to me, is where the problem lies.

I guess the issue is really about the added economic burden of treating preventable conditions,

No, it's not. Sure, it costs money to vaccinate. It also costs money to treat sick folks when we dip below herd immunity levels and allow a disease like measles to make a comeback.

The question is about saving lives, and the science is quite clear: A vaccinated population saves lives. Period.

hence I reckon the comparison to other preventable conditions is not without merit.

I still don't see any merit to the comparison. By being obese, you're not directly endangering anybody else's health. By choosing to be un-vaccinated, you very much can endanger somebody else.

In the case of obesity and other conditions that are to some extent or another 'self-inflicted', it is not as simple as dismissing it as being only something that affects the person with the problem - in a system where healthcare is wholly or partly publicly funded anyway, as it is in most developed countries.

The economic burden of obesity and the like is a fair thing to be concerned about; and it by all means should be a topic of discussion in a society that socializes care. It just doesn't belong in this particular conversation.

 

[x3ra]

I don't suppose anyone actually has any evidence that measles vaccines, or that flu kills thousands of people a year?

 

[TenEightyOne]

I don't suppose anyone actually has any evidence that measles vaccines, or that flu kills thousands of people a year?

You suppose that flu doesn't kill thousands of people a year?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

You suppose that flu doesn't kill thousands of people a year?

His angle here is that vaccines are not necessary, or at least not as necessary as we have been led to believe.

 

[x3ra]

Yes I am suggesting that flu doesn't kill 1000's of people a year.

And your angle is that if it appears to be good for you, then it is.

Any correlation between vaccinations and alzheimer's ?

 

[TenEightyOne]

Yes I am suggesting that flu doesn't kill 1000's of people a year.

That hardly seems worth a response - one might say that that's an insane way of thinking.

Any correlation between vaccinations and alzheimer's ?

Naturally where a condition occurs most frequently in a particular set of a population (in this case the over-65s) and that set is also a target for a particular vaccination (in this case the over-65 influenza jab) then there's a statistical correlation. I haven't looked for this specific correlation but, sensibly, I'd presume that one exists.

Have you ever heard that correlation!=causation?

 

[Scaff]

Yes I am suggesting that flu doesn't kill 1000's of people a year.

It's kills 1,000s a year in the US alone.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/flu.htm

On top of that pandemic strains have killed millions, or do you contest that Spanish flu was a conspiracy?

 

[DaGiBUS]

I don't agree with vaccinations being slowly forced onto people like it is happening now.

 

[Dennisch]

I don't agree with vaccinations being slowly forced onto people like it is happening now.

You rather let kids die of completely preventable diseases?

 

[DaGiBUS]

You rather let kids die of completely preventable diseases?

I never said I was in favour of that. I said I don't like how they're forcing it on people.

 

[Dennisch]

I never said I was in favour of that. I said I don't like how they're forcing it on people.

Because if they don't, people won't get their vaccinations.

Remember that there are people who believe a dumb blond over thousands of scientific researchers. Or that the Earth is flat.

 

[DaGiBUS]

Because if they don't, people won't get their vaccinations.

Remember that there are people who believe a dumb blond over thousands of scientific researchers. Or that the Earth is flat.

The unvaccinated are a small minority, at least in Australia. If we were talking about the U.S (which we aren't), it'd be a different story.

 

[Dennisch]

The unvaccinated are a small minority, at least in Australia. If we were talking about the U.S (which we aren't), it'd be a different story.

That changes if governments stop doing their upmost to keep vaccinations going. Especially now that the Internet proves that stupidity spreads so fast and dumbasses willing to believe anything they read.

Having a needle shoved up in your arm is a small price to pay to prevent diseases that can kill but don't have to.

 

[Scaff]

The unvaccinated are a small minority, at least in Australia. If we were talking about the U.S (which we aren't), it'd be a different story.

They were a small minority in the US under a decade ago, and now measles is one again on the rise in the US.

A loss of herd immunity doesn't take long to occur and one it does those who have no choice are at risk because of the stupidity of those who believe that nonsense trumps knowledge.