Is it time to consider compulsory vaccinations?

The mere presence of a vaccine is irrelevant; what matters is how many people get the thing.Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

anti vaccination movement explained

The real world results are hard to argue against. The recent measles outbreak at Disneyland is a perfect example. Here is the CDC report on the vaccination status of the people who were infected:"Among the 110 California patients, 49 (45%) were unvaccinated; five (5%) had 1 dose of measles-containing vaccine, seven (6%) had 2 doses, one (1%) had 3 doses, 47 (43%) had unknown or undocumented vaccination status, and one (1%) had immunoglobulin G seropositivity documented, which indicates prior vaccination or measles infection at an undetermined time."Let's say that California has a 98% vaccination rate for measles, which means that 2% of the population is unvaccinated. If 49 people who contracted the disease were unvaccinated, then that would mean about 2,500 people total were exposed to the virus in quantities necessary to cause disease (49 is 2% of 2,500). If we are really generous and lump in those with unknown vaccination status and the undervaccinated with the vaccinated, we are still sitting at 60 individuals out of the 2,450 who got measles. This means that the vaccine is 98% effective. That's pretty damn good, at least in my book.

1. When a potentially deadly disease can be stopped by simple inoculation, to not do so knowing that one might contract the bug simply by walking through a space, is indeed a socially irresponsible act.2. Women do not die from catcalls. Children do die from transmission of disease through unvaccinated fools.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Yes I agree and that is the information that I weigh the most but it is not the whole picture. National statistics don't necessarily apply to any given individual and jumping at shadows is not altogether a bad thing.I think that the crux of the issue is, as frako's video points out, that most people are really bad at risk assessment. I accused my wife of the same but after reading a pile of material about diseases and their vaccinations I realized that I do not have any idea about how to accurately determine risk either. (And by the way,) Consequently, I tend to go with what the professionals recommend but not without question. Making vaccinations compulsory would remove the ability to question the risk assessment.

How?We still live in a democracy. People can still question and change laws.

Jon writes: Would that this were true.

Vaccination is by no means a simple matter. It is an active interference with one's immune system involving something like 12 injections against 8 infections in the first year of life with more to follow. Of course the exact numbers depend on where you live and precisely how the science has been settled. It amounts to an arms race mentality where because we can, we do. It is only simple if you don't think about it too much.How irresponsible is it to go around not wearing a face mask? How often does a good citizen wash their hands? Are the women responsible for the cat calls or not?

Compulsory means that you have to do something. Questioning something that you have to do is not the same as deciding whether or not to do something. Deciding what you want to do is known as self determination.

Albeit some years ago, with my two, we would take them to their regularly scheduled visit with the vet pediatrician and they got shot. Actually quite simple.As for "active interference with one's immune system", you do know that bacteria and viruses are ubiquitous on this planet and "active interference with one's immune system" takes place every time one sticks their finger up their nose?This "interfere with" trope sounds like the fear-mongering rhetoric of the anti-vaxers. Vaccines do not "interfere" with the immune system any more than a rhinovirus does. It trains, strengthens, the system. And it does so with considerably less stress on the body than your common cold.The human immune system is one thing we know a hell of a lot about. Vaccines work precisely because we know how the system works and we know we can help it, train it, strengthen it. Women do not die from catcalls, but children do die from unvaccinated disease carriers. The analogy is totally inappropriate.Edited by AZPaul3, : lots o stuff

Like I said it is simple if you don't think about it. Just do it and odds are that you will be fine. It is as simple as being a passenger on a plane. No that is employment of your immune system. Interference is taking the virus from your finger fiddling with it and injecting it into your leg. Similar to the way that genetically altering an organism is reasonably thought of as interference with a natural process. We know a lot about the financial system too. We are talking about the assignation of blame. Do we blame a woman for being raped because she dresses in a provocative manner or goes out at night by herself?

The odds are indeed extraordinarily in your favor. And extraordinarily in the favor of the rest of the society as well. Not at all Proto. A vaccine is exactly like sticking your finger up your nose. Your immune system couldn't care less where the foreign bug came from or whether it is fully active, inactive, weakened or whatever. It "learns" to recognize the bug then kill it. The mechanism is the same whether the bug gets into your leg by injection or by a cut from falling down.In GMOs we are altering the natural systems to produce something unusual. Vaccination is not interfering with a "natural" system but utilizing a natural system already in place without any alteration to that process at all. If you want to consider a lab producing the weaken serum from the lethal bug itself then I guess you can label that as "unnatural" but frankly, who cares? It works. Without harm. Proven.I think the GMO comparison is hyperbole and another anti-vax scare tactic. In comparison with our knowledge of the human immune system? Really?Put 5 economists in a room and ask them about monetary policy and you will get 11 different and contradictory answers. OK, maybe only 8. (Seriously, you see this quite a bit in the minutes of the Fed's meetings.)Put 5 immunologists in a room and ask them