If your child is not vaccinated, they should be barred from attending public school

[HoreTore]

If you don't find yourself convinced by Monty, here are some (http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2014/08/22/brian-hooker-proves-andrew-wakefield-wrong-about-vaccines-and-autism/) more (http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/did-a-high-ranking-whistleblower-really-reveal-that-the-cdc-covered-up-proof-that-vaccines-cause-autism-in-african-american-boys/) takes on the subject.

Utter bollocks, of course. The anti-vaccine/pro-death crowd never gets beyond that stage.

[Beskar]

If you don't find yourself convinced by Monty, here are some (http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2014/08/22/brian-hooker-proves-andrew-wakefield-wrong-about-vaccines-and-autism/)more (http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/did-a-high-ranking-whistleblower-really-reveal-that-the-cdc-covered-up-proof-that-vaccines-cause-autism-in-african-american-boys/)takes on the subject.

Utter bollocks, of course. The anti-vaccine/pro-death crowd never gets beyond that stage.

Yeah, that blog-post made a lot of the points I made, which I am happy about, because it means someone else actually thought/agreed with what i said!

[Greyblades]

I know it's necromancy but I would just like to share something I found on fark.
http://img.fark.net/images/cache/850/h/hX/fark_hXRJb1hs8OgLxuLcca7ckARz1KM.jpg?t=cGWmbl2kYbHAZRlbnvq-pw&f=1423458000

http://www.fark.com/comments/8584014/Freshman-GOP-senator-doesnt-think-restaurant-employees-should-have-to-wash-their-hands-after-taking-a-dump-Congratulations-youve-now-heard-dumbest-thing-a-politician-will-ever-say-hopefully?tt=voteresults0&startid=95244155

If you cant see the image on this post look for the comment by a fellow called manateegag.

[Beskar]

And child gets quarantined for 28 days because a non-vaxxer with measles visited before the baby could have its shots.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/01/29/why-this-mom-is-so-angry-at-the-anti-vaxxers/

[a completely inoffensive name]

Vaccinations should be mandatory. Period.

[Gilrandir]

Vaccinations should be mandatory. Period.
Back to the USSR.

[Greyblades]

It's sad when even the USSR could better prevent outbreaks of nearly extinct diseases than the USA now.

[Crandar]

Back to the USSR.
Vaccination is not something that concerns only the person that gets vaccinated. As long as a redneck insists on not letting his children get vaccinated, all the members of its social circle that can't be vaccinated (babies, fragile health and etc.) are in danger.

It's sad when even the USSR could better prevent outbreaks of nearly extinct diseases than the USA now.
Anticommunism is fine and all that, but the health care system of the Soveit Union was praised even by the West.

[Greyblades]

Sorry, knee jerk reaction to what I saw as a really stupid comment.

[Ironside]

Back to the USSR.

Mandatory vaccination here since 1815. That was admittably for smallpox, but you'll get the idea.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Back to the USSR.

If your kids die when they visit Disneyland, don't come crying to me.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Vaccination is not something that concerns only the person that gets vaccinated. As long as a redneck insists on not letting his children get vaccinated, all the members of its social circle that can't be vaccinated (babies, fragile health and etc.) are in danger.

Anticommunism is fine and all that, but the health care system of the Soveit Union was praised even by the West.

Actually, your stereotypical "redneck" almost always vaccinates their kids, in part because they are not gonna train up to home school and won't shell out to fund private school. While some of our underclass don't bother with vaccinations, most of those unvaccinated in the USA are so because of parental choice. Moreover, nearly as many left wing "granola" types are choosing to not fill their children with "toxins" or "poisons" as are right wing elites who think it beneath them.

[Papewaio]

Given that the vector for Disneyland was an unvaccinated adult returning from an overseas trip...

I would only allow visas/passports to be valid if the holder has up to date vaccinations OR is willing to pay for quarantine on entrybto the country.

[Beskar]

Mega-Church lead by Anti-vaxxor just became infested with measles.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/08/26/1234055/-Anti-vaccine-megachurch-hit-with-measles-epidemic-now-offering-free-vaccinations

:no:

[Gilrandir]

Vaccination is not something that concerns only the person that gets vaccinated. As long as a redneck insists on not letting his children get vaccinated, all the members of its social circle that can't be vaccinated (babies, fragile health and etc.) are in danger.

So I shouldn't lick a lollipop in public because a diabetic may want to do the same, but he can't, and his mouth will start to water and he may choke with saliva? So I shouldn't listen to music, because a deaf person may see it and get jealous, and consequently get upset and his blood pressure will rise and he will get a stroke? One can't be responsible for others if it infringes upon his own freedom of choice.

If your kids die when they visit Disneyland, don't come crying to me.
Did I say my kid wasn't vaccinated? But the side effects she had every time she was will make me think twice before doing this again. And I must say she was lucky to have the side effects she had. Every now and then I hear reports of kids in Ukraine go blind or deaf or even die after/as a result of vaccination. I nearly died when I was vaccinated against tuberculosis, so throughout my whole school years I knew I had to run for the hills when the school nurse mentioned БЦЖ revaccination. Soviet health care (so greatly praised here) employees would not take no for an answer in questions of vaccinations.
The problem with it is not vaccination as a phenomenon, but in the way it is done, at least now.
First of all, vaccines that are supposed to be given to Ukainian kids are provided by the state. The latter does very little to make sure those were safe ones. A couple of years ago there was a great uproar in Ukraine when it became clear that kids had problems after a specific vaccine (don't remember what disease it was supposed to prevent). As it turned out, this vaccine was the winner of a tender announced by the health care ministry. The head of the ministry (Raisa Bogatyrova) was the mother of the director of the pharmaceutical plant that produced the said vaccine and won the tender. And guess what? The vaccination (with this vaccine) wasn't stopped until mothers started to officially refuse to get their kids vaccinated. And similar cases (when vaccines turn out outright dangerous for the kids) are quite usual here. Moreover, do you know what other components (except the vaccine itself) the medication contains? Parents here are not told about it, yet some of them have lead as a component, which can hardly be what the doctor orders (unless it is a medieval doctor).
Conclusion: you can not be sure (at least in Ukraine) that the vaccines your kids get are up to the task.
Second of all, before the procedure you must see the doctor to make sure your kid is healthy enough to be vaccinated. This means standing in a line with plenty of not healthy kids scuttling around, coughing and sneezing at you and your so-far-healthy kid. Then you proceed to the vaccination room and again wait in the line while the corridor is full of plenty of... am I repeating myself?
Conclusion: you can't be sure that your kid won't contract anything while waiting for the vaccination thus making the kid subject to more serious consequences of side effects (if there are any).
So vaccination as an idea may be a perfect one, but when it comes to implementing it, it turns out that the map is not the territory. Communism as an idea was also a perfect one.

