Anti Vaxxers

[ERDoc]

It just seems like the decision to not vaccinate because the perceived likelihood of contraction is low (due to vaccination) is like the pt who has HTN stopping the meds because they thought they didn't have HTN anymore....

Or the decision not to vaccinate because they are not 100% effective is like not using a seatbelt because people still die in MVAs or not using a parachute when you jump out of a plane because they are not 100% effective. The difference is that the seatbelt and parachute are decisions that affect the one while not vaccinating affects the many.

 

[NomadicMedic]

So, here's a thought on this. We have a 17 month old, and while we did the full series of vax, we did spread them out a little.

My wife is a vet and her reasoning sounded plausible to me. Vax reactions are not uncommon and when an infant receives a whole slew at once there is no way to determine which vax caused the reaction. So, we just spread them out to every 3 or 4 weeks.

Our doc had no issues with it when we explained why we wanted to space them out a little. In fact, she agreed with the reasoning.

Does that make me an irresponsible parent?

 

[Ewok Jerky]

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

the CDC vaccine schedule allows for a range of ages for the administration of most vaccines.

 

[Summit]

Relevant article (glorified researched post) on herd immunity I wrote :

http://allnurses.com/showthread.php?t=973298

Rebel angel this will address the issue that vaccinations are not 100% effective and how we handle that in public health.

 

[EMTinCT]

So, here's a thought on this. We have a 17 month old, and while we did the full series of vax, we did spread them out a little.

My wife is a vet and her reasoning sounded plausible to me. Vax reactions are not uncommon and when an infant receives a whole slew at once there is no way to determine which vax caused the reaction. So, we just spread them out to every 3 or 4 weeks.

Our doc had no issues with it when we explained why we wanted to space them out a little. In fact, she agreed with the reasoning.

Does that make me an irresponsible parent?

What would you have if your child would have contracted a vaccine-preventable illness during your self-imposed "delayed schedule" which lead to permanent disability or death of your child? Do you think if your child survived but had a permanent disability as a result of your logic he/she would be in the right to sue you and your wife for failing to following the schedule as designed by the CDC and the American Academy of Pediatrics?

 

[avdrummerboy]

I'll float one simple question and if there's a reasonable answer, I'll leave it at that.

Stipulation 1: When you get vaccinated, you are supposed to be protected from the disease in question that you got vaccinated against, correct?
Stipulation 2: In the recent outbreaks that we've been seeing, and the cause of this whole debate, people who have been vaccinated against whatever the outbreak is (measles is the most recent one) have contracted the disease, and we are talking about people who weren't recently vaccinated, they still got measles, right?
Stipulation 3: To reiterate, we get vaccinated to keep us from getting the disease we were vaccinated against!

The question is, why are people who have been vaccinated against measles (for our example) contracting measles, and then their contraction of the disease is blamed on so called 'anti-vaxxers' and those who haven't been vaccinated for whatever their reasons? If someone is vaccinated and they go around a person who is not, even if that person has the measles, the vaccine should protect them, correct? I may be missing something, but this kind of has to bring into question the efficacy of vaccinations, right?

 

[EMTinCT]

Sometimes the vaccine doesn't take. It's not 100%. Nothing is 100%, tho gramma once told me I had a 100% chance of getting whooped if I kept misbehaving!

 

[Ewok Jerky]

I'll float one simple question and if there's a reasonable answer, I'll leave it at that.

Stipulation 1: When you get vaccinated, you are supposed to be protected from the disease in question that you got vaccinated against, correct?
Stipulation 2: In the recent outbreaks that we've been seeing, and the cause of this whole debate, people who have been vaccinated against whatever the outbreak is (measles is the most recent one) have contracted the disease, and we are talking about people who weren't recently vaccinated, they still got measles, right?
Stipulation 3: To reiterate, we get vaccinated to keep us from getting the disease we were vaccinated against!

The question is, why are people who have been vaccinated against measles (for our example) contracting measles, and then their contraction of the disease is blamed on so called 'anti-vaxxers' and those who haven't been vaccinated for whatever their reasons? If someone is vaccinated and they go around a person who is not, even if that person has the measles, the vaccine should protect them, correct? I may be missing something, but this kind of has to bring into question the efficacy of vaccinations, right?

