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

Originally Posted by Gilrandir:
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.

Originally Posted by Gilrandir:
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.

nevermind, please delete

Originally Posted by Gilrandir:
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 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.

Originally Posted by Crandar:
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?

Originally Posted by Crandar:
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.

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh:
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.

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh:
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.

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name:
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.

Originally Posted by Gilrandir:
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." ?

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.

Originally Posted by Husar:
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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh:
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.

Originally Posted by Gilrandir:
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?

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?

Originally Posted by Husar:
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.

Originally Posted by Gilrandir:
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.

Originally Posted by Husar:
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.

Originally Posted by Husar:
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.

Originally Posted by Gilrandir:
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.

Originally Posted by Sir Moody:
... 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.

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by Gilrandir:
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)

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?

Originally Posted by Gilrandir:
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.

Originally Posted by Papewaio:
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.

Originally Posted by Papewaio:
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.

Originally Posted by Husar:
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.

Originally Posted by Husar:
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.

Originally Posted by Husar:
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.

Originally Posted by Gilrandir:
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.

Originally Posted by Gilrandir:
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.

Originally Posted by Gilrandir:
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.

Originally Posted by Gilrandir:
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?

Originally Posted by CrossLOPER:
So what is your argument?

In Ukraine one has to be very cautious about vaccination and try to minimize it.

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. ~;)

Originally Posted by Husar:
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.

Originally Posted by Husar:
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.

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

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh:
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.

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.

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh:
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.