It's sad when even the USSR could better prevent outbreaks of nearly extinct diseases than the USA now.
That is because these diseases (after initial suppression) didn't permeate through the iron curtain. If the USA introduces one, you will get rid of them in a couple of years.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

It's sad when even the USSR could better prevent outbreaks of nearly extinct diseases than the USA now.

Perhaps. It must be acknowledged that police states are more capable of sweeping programs to affect their internal population than states that allow broad personal freedoms.

[Crandar]

Mega-Church lead by Anti-vaxxor just became infested with measles.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/08/26/1234055/-Anti-vaccine-megachurch-hit-with-measles-epidemic-now-offering-free-vaccinations

:no:
That's named natural selection, according to the evolution theory.

So I shouldn't lick a lollipop in public because a diabetic may want to do the same, but he can't, and his mouth will start to water and he may choke with saliva? So I shouldn't listen to music, because a deaf person may see it and get jealous, and consequently get upset and his blood pressure will rise and he will get a stroke? One can't be responsible for others if it infringes upon his own freedom of choice.
Clearly invalid comparisons.
The most obvious point is that your surrealist examples depend on how the victim will react, while the infected people don't really have a choice of not being infected.

[Gilrandir]

The most obvious point is that your surrealist examples depend on how the victim will react, while the infected people don't really have a choice of not being infected.
So I must take a risk of running side effects and/or сomplications after a vaccination to make others happy? If these others are aware of their problem, let them wear masks (as people in Asia often do) or take other precautions they find neccessary. Everyone ought to take proper care of oneself and not look for shifting responsibilty onto others.

[Husar]

I think those masks only really work if the infected wear them, as they are meant to stop fluids from your own mouth from being spread around too much. Unless you meant to say that people in asia often wear gas masks, but that would be news to me.

http://dhss.delaware.gov/dhss/dph/files/swineflumasksfaq.txt


* Using surgical masks will not fully protect you from being infected. Hand-washing, isolating
infected patients, and covering the mouth and nose when coughing also help to reduce to
the risk of infection.
[...]
* Surgical masks are not tested against specific microorganisms and do not prevent specific
diseases.


http://www.healthline.com/health/cold-flu/mask


Family members of children with flu-like illnesses who used the masks properly were 80 percent less likely to be diagnosed with the illness.

80 percent, when you're around one infected person. Probably good enough if the government forces everyone to wear such a mask, but if you're the only one, I recommend a hazmat suit.
Or vaccination.

[Crandar]

So I must take a risk of running side effects and/or сomplications after a vaccination to make others happy? If these others are aware of their problem, let them wear masks (as people in Asia often do) or take other precautions they find neccessary. Everyone ought to take proper care of oneself and not look for shifting responsibilty onto others.
Well, yes you should, as it concerns health and not happiness, while the positive effects of vaccination clearly outweigh extremely rare implications you might suffer from.
It's your responsibility to keep everyone else safe from yourself.

By your logic, the victims of road accidents caused by people who drove under influence should blame themselves rather than the intoxicated drivers.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

So I must take a risk of running side effects and/or сomplications after a vaccination to make others happy? If these others are aware of their problem, let them wear masks (as people in Asia often do) or take other precautions they find neccessary. Everyone ought to take proper care of oneself and not look for shifting responsibilty onto others.

The mass vaccination programs take a number of factors into account. Doctors will not immunize any patient who is too young/small to tolerate the vaccine or who exhibits characteristics that make the use of the vaccine (or repeated treatments therewith) likely to cause harm. The incidence of harm resulting from vaccinations to screened individuals is so low as to be a moot issue.

It is an ironic fact that, in a properly vaccinated population, more people will die from the vaccination than from the disease itself. Why? Because NOBODY contracts the disease. So if even one person in 10 million were to die from complications resulting from the vaccination, there would, by definition, be more deaths from the vaccine than from the disease. If you desist with vaccinations, mother nature will turn those numbers right on around for you.

[a completely inoffensive name]

So I must take a risk of running side effects and/or сomplications after a vaccination to make others happy? If these others are aware of their problem, let them wear masks (as people in Asia often do) or take other precautions they find neccessary. Everyone ought to take proper care of oneself and not look for shifting responsibilty onto others.

Everyone ought be a good citizen, and that means protecting yourself and fellow citizens with vaccinations. There is no way to spin it as totalitarian without making yourself look like a fool. Might as well be asking people why an individual should stop defecating in the city well, that's the equivalent of not getting a vaccine.

[Kralizec]

nevermind, please delete

[Ironside]

So I must take a risk of running side effects and/or сomplications after a vaccination to make others happy? If these others are aware of their problem, let them wear masks (as people in Asia often do) or take other precautions they find neccessary. Everyone ought to take proper care of oneself and not look for shifting responsibilty onto others.

Here's a little program (http://www.software3d.com/Home/Vax/Immunity.php) to show the concept of herd immunity and how it works even without the vaccine giving 100% protection.

That type of corruption within the medicine branch is a problem though. That said, it's not an issue in the US.

[Gilrandir]

Well, yes you should, as it concerns health and not happiness, while the positive effects of vaccination clearly outweigh extremely rare implications you might suffer from.

And if I do suffer, should I just proudly soothe myself that I did everything so that others may live (and vaccine producers may live very well), while my life and health don't matter that much?


It's your responsibility to keep everyone else safe from yourself.
By your logic, the victims of road accidents caused by people who drove under influence should blame themselves rather than the intoxicated drivers.
In Western countries the number of drunk drivers is definitely greater than the number of unvaccinated (through their choice) people, so the threat the latter pose is incomparable. Still less is the number of those who can't be vaccinated.

Doctors will not immunize any patient who is too young/small to tolerate the vaccine or who exhibits characteristics that make the use of the vaccine (or repeated treatments therewith) likely to cause harm.

People here again make the same mistake: they impose the value grid which works perfectly for their societies and expect it to work in other societies as well. If it doesn't they are genuinely surprised and want to denounce a person who tries to show that it doesn't and accuse him of red-neckism, boorishness, stupidity and indifference to others' well-being.
You may be right speaking of the USA, yet not so for Ukraine. In Ukraine doctors have a plan of vaccination and if they fail to fulfil it they are subject to reprimands. So as often as not possible complications are neglected to have the plan done.
My daughter undergoes Mantoux test every year and every year the size of the wheal is greater than it is to be. We tell the doctors that I had the same results of the test, so perhaps it is some kind of ancestral allergy, otherwise why do we get the same results every year and no symptoms of tuberculosis are in evidence. Then they make her undergo x-ray examination and say: "Yes, everything is fine". And next year it is all over again. If we don't do it my daughter is forbidden to attend school. How many years (and my daughter's sufferings) is enough to realize that the size of the wheal (in her case) has nothing to do with tuberculosis? I understand that it is not vaccination proper, yet it exemplifies the approach that we generally have here: we will vaccinate your kid and tick the box, whatever happens later is your own headache.


The incidence of harm resulting from vaccinations to screened individuals is so low as to be a moot issue.