WRONG

J Zipprich, K Winter, J Hacker, et al. Measles Outbreak — California, December 2014–February 2015. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR). February 20, 2015 / 64(06); 153-154.

Among the 110 California patients, 49 (45%) were unvaccinated; five (5%) had 1 dose of measles-containing vaccine, seven (6%) had 2 doses, one (1%) had 3 doses, 47 (43%) had unknown or undocumented vaccination status, and one (1%) had immunoglobulin G seropositivity documented, which indicates prior vaccination or measles infection at an undetermined time. Twelve of the unvaccinated patients were infants too young to be vaccinated. Among the 37 remaining vaccine-eligible patients, 28 (67%) were intentionally unvaccinated because of personal beliefs, and one was on an alternative plan for vaccination. Among the 28 intentionally unvaccinated patients, 18 were children (aged <18 years), and 10 were adults. Patients range in age from 6 weeks to 70 years; the median age is 22 years. Among the 84 patients with known hospitalization status, 17 (20%) were hospitalized.

-only 1 out of 110 has documented vaccine/prior exposure
-up to 89% had 0 prior exposure


*bold added by me
*for some reason I can't change the color?

 

[ERDoc]

I'll float one simple question and if there's a reasonable answer, I'll leave it at that.

Stipulation 1: When you get vaccinated, you are supposed to be protected from the disease in question that you got vaccinated against, correct?
Stipulation 2: In the recent outbreaks that we've been seeing, and the cause of this whole debate, people who have been vaccinated against whatever the outbreak is (measles is the most recent one) have contracted the disease, and we are talking about people who weren't recently vaccinated, they still got measles, right?
Stipulation 3: To reiterate, we get vaccinated to keep us from getting the disease we were vaccinated against!

The question is, why are people who have been vaccinated against measles (for our example) contracting measles, and then their contraction of the disease is blamed on so called 'anti-vaxxers' and those who haven't been vaccinated for whatever their reasons? If someone is vaccinated and they go around a person who is not, even if that person has the measles, the vaccine should protect them, correct? I may be missing something, but this kind of has to bring into question the efficacy of vaccinations, right?

Stipulation 1: SUPPOSED is the key word. Just like any other medicine, vaccines are not 100% effective. Sometimes antibiotics fail to treat infections, BP med fail to treat hypertension, etc. I ask the parachute question again. Even though parachutes are not 100% effective, would you jump out of a plane without one?

Stipulation 2: Yes, vaccinated people have gotten infected but at a much lower rate as Ewok pointed out. Again, nothing in medicine is 100%. One thing we are learning from the outbreaks is that sometimes there is not life long immunity which is why we are now giving DTaP instead of just tetanus when someone needs a tetanus update.

No, it does not bring into question the efficacy of vaccinations.

DEmedic, that is probably the most logical and reasonable reason I have heard for using an adjusted schedule. I guess it depends on what you mean by reaction though. Vaccines are known to cause fevers and rashes. Does it matter which one caused it? Not really, as these are expect side effects. Now if we are talking about allergic/anaphylactic reactions, that is a different story.

 

[samiam]

Relevant article (glorified researched post) on herd immunity I wrote :

http://allnurses.com/showthread.php?t=973298

Rebel angel this will address the issue that vaccinations are not 100% effective and how we handle that in public health.

I think this is big here. I was talking to my immunology professor and she was telling me what she did with her kids. She does vary the schedule a little bit to spread them out. Currently her kids are on a island in the middle of nowhere, where they dont really have the flu or something else forgot what it was. But they do have hep A, So he decided to not do the flu or the other one and just get hep a. In this case the herd immunity would not really factor in because again no one on the island gets the flu and they dont seem to have the flu in general. BUT in places where the diseases are endemic or there is the potential for exposure, Herd Immunity is 100% vital to create a safety net around those that cannot get safely vaccinated like compromised patients. Its proven. Its Vital. Because they did not have it it is why 100 kids got sick at Disney instead of 1 or 2.