It is just another way of saying ":oops: happens". When someone's kid dies as a result of vaccination you may offer him this statement as a consolation.


Everyone ought be a good citizen, and that means protecting yourself and fellow citizens with vaccinations. There is no way to spin it as totalitarian without making yourself look like a fool. Might as well be asking people why an individual should stop defecating in the city well, that's the equivalent of not getting a vaccine.
If one defecates in the city it poses threat not to other people, but only to their shoes.
As for being a good citizen, forcing others to do something is not the thing good citizens do.

In conclusion I will repeat: vaccination may be good for more civilized countries (where you can be sure that it is safe) or for too poor countries (where the average epidemic death toll makes possible harm of vaccination irrelevant). For the countries in-between (where I refer Ukraine) the perfect idea may turn harmful through the imperfectness of its implementation.

[Husar]

It is just another way of saying ":oops: happens". When someone's kid dies as a result of vaccination you may offer him this statement as a consolation.

Let's assume we all do away with vaccinating our kids because of the really small chance of complications. What then do you tell parents when hundreds of kids die and thousands suffer in a huge measles outbreak? "Ooop, well, life is cruel sometimes." ?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Gil'

I do not simply dismiss the tragedy of losing a child in such a fashion. I have known people who have lost children and it is devastating emotionally and relationally. In no way do I minimize this. In an ideal world, the vaccine would be 100% effective, hypoallergenic, and side-effect free. Perhaps we should exert more effort to approach this standard more closely and stop simply accepting a 95+% on these issues.

However, until that happy future is reached, it is still better to vaccinate than not, minimizing the potential harm for the greatest number.


Your description of your daugher's repeated testing is saddening. It is more symptomatic of bureaucratic mindlessness and CYA thinking than of any medical concerns. Hannah Arendt termed your very natural reaction to such bureaucratic inanity as "Structural Violence." The answer is a bureaucracy with BETTER, not more, oversight and greater control of the standards used by an independent medical umbrella group akin to the AMA and less government-run.

[Gilrandir]

Let's assume we all do away with vaccinating our kids because of the really small chance of complications. What then do you tell parents when hundreds of kids die and thousands suffer in a huge measles outbreak? "Ooop, well, life is cruel sometimes." ?
In terms of a separate family disaster, I don't see how the death of each of these hundreds of kids (to each family) is worse than the death of one kid of side-effects or complications (to his/her very family). Speaking of deaths we must consider the irrevocability of each separate case, not gauge the tragedy by the number of deaths involved. If we adopt this approach we will see that both are of the same value.


Gil'

I do not simply dismiss the tragedy of losing a child in such a fashion. I have known people who have lost children and it is devastating emotionally and relationally. In no way do I minimize this. In an ideal world, the vaccine would be 100% effective, hypoallergenic, and side-effect free. Perhaps we should exert more effort to approach this standard more closely and stop simply accepting a 95+% on these issues.

However, until that happy future is reached, it is still better to vaccinate than not, minimizing the potential harm for the greatest number.

Again: it is both the vaccine itself and the procedure of giving it. The two (in modern Ukraine) make it hard to trust the chance and believe in the responsible state, but instead on balance take the approach which seems safest.


Your description of your daugher's repeated testing is saddening. It is more symptomatic of bureaucratic mindlessness and CYA thinking than of any medical concerns. Hannah Arendt termed your very natural reaction to such bureaucratic inanity as "Structural Violence." The answer is a bureaucracy with BETTER, not more, oversight and greater control of the standards used by an independent medical umbrella group akin to the AMA and less government-run.
I don't agree with the term. In dealing with Ukrainian health care system, violence (if we consider exclusively verbal attempts to stand up for one's rights violent) is the less likely option. In Ukraine NOT A SINGLE DOCTOR was punished (I mean sentence or fine or defraying expenses or something palpable) for any mistakes he/she might have made, because when the experts' opinion on the case is given the experts (who are the doctors themselves) cover up for their colleagues. Corporative ethics or something. That is why one has to please the doctor by all possible means. So until we get a better bureaucracy, money talks. It can talk a doctor into skipping some steps of the red tape he is to have made.

[Husar]

In terms of a separate family disaster, I don't see how the death of each of these hundreds of kids (to each family) is worse than the death of one kid of side-effects or complications (to his/her very family). Speaking of deaths we must consider the irrevocability of each separate case, not gauge the tragedy by the number of deaths involved. If we adopt this approach we will see that both are of the same value.

And conquering eastern Ukraine is of huge value to Putin's family while the suffering of thousands of Ukrainians is basically not that important because on an individual level it's not worse than if their entire family drove a car into a tree at 100km/h, happens all the time anyway. Did I get your point or what exactly are you saying?

[Husar]

Let me ask this another way:

Do you think it is productive or clever in any way to skip a vaccination that has a 0.001% chance of harming your child if that directly leads to a 90% chance of your child getting a disease that has a 30% chance of killing it?

[Gilrandir]

And conquering eastern Ukraine is of huge value to Putin's family while the suffering of thousands of Ukrainians is basically not that important because on an individual level it's not worse than if their entire family drove a car into a tree at 100km/h, happens all the time anyway. Did I get your point or what exactly are you saying?
Invalid comparison with too many focuses involved.
1. Putin's family has nothing to do with what is going on inside his cranium, so it is neither happier nor sadder because of what he does.
2. Pitin doesn't need Eastern Ukraine (otherwise he would have acknowledged the May referendums results and announced the annexation, or reunification, as he terms such things). He needs a controllable Ukraine, preferably inside his empire, but outside it will also do at the moment.
3. People of Eastern Ukraine are in no control of their sufferings, they can do nothing about it any more - just die or flee. Vaccination is the process which can still be refused or accepted thus claiming personal responsibility for whatever consequences.
4. It is a wrong thread to discuss Ukraine.
5. Each family's suffering is important (to this very family), so the existence of other familes suffering near at hand doesn't make the said suffering greater or less.

[Husar]

Invalid comparison with too many focuses involved.
1. Putin's family has nothing to do with what is going on inside his cranium, so it is neither happier nor sadder because of what he does.
2. Pitin doesn't need Eastern Ukraine (otherwise he would have acknowledged the May referendums results and announced the annexation, or reunification, as he terms such things). He needs a controllable Ukraine, preferably inside his empire, but outside it will also do at the moment.
3. People of Eastern Ukraine are in no control of their sufferings, they can do nothing about it any more - just die or flee. Vaccination is the process which can still be refused or accepted thus claiming personal responsibility for whatever consequences.
4. It is a wrong thread to discuss Ukraine.
5. Each family's suffering is important (to this very family), so the existence of other familes suffering near at hand doesn't make the said suffering greater or less.

Your reduction is just as invalid.

1. Maybe, but they probably appreciate the swimming pool he bought with the money from stuff he stole from Ukraine.
2. Irrelevant.
3. Once the disease breaks out, the other victims of the disease are not in control anymore either and that it hits vaccinated people becomes more likely the more unvaccinated people are around them. There were several vaccinated people who got the measles at disneyland. How is that their own choice?
4. You're the one who brings up these parallels in so many other threads, I thought you might like it.
5. How is that relevant to a (potential) national catastrophe? Or do you think the tsunami in asia that killed 200k people was just an accumulation of unfortunate personal tragedies that were no worse due to the scale? Because then I guess we can raze all the memorials given that we don't set up memorials for families that drive their car into a tree either. And the tsunami warning system must have been a waste of money for everybody whose family wasn't directly affected.

[Gilrandir]

3. Once the disease breaks out, the other victims of the disease are not in control anymore either and that it hits vaccinated people becomes more likely the more unvaccinated people are around them. There were several vaccinated people who got the measles at disneyland. How is that their own choice?

The choice came before the disease and it was to vaccinate or not to vaccinate. But if vaccinated people contract a disease, I still more doubt the effectiveness of vaccination.


5. How is that relevant to a (potential) national catastrophe? Or do you think the tsunami in asia that killed 200k people was just an accumulation of unfortunate personal tragedies that were no worse due to the scale? Because then I guess we can raze all the memorials given that we don't set up memorials for families that drive their car into a tree either. And the tsunami warning system must have been a waste of money for everybody whose family wasn't directly affected.
There are plenty of memorials to individuals whose tragedy (or feat) seemed worth one. But what I mean to say is that a family's suffering because they lost someone they loved is not made greater or less if this family knows that others suffer because of their own loss. For the nation it may look differently, but on a personal (family) scale every national disaster is just a loss of their family member against the background of others having suffered similar losses.

[Sir Moody]

The choice came before the disease and it was to vaccinate or not to vaccinate. But if vaccinated people contract a disease, I still more doubt the effectiveness of vaccination.

... you are in a thread which includes MULTIPLE explanations of how vaccinations work and you don't seem to be deficient in the intelligence department yet you are totally misunderstanding how vaccinations work.

Do a simple google on "Herd Immunity" and you should understand our standpoint a little better.

[Gilrandir]

... you are in a thread which includes MULTIPLE explanations of how vaccinations work and you don't seem to be deficient in the intelligence department yet you are totally misunderstanding how vaccinations work.

I know enough to realize there is no 100% guarantee for a person not to be ill even after the vaccination, and a person may get problems resulting from vaccination itself. And this is given the vaccine and the procedure are up to the point. The said awareness determines my attitude to vaccination as it takes place in Ukraine.

[Sir Moody]

so you don't have any understanding of herd immunity then?

This explains a lot...

Basically vaccines work by massively reducing your chances of catching the disease - if the disease cannot infect enough hosts it dies out - the more infectious people around (known as disease vectors) the greater the chance the disease will "luck out" and bypass a vaccinated persons immune system - the more vaccinated people around the less likely the disease will spread - a few may still get it but most wont.

The amount of vaccinated people required to protect a community varies from disease to disease (for Measles it requires between 83–94% of the population to be vaccinated) hence our support for mandatory vaccinations.

To put this in context for you - a unvaccinated person is 35 times more likely to contract measles than a vaccinated one - the more unvaccinated people in a community the more likely they will all contract the disease and the greater chance they will start to infect the vaccinated people.

These are killer diseases and playing cavalier with your own and everyone else's safety shouldn't be allowed.

[Gilrandir]

so you don't have any understanding of herd immunity then?

This explains a lot...

Basically vaccines work by massively reducing your chances of catching the disease - if the disease cannot infect enough hosts it dies out - the more infectious people around (known as disease vectors) the greater the chance the disease will "luck out" and bypass a vaccinated persons immune system - the more vaccinated people around the less likely the disease will spread - a few may still get it but most wont.

The amount of vaccinated people required to protect a community varies from disease to disease (for Measles it requires between 83–94% of the population to be vaccinated) hence our support for mandatory vaccinations.

To put this in context for you - a unvaccinated person is 35 times more likely to contract measles than a vaccinated one - the more unvaccinated people in a community the more likely they will all contract the disease and the greater chance they will start to infect the vaccinated people.

These are killer diseases and playing cavalier with your own and everyone else's safety shouldn't be allowed.
And how does it change what I said? I repeat: the choice of vaccines and the procedure of their giving IN TODAY UKRAINE is a coin-flipping for each of the immunised: he may get immunity or he may die. The former seems as likely as the latter.

[Sir Moody]

And how does it change what I said? I repeat: the choice of vaccines and the procedure of their giving IN TODAY UKRAINE is a coin-flipping for each of the immunised: he may get immunity or he may die. The former seems as likely as the latter.

The chance of dieing from a MMR jab is less then 1 in a Million (as measured by the cdc) - it is a negligible risk.

Measles has a fatality rate of 0.2% (or 2 in a 1000)

[Papewaio]

Two separate arguements.

Most of world MMR = good!

Ukraine vaccine =! good

Not because of difference in science but because the Ukraine vaccines were sourced from a politicians family connections and according to Gil not effective.

=][=

Gilrandir would you consider vaccines such as the MMR if they were the same standard as the West and manufactured, stored, transported and administrated as such?

[Husar]

There are plenty of memorials to individuals whose tragedy (or feat) seemed worth one. But what I mean to say is that a family's suffering because they lost someone they loved is not made greater or less if this family knows that others suffer because of their own loss. For the nation it may look differently, but on a personal (family) scale every national disaster is just a loss of their family member against the background of others having suffered similar losses.

Yes, but then how is that relevant to the topic? Should a nation jeopardize the safety of almost everyone because a few families have "feelings"? The deaths from vaccination are random, the deaths from the disease are also random, but far more. It is therefore much safer on a national level to get everyone vaccinated than not to do it and noone is killed on purpose either way. But a lot more preventable deaths happen if the vaccination is not used, it actually IS a numbers game on a national level. On a family lvel you get a whole lot of families who will not lose someone to the disease, so that's definitely a positive.

If the vaccine is poisoned or replaced by crystal meth in your country, that's a problem of your country, not a problem with proper vaccinations.

[Gilrandir]

Not because of difference in science but because the Ukraine vaccines were sourced from a politicians family connections and according to Gil not effective.

The issue was not effectiveness (or effectivity?), but kids' dying or becoming invalids after the vaccination. No one thought of how effective it was if a kid had severe health problems of a different kind.


Gilrandir would you consider vaccines such as the MMR if they were the same standard as the West and manufactured, stored, transported and administrated as such?
And the procedure of vaccination changed. Perhaps. But before giving a consent I would like to know more about its ingredients. As it is often the problem with Western-made goods, some of them are made for home use, others for use outside the EU. Which of them will be the said vaccine?
But what seemed to have escaped the attention of people here: me, my wife (in our childhood) and my daughter have had all the mandatory vaccinations. Next vaccination time for my daughter is approaching, and that is what causes apprehension.

Should a nation jeopardize the safety of almost everyone because a few families have "feelings"?

That is what is exactly happening in France. A few families of CH journalists suffered (in my view because of their indiscretion) and now the whole of France has to put up with stepped up security measures and finance these measures.


It is therefore much safer on a national level to get everyone vaccinated than not to do it and noone is killed on purpose either way. But a lot more preventable deaths happen if the vaccination is not used, it actually IS a numbers game on a national level. On a family lvel you get a whole lot of families who will not lose someone to the disease, so that's definitely a positive.

I have always believed that the value system of the Western civilization (unlike what was symptomatic for the USSR) emphasized importance of individual human's interests and freedom over the interests of the state. But for you it seems to be the other way around. The matter of preferences.



If the vaccine is poisoned or replaced by crystal meth in your country, that's a problem of your country, not a problem with proper vaccinations.
This is what I have been claiming since the very beginning: the idea may be perfect, but its implementation IN UKRAINE is far from it.

[Husar]

That is what is exactly happening in France. A few families of CH journalists suffered (in my view because of their indiscretion) and now the whole of France has to put up with stepped up security measures and finance these measures.

I'm against such measures for the most part. Not that terrorism should be ignored by the police, but I'd rather see a lot of the money be put into cancer research than the orwellian apparatus that some people want because of a few deaths.


I have always believed that the value system of the Western civilization (unlike what was symptomatic for the USSR) emphasized importance of individual human's interests and freedom over the interests of the state. But for you it seems to be the other way around. The matter of preferences.

No. I do not prefer either in general and for me personally, what matters the most is what is most likely to kill me.


This is what I have been claiming since the very beginning: the idea may be perfect, but its implementation IN UKRAINE is far from it.

Some of your posts made you sound like you were against vaccination in general, if not, then it's okay.

[CrossLOPER]

This is what I have been claiming since the very beginning: the idea may be perfect, but its implementation IN UKRAINE is far from it.
So what is your argument?

[Gilrandir]

So what is your argument?
In Ukraine one has to be very cautious about vaccination and try to minimize it.

[Husar]

Safer to get Polio in Ukraine I assume. A country full of people one can't trust, with the germs at least you know what you'll get. ~;)

[Gilrandir]

Safer to get Polio in Ukraine I assume.

Polio vaccination is the one that never caused any adverse consequences, so I would assume it is the safest one.


A country full of people one can't trust, with the germs at least you know what you'll get. ~;)
Not people, but officials and bureaucrats. They are bent on lining their pockets and will stick at naught to do it asap.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

So...setting aside vaccine efficacy scores and the like....this all boils down to endemic corruption in your culture?

[Beskar]

So...setting aside vaccine efficacy scores and the like....this all boils down to endemic corruption in your culture?

Reminds me of a hypothetical argument with a Roman about the virtues of drinking plenty of water is healthier than weak wine/alcohol.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Just to be clear, I am not dismissing the importance of corruption. Rampant corruption is, as near as I can discern, the death knell of good governance and the tacit acceptance of government that allows it to function as smooth as it ever does.

[Gilrandir]

So...setting aside vaccine efficacy scores and the like....this all boils down to endemic corruption in your culture?
Culture is not subject to corruption. The state is. Ultimately corruption allows inefficient/dangerous vaccines to be given. One more thing that doesn't instill trust in the vaccination effectiveness is the procedure thereof. But I seem to have dwelt upon it.

[Papewaio]

Culture deals with the ideals, customs and language of a group.

Some cultures have ideals and customs that others would find corrupt. Such as paying for access to politicians or bribes to move goods through customs quicker, or cops letting cops off for things they would charge normal citizens with.

Individuals can be more or less corrupt and are often influenced by the norm of the culture they are in and the risk/rewards associated with it.

[Husar]

http://www.thelocal.de/20150223/measles-cancels-classes-at-berlin-school


The one and a half year old died on February 18 afer being admitted to hospital on February 18.

After a meeting of the city senate's health committee, Health senator Mario Czaja said that "the boy was vaccinated against everything - except against measles," Tagesspiegel reported.

Czaja added that he was in favour of making vaccinations compulsory.

It is the first death in Germany from a measles infection since 2013, when a teenaged boy died from complications due to the virus, which he picked up as a baby.

http://www.dw.de/toddler-dies-of-measles-in-germany-as-outbreak-fears-grow/a-18274687


Measles has been spreading throughout the capital since October, with an outbreak having also been reported in nearby Leipzig. In the capital alone, some 574 cases of measles have been recorded since last October, equating to the largest outbreak seen in Berlin since the introduction of a series of medical reforms with the Infection Protection Act in 2001.

The articles also say that the virus was probably spread by refugees from former Yugoslavia where no vaccinations were carried out during the civil war. What's interesting though is that it managed to spread to >500 people, which seems to be some kind of first worlkd problem according to the quoted mister Czaja:
http://www.berliner-kurier.de/kiez-stadt/kind-gestorben-charit--in-berlin-war-machtlos-gegen-masern-virus,7169128,29952754.html


Czaja forderte deshalb alle Berliner auf, den Impfstatus der Kinder, aber auch den eigenen zu überprüfen. Grundsätzlich gebe es bei Kindern aus „bildungsfernen“ oder Migrantenfamilien keine Sorgen. Czaja: „Impflücken haben Kinder aus gut situierten Kiezen, aus welchen Gründen auch immer.“

Therefore Czaja asked all people of Berlin to check the vaccination status of their children as well as their own. Generally there are no worries about people from "uneducated" (literally "education-distant") or immigrant families. Czaja: "Vaccination gaps are found among children from well-situated neighborhoods, for whichever reasons."

Once again proving that almost every trend from the US can be found somewhere in Germany as well.

[Gilrandir]

Culture deals with the ideals, customs and language of a group.

Some cultures have ideals and customs that others would find corrupt. Such as paying for access to politicians or bribes to move goods through customs quicker, or cops letting cops off for things they would charge normal citizens with.

Individuals can be more or less corrupt and are often influenced by the norm of the culture they are in and the risk/rewards associated with it.
Corruption (having, of course, moral and religious dimensions) is primarily a crime, thus is ultimately about laws, i.e. within the state's (not culture's) domain of responsibility. I doubt that the cases which you describe as acceptable in some cultures are legal in the corresponding countries. Thus corruption is always illegal, no matter what "cultures" may think about it.

[Sir Moody]

Corruption (having, of course, moral and religious dimensions) is primarily a crime, thus is ultimately about laws, i.e. within the state's (not culture's) domain of responsibility. I doubt that the cases which you describe as acceptable in some cultures are legal in the corresponding countries. Thus corruption is always illegal, no matter what "cultures" may think about it.

Law is tied to culture as well (hence why not all countries agree on what is legal and illegal).

Basically Culture is a catch all term with a lot of factors (the law being one of those)

[CrossLOPER]

Law is tied to culture as well (hence why not all countries agree on what is legal and illegal).

Basically Culture is a catch all term with a lot of factors (the law being one of those)

I would say that thorough corruption is a lack of culture.

[Gilrandir]

Law is tied to culture as well (hence why not all countries agree on what is legal and illegal).

I would say that this tie is quite loose. While basic laws are more or less universal (about murders, theft and so on) cultures can't boast of it. Moreover, if a law is violated, there is a law-stipulated punishment, while the violation of culture norms can incur anything - from no punishment through severe punishment (aka lynching) up to creating a new norm.

[Sir Moody]

I would say that this tie is quite loose. While basic laws are more or less universal (about murders, theft and so on) cultures can't boast of it. Moreover, if a law is violated, there is a law-stipulated punishment, while the violation of culture norms can incur anything - from no punishment through severe punishment (aka lynching) up to creating a new norm.

There is no such thing as Universal law - its a tempting idea but it just doesn't reflect the real world.

Let me put it this way - who writes the law?

The law is written by people and therefore it is affected by the Culture of those writing it - it tends to reflect the cultural norms of the Country (which is of course made up of many subcultures) - over time a culture will change and so laws will change with it - Slavery and institutional Racism/Homophobia are good examples of this

[Gilrandir]

There is no such thing as Universal law - its a tempting idea but it just doesn't reflect the real world.

Let me put it this way - who writes the law?

The law is written by people and therefore it is affected by the Culture of those writing it - it tends to reflect the cultural norms of the Country (which is of course made up of many subcultures) - over time a culture will change and so laws will change with it - Slavery and institutional Racism/Homophobia are good examples of this
Yet there are things which are considered crimes in all cultures at present (murder, theft, assault, thuggery etc). This is what I meant under universal law. But will one acknowledge the existence of it or no there is no denying the fact that culture norms are broader than laws and are not enforced through the threat of punishment for violating them. For instance, wolf-whistling at a woman is a sample of culturally censured behavior, yet no one will arrest a man for it (at least not in Europe nor the USA).

[Sir Moody]

Yet there are things which are considered crimes in all cultures at present (murder, theft, assault, thuggery etc).

That depends where you draw the line - in the UK assisted Suicide is illegal and will land you a possible Murder charge - in the Netherlands its legal (with restrictions on who can perform it (ie Doctors).

In some US states it is legal to shoot someone who entered your property without your permission - in the UK that would land you a Murder charge (unless they were actively threatening you).

Its all subjective to cultural norms... Murder is not always Murder...

A lot of Countries do share a common basis in law primarily because they share a common religion (which is a big Cultural player) but that doesn't mean they are Universal laws.

[Ironside]

Yet there are things which are considered crimes in all cultures at present (murder, theft, assault, thuggery etc). This is what I meant under universal law. But will one acknowledge the existence of it or no there is no denying the fact that culture norms are broader than laws and are not enforced through the threat of punishment for violating them. For instance, wolf-whistling at a woman is a sample of culturally censured behavior, yet no one will arrest a man for it (at least not in Europe nor the USA).

Murder, theft, assault, thuggery etc are relative crimes. That is, murder is always a crime, but what is defined as murder varies. Take duty to retreat and stand your ground in the US for example. Depending on what legal doctrine, the same act of killing will be either be counted as murder or not. Same thing with the rest. Copywright crimes like illegal downloading is both counted as theft and not.

Rape is seen as a horrible crime, not a crime at all (there's several countries where it is impossible to rape your wife) or justice (the good old prison rape for the evil guys).

Corruption is very much a cultural thing. The merger with the state has to with power (and very shitty pay when it comes to small time corruption). Self-perpertuating corruption are when the corruptors has enough power to make it a practical disadvantage to be non-corrupt.. The Chinese buissnessman who doesn't snort coke, don't do the public group sex, doesn't get drunk and don't even buy a prostitute to his room are not worth doing buissness with and the Mexican cop that can choose to take the bribe or the bullet can't do his job properly.
In both those cases, the top goverment are actively opposing that corruption and if we're talking about a goverment promoting corrpution, then it's pretty much impossible to root it out.

[Gilrandir]

That depends where you draw the line - in the UK assisted Suicide is illegal and will land you a possible Murder charge - in the Netherlands its legal (with restrictions on who can perform it (ie Doctors).

In some US states it is legal to shoot someone who entered your property without your permission - in the UK that would land you a Murder charge (unless they were actively threatening you).

Its all subjective to cultural norms... Murder is not always Murder...

A lot of Countries do share a common basis in law primarily because they share a common religion (which is a big Cultural player) but that doesn't mean they are Universal laws.
Yet in your examples of trespassing and euthasnasia you showed that in countries belonging roughly to the same culture and religion the same misdemeanor may or may not be considered a crime. So we may argue back and forth how criminal is this or that crime, but (excuse my copypaste) there is no denying the fact that culture norms are broader than laws and are not enforced through the threat of punishment for violating them. So however cultural may the background of corruption be, it is still a crime and should be dealt with correspondingly.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Regarding corruption:

There are laws on the books in most polities criminalizing corrupt practices by public officials and, in many polities, by private citizens as well. The LAW may determine criminality, but that is only one aspect of the problem.

The degree of tolerance, in practice, for corruption is a cultural issue -- and often undercuts the efforts of laws that have been promulgated to curtail corruption.

Cultural "peer" pressure (sanctioned via social pariah status) is almost always more compelling of behavior than are laws. As a humorous example, I have often asked why nobody in my classes wears either a speedo or a bikini to class. Either of these outfits, unless unusually skimpy or see-through satisfies the LEGAL requirement for public decency. The answer, of course, is that it is viewed as unacceptable by their peers and would be ridiculed -- a CULTURAL sanction that is only tangentially connected to the law.

If, over and above the legitimate fees and market costs for a good or service, your culture condones bribes, requires significant gifts to obtain services or access, kickbacks in salary for having been hired and the like; then the culture itself is condoning corruption and laws will be of secondary influence at best. Until the culture, in the main, rejects and punishes such behavior then laws will not address the problem.

It has been my belief for some time now that the comparative intolerance of many Western societies for corruption has long been one of the great advantages that has enabled Western dominance of world affairs for so long. This is even sadder when you consider that the West has always had some problems with corruption -- thus implying that many other cultures are significantly worse.

[Gilrandir]

If, over and above the legitimate fees and market costs for a good or service, your culture condones bribes, requires significant gifts to obtain services or access, kickbacks in salary for having been hired and the like; then the culture itself is condoning corruption and laws will be of secondary influence at best. Until the culture, in the main, rejects and punishes such behavior then laws will not address the problem.