WRONG

Especially with the measles, vaccination is not going to 100% prevent you from getting the disease BUT what it will do is prevent you from getting life threatening symptoms and possibly prevent you from ending up in the hospital.

 

[avdrummerboy]

Especially with the measles, vaccination is not going to 100% prevent you from getting the disease BUT what it will do is prevent you from getting life threatening symptoms and possibly prevent you from ending up in the hospital.

Doesn't this in a way give some weight to someone who doesn't want to get vaccinated. I mean, if someone goes and gets the measles vaccine, even multiple doses, and there's a certain percentage chance that they will still get the disease if they happen to go around someone who has the disease or even get measles from the vaccine itself (as the vaccine package inserts say can happen,) not to mention the normal reactions and certain side effects, why care if they are vaccinated or not. I mean, if they can still get the disease anyway, and they don't like that idea and don't want a vaccine, why force it upon someone.

I'm merely playing devils advocate here, just trying to understand the mindset involved.

 

[Flying]

I mean, if someone goes and gets the measles vaccine, even multiple doses, and there's a drastically reduced chance that they will still get the disease if they happen to go around someone who has the disease in a country that is virtually MMR-free or even get measles from the vaccine itself (as the vaccine package inserts say can happen,) not to mention the extremely rare reactions and side effects, why care if they are vaccinated or not? I mean, if they can still get the disease anyway, and they don't like that idea and don't want a vaccine, why force it upon someone.

I'm merely playing devils advocate here, just trying to understand the mindset involved.

Polio used to be common worldwide, now it is not.
Polio is still present in areas that do not have extensive vaccination programs.
You stand on 20.

This isn't enough for some. One cannot sway minds and win arguments solely with logical appeal. The "mindset" that "X speaking for vaccination" campaigns are trying to appeal to must be totally convincing, first the efficacy of the vaccines must be "proven" through science and pseudoscience and then every worry concerning these vaccines must be assuaged somehow, guaranteeing this is "what's best" for their child.

 

[Ewok Jerky]

Doesn't this in a way give some weight to someone who doesn't want to get vaccinated. I mean, if someone goes and gets the measles vaccine, even multiple doses, and there's a certain percentage chance that they will still get the disease if they happen to go around someone who has the disease or even get measles from the vaccine itself (as the vaccine package inserts say can happen,) not to mention the normal reactions and certain side effects, why care if they are vaccinated or not. I mean, if they can still get the disease anyway, and they don't like that idea and don't want a vaccine, why force it upon someone.

I'm merely playing devils advocate here, just trying to understand the mindset involved.

In a nutshell, vaccines are like a coat of armor for the population. Each non-vaccinated individual is a chink in the armor. One or two chinks here and there is acceptable because the armor won't fail. But the the more chinks there are, the less the armor protects the whole population. If one person has the disease, lets say measles, and everyone they come into contact with (before they go to the hospital and die) is vaccinated, the likely hood of the disease spreading is very very low. Now if every 10th person they come into contact with (before they dies from measles) is not vaccinated, then the chances of them spreading the disease increase with every 10 contacts. The same hold true for every person infected along the line. The idea of herd immunity, and why it we should vaccinate everyone possible, is to stop the spread of the disease. Yes some people will get it because the disease exists in the world (unlike small pox which we eradicated in 1979 by vaccinations), but the incidence will be minimal and local not widespread.

So to answer your devil's advocate position, yes some peeps will still get measles. But the higher the percentage of the population that is vaccinated the less likely it becomes for any one person (vaccinated or not) to get the disease.

Can someone cite evidence of the measles vaccine CAUSING measles? I've never heard of that.

The most common side effect of the measles vaccine is soreness to the injection site, nothing to really freak out over there.
The second most common reaction is post-vaccine fever a week or so after administration and occurs in 10-15%. Otherwise asymptomatic so nothing to worry about there either. Self limiting rashes occur in 5%. OK maybe we can worry about encephalopathy which occurs in less than 1:1 million, but at that rate can we really say that the encephalopathy was caused by the shot? No.