It may happen the other way around. The example is Georgia. During the USSR times it was considered the most corrupt republic and the situation evidently didn't change with the advent of independence. Only the political will of Saakashvili to change the practice and enforce the existing laws made the crackdown on corruption possible. And it took people awhile to get used to the fact that, for instance, the traffic police don't take bribes anymore.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

It may happen the other way around. The example is Georgia. During the USSR times it was considered the most corrupt republic and the situation evidently didn't change with the advent of independence. Only the political will of Saakashvili to change the practice and enforce the existing laws made the crackdown on corruption possible. And it took people awhile to get used to the fact that, for instance, the traffic police don't take bribes anymore.

Then bully for him for making the effort -- should probably qualify as a profile in political courage deal. Yet, if his crackdown had not met with the (apparently surprised) acceptance of such a change, the change would not have "stuck."

[Gilrandir]

Then bully for him for making the effort -- should probably qualify as a profile in political courage deal. Yet, if his crackdown had not met with the (apparently surprised) acceptance of such a change, the change would not have "stuck."
So much for the (purportedly favorably predisposed to corruption) culture.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

So much for the (purportedly favorably predisposed to corruption) culture.

Cultures can change. Thankfully.

[Don Corleone]

Jimmy Kimmel has a really funny bit running around Facebook. It's a PSA... Takes a different tack....

If you're not going to vaccinate your kids, you shouldn't be allowed to go to doctors and hospitals. You're just going to ignore what they say anyway. It was brilliant... The frustration level by real doctors on this one is palpable.

I personally believe it's a case of chickens coming home to roost, and hopefully the medical establishment is looking in the mirror. If doctors want to be trusted, they have to be seen as impartial, not shills for the pharmaceutical companies. They can't do that when they're taking bags of money on a per-prescription referral bonus.

I think the anti-Vax crowd has grossly miscalculated (if I remember correctly, vaccines actually don't make big-Phrama very much money, they do it to keep Congress off their backs). Greedy doctors are far more likely to prescribe you Viagra for not being able to get it up the night before an IRS audit... But even so, when you lay down with the pigs, you get mud on yourself.

[Papewaio]

Cultures can change. Thankfully.

Hence not all cultures or points of view are equal.

[Gilrandir]

Cultures can change. Thankfully.
It takes quite a while.




I think the anti-Vax crowd has grossly miscalculated (if I remember correctly, vaccines actually don't make big-Phrama very much money, they do it to keep Congress off their backs).
In Ukraine, since vaccination is mandatory and state-provided, those who won a tender to sell vaccines to the state, can count themselves very lucky and very rich.

[Sigurd]

Jimmy Kimmel has a really funny bit running around Facebook. It's a PSA... Takes a different tack....


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgpfNScEd3M


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2mdwmpLYLY

[HopAlongBunny]

Myths and facts:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fact-or-faction-vaccines-are-dangerous/

[Gilrandir]

Myths and facts:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fact-or-faction-vaccines-are-dangerous/
As usual, being biased one way the article is silent about some things that pertain to the issue. For example, in the chapter "What's in the vaccine?" it says nothing of other substances (beside the vaccine proper) composing the said drug. Some of them, as I have remarked, contain lead. This is the same as saying that everything you buy at a supermarket is good for you because it is food while it is common knowledge that modern technologies allow to give a piece of :daisy: the taste, flavor, texture, color etc of the product you desire.
One more important thing it skips is how vaccination is organized, which is what makes me apprehensive to it.

[Sir Moody]

As usual, being biased one way the article is silent about some things that pertain to the issue. For example, in the chapter "What's in the vaccine?" it says nothing of other substances (beside the vaccine proper) composing the said drug. Some of them, as I have remarked, contain lead. This is the same as saying that everything you buy at a supermarket is good for you because it is food while it is common knowledge that modern technologies allow to give a piece of :daisy: the taste, flavor, texture, color etc of the product you desire.
One more important thing it skips is how vaccination is organized, which is what makes me apprehensive to it.

Oh goody that tired old trope again...

yes some vaccines contain Lead - many also contain Mercury - however both are in minute quantities - you get more mercury from eating Tuna...

To quote a Renaissance doctor "Poison is in everything, and no thing is without poison. The dosage makes it either a poison or a remedy." - Paracelsus

[Gilrandir]

yes some vaccines contain Lead - many also contain Mercury - however both are in minute quantities - you get more mercury from eating Tuna...

To quote a Renaissance doctor "Poison is in everything, and no thing is without poison. The dosage makes it either a poison or a remedy." - Paracelsus
And we all know how much mercury and lead was used back then, and it was thought to be a remedy.
Yet my point was not that vaccines contain lead, but that "unbiased experts" fail to mention it. Being unbiased presupposes giving both pros and cons leaving a person to make a choice for himself. Anything different is propaganda/advertisement/imposition.....

[Sir Moody]

Oh agreed however the problem with being unbiased is the other side isn't.

Science tried to be "unbiased" and look where it ended up - we now have a Measles crisis across most the Western world all because the Anti-Vac crowd throw out so much Conspiracy nonsense being "unbiased" basically hands the floor to them.

Let me put it this way - why mention that vaccines contain substances which can be harmful in massively larger doses when such information is immediately used by opponents to shout "LOOK LOOK I TOLD YOU THEY WERE POISONOUS!"

As Paracelsus said - EVERYTHING is poisonous if taken in large enough doses - even water or oxygen...

[Gilrandir]

Let me put it this way - why mention that vaccines contain substances which can be harmful in massively larger doses when such information is immediately used by opponents to shout "LOOK LOOK I TOLD YOU THEY WERE POISONOUS!"

Not so long ago DDT was not considered to be harmful in any doses. Our knowledge about substances changes, so in any case I would like (and have a right, don't I) to know what I'm going to let inside my body. Somehow, harmful substances in sweet carbonated drinks and french fries don't discourage people from consuming them in hideous quantities. But they know what's in them anyway.

[Sir Moody]

Not so long ago DDT was not considered to be harmful in any doses.

thats disingenuous - DDT was dangerous in high doses (it was a pesticide for christ sake) - we knew that which is why it was "deployed" in lower doses that were thought safe.

The failing was one of testing - no long term testing was performed and thus the fact that DDT built up through the food chain was missed - since that mistake drugs testing is far more thorough.

Modern vaccines have gone through this far more rigorous drug testing - they are safe.

[Gilrandir]

Modern vaccines have gone through this far more rigorous drug testing - they are safe.
As I have repeatedly shown, this statement doesn't apply to vaccines used in Ukraine.

[Sir Moody]

As I have repeatedly shown, this statement doesn't apply to vaccines used in Ukraine.

I looked it up - the Vaccines in use in the Ukraine are the same ones in use in most of Europe - there was an issue with storage which spoiled a batch but that has since been corrected.

The problems with the Ukrainian vaccine program are 2 fold.

On the one hand the Government cannot afford the vaccines which has led to poorly implemented programs - 41% of the adult population has had the 2 required MMR doses - 95% is required to create Herd immunity.

Secondly there was a "scandal" where a teenage boy died after receiving the Measles shot - at the time many Doctors started to recommend people avoid vaccinations and much like the US and UK with the "MMR scandal" vaccination levels plunged - it has since been proven that the boys death had no link to the vaccine - it was all bunk - however the conspiracies continue to run wild. Apparently the Ukraine has a very strong Anti-Vac lobby which has lead to a severe amount of misinformation.

[Husar]

As I have repeatedly shown, this statement doesn't apply to vaccines used in Ukraine.

As I have said, I do not care, I didn't plan to get my children vaccinated in Ukraine and I still don't.

So to maybe discuss something interesting again, I have never gotten a flu shot. Since the flu mutates every year anyway and the flu shots are sometimes actually a bit more risky than other vaccines AFAIK, I could never be bothered to get one. For the most part of my life I didn't even know that there was a vaccine against the flu. Then there is the issue of it being effective only against a subset of flu viruses. Would it be useful to campaign for everyone to get the flu shot every year in order to maybe one day eradicate the flu or would that be a fruitless exercise given that the flu mutates too fast?

Our government usually advocates that at least the risk groups should get it (doctors, old people etc.) while they leave it somewhat open to the rest. Does that collide with the herd immunity thing or is the vaccine strong enough for the vaccinated ones to be of use to them anyway even if all the other people get infected? Consider that the flu usually kills a few thousand older people each year in most of the western world while younger people seem to mostly have about a week of a hard time before they recover if they get infected.

Am I killing people by proxy for not getting the flu shot every year or is that an acceptable case of not getting vaccinated? Do you get the flu shot every year? Oh yeah, when I went to my doctor to get some overdue vaccination updates (FSME etc.), they didn't give me a flu shot either, and didn't mention it.

[Gilrandir]

I looked it up - the Vaccines in use in the Ukraine are the same ones in use in most of Europe - there was an issue with storage which spoiled a batch but that has since been corrected.

The problems with the Ukrainian vaccine program are 2 fold.

On the one hand the Government cannot afford the vaccines which has led to poorly implemented programs - 41% of the adult population has had the 2 required MMR doses - 95% is required to create Herd immunity.

Secondly there was a "scandal" where a teenage boy died after receiving the Measles shot - at the time many Doctors started to recommend people avoid vaccinations and much like the US and UK with the "MMR scandal" vaccination levels plunged - it has since been proven that the boys death had no link to the vaccine - it was all bunk - however the conspiracies continue to run wild. Apparently the Ukraine has a very strong Anti-Vac lobby which has lead to a severe amount of misinformation.
One more scandal I referred to was a vaccine tender won by the son of the then Minister of Health.
On balance, it makes Ukrainian vaccination rather unsafe.


I have never gotten a flu shot. Since the flu mutates every year anyway and the flu shots are sometimes actually a bit more risky than other vaccines AFAIK, I could never be bothered to get one.
A colleague of mine marked a curious tendency. She had a flu vaccine year on year off. She noticed that when she got the vaccine she contracted a flu, when she didn't, well, she didn't. Call it a coincidence if you want, but she quit the flu vaccination.

[Sir Moody]

As I have said, I do not care, I didn't plan to get my children vaccinated in Ukraine and I still don't.

So to maybe discuss something interesting again, I have never gotten a flu shot. Since the flu mutates every year anyway and the flu shots are sometimes actually a bit more risky than other vaccines AFAIK, I could never be bothered to get one. For the most part of my life I didn't even know that there was a vaccine against the flu. Then there is the issue of it being effective only against a subset of flu viruses. Would it be useful to campaign for everyone to get the flu shot every year in order to maybe one day eradicate the flu or would that be a fruitless exercise given that the flu mutates too fast?

Our government usually advocates that at least the risk groups should get it (doctors, old people etc.) while they leave it somewhat open to the rest. Does that collide with the herd immunity thing or is the vaccine strong enough for the vaccinated ones to be of use to them anyway even if all the other people get infected? Consider that the flu usually kills a few thousand older people each year in most of the western world while younger people seem to mostly have about a week of a hard time before they recover if they get infected.

Am I killing people by proxy for not getting the flu shot every year or is that an acceptable case of not getting vaccinated? Do you get the flu shot every year? Oh yeah, when I went to my doctor to get some overdue vaccination updates (FSME etc.), they didn't give me a flu shot either, and didn't mention it.

The Flu shot is problematic - the flu virus mutates very quickly and generally the vaccine will only protect against a few strains - the Doctors make an educated guess at the beginning of "flu season" as to which strains will be the most dominant and then vaccinate for those strains. Depending on how good their guess was determines how effective the vaccine is.

Even if they guess correctly there is still the chance of catching another strain or worse for the vaccinated strains to mutate - rendering the vaccine useless.

Herd immunity therefore is a non issue - you cannot create herd immunity against the flu virus.

Your government is correct in its advice - risk groups and those who come into regular contact with them should be vaccinated to provide as much protection as possible but otherwise it is up to you.

[Don Corleone]

I don't get the flu shot anymore. I did, but I started paying attention the strains they immunize against versus the prevalent strains of that year. In the past 6 years, they've been wrong 4 times, only had one of the two prevalent strains in a 5th and had it right in one of the 6.

Not good enough odds in my book. But the mindset is the same. Beyond "herd immunity", there is "herd mentality". People get incredibly vitrolic when the subject comes up. We do vaccinate our children, and when I'm traveling to a foreign country with a new risk, I get vaccinated for that (like Hep C when I go to China).

But people start sputtering with rage, screaming at the top of their lungs "the science! the science!!! Get a flu-shot you flat-earther!!!

Nothing special about this issue. It has been my experience that we are becoming so closed minded and fear driven, we are losing the ability to have reasonable discourses. The concept of "agree to disagree" seems to be lost forever. Everything has become a blood feud.

[Beskar]

But people start sputtering with rage, screaming at the top of their lungs "the science! the science!!! Get a flu-shot you flat-earther!!!


I have never seen that occur for the flu-jab. It doesn't even make sense too.

If you are immunocompromised, vulnerable, or giving care to the beforementioned, then taking a flu-jab is recommended, if not, no need to bother.

[Beskar]

Now I am going to troll everyone can highlighting the 2010 Swine Flu vaccination cases which was on the channel 4 documentary last night -
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/the-kids-who-cant-stay-awake

[Gilrandir]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2992481/Ultrasound-used-capture-photos-expose-foetus-unknown-risks-ten-weeks-pregnancy.html
One more proof that things that once were thought safe may not appear such at a closer look. The same with compositions of (some) vaccines.

[HopAlongBunny]

It's official: anti-vaxxers gave Mickey the measles:

http://wonkette.com/580106/today-in-duh-science-yes-anti-vaxxers-caused-disneyland-measles-outbreak-duh-science

[CrossLOPER]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2992481/Ultrasound-used-capture-photos-expose-foetus-unknown-risks-ten-weeks-pregnancy.html
One more proof that things that once were thought safe may not appear such at a closer look. The same with compositions of (some) vaccines.
Much like over-exposure to internet news, it seems.