Now lets talk about what can happen if you get measles. 1 in 20 will get a pneumonia. 1 in 1000 will have encephalitis. And 1 or 2 in 1000 will experience death.

So back to your devil's advocate position: if you want to risk death over post-injection soreness and fever then I don't know what to say. The complications of the measles far outweigh the complications of the vaccine. Why force in on someone who doesn't want it? Well we force seat belts on people don't we? Its called public health. In addition, there are some folks who just should not receive the vaccine and their safety depends on those around them (the general population) having a sufficient level of immunity.

 

[MonkeyArrow]

Please don't compare seat belts to vaccines. I actually work with a nurse who does not wear a seatbelt. He says the government shouldn't mandate me to wear a seatbelt since it has no effect on anyone else. If I wrap my car around a pole, then I'm going to die because I didn't wear a seatbelt. This point of it is true. The lack of use of a seatbelt has no bearing on anyone else, it is an individual choice that only has consequences on the one person. Failing to get vaccinated makes me (who is vaccinated) or my too-young-to-get-all-the-shots child susceptible to the disease.

 

[DesertMedic66]

Please don't compare seat belts to vaccines. I actually work with a nurse who does not wear a seatbelt. He says the government shouldn't mandate me to wear a seatbelt since it has no effect on anyone else. If I wrap my car around a pole, then I'm going to die because I didn't wear a seatbelt. This point of it is true. The lack of use of a seatbelt has no bearing on anyone else, it is an individual choice that only has consequences on the one person. Failing to get vaccinated makes me (who is vaccinated) or my too-young-to-get-all-the-shots child susceptible to the disease.

I run a stop sign and plow into you. If you don't die I might just get a ticket for running a stop sign and causing an accident. If you die then I may be charged with vehicular manslaughter.

 

[Ewok Jerky]

I run a stop sign and plow into you. If you don't die I might just get a ticket for running a stop sign and causing an accident. If you die then I may be charged with vehicular manslaughter.

Was that an episode of Law and Order?

Please don't compare seat belts to vaccines. I actually work with a nurse who does not wear a seatbelt. He says the government shouldn't mandate me to wear a seatbelt since it has no effect on anyone else. If I wrap my car around a pole, then I'm going to die because I didn't wear a seatbelt. This point of it is true. The lack of use of a seatbelt has no bearing on anyone else, it is an individual choice that only has consequences on the one person. Failing to get vaccinated makes me (who is vaccinated) or my too-young-to-get-all-the-shots child susceptible to the disease.

Not to hijack the thread but Public Health is charged with promoting wellness, preventing disease, and prolonging life. Mandating seat belts and vaccination both fit in that category.


On topic:
I suppose this would be a bad time to say that I support mandating vaccinations and not handing out "personal" waivers? I call it "stick it or ticket"

 

[samiam]

Most of the negative reactions to the vaccine were when it was give to people it was contradicted in. It is still a LIVE vaccine, so for people with NO immune system or impaired T cells there is going to be some issues.

 

[DesertMedic66]

Was that an episode of Law and Order?



Not to hijack the thread but Public Health is charged with promoting wellness, preventing disease, and prolonging life. Mandating seat belts and vaccination both fit in that category.


On topic:
I suppose this would be a bad time to say that I support mandating vaccinations and not handing out "personal" waivers? I call it "stick it or ticket"

Negative.

http://www.chrisphelpslaw.com/Major...es-Vehicular-Assault-Vehicular-Homicide.shtml

http://www.caslaw.net/69-vehicular-homicideoverview-and-vehicular-manslaughter-legal-defense

http://www.shouselaw.com/negligent-vehicle-manslaughter.html

It doesn't take very much at all to be charged with vehicular manslaughter or similar.

 

[samiam]

Lets keep it on topic peeps!

 

[Jim37F]

My IBA will stop a AK round....shoot ten rounds into it and it'll probably fail....so if there's a measles outbreak and I'm vaccinated and only 1 in 100 people I encounter aren't, the chances of me getting measles from them is a lot lower than if it's 1 in 10 who aren't vaccinated, exposing me to a lot more chances to get sick because they decided to buck decades of medical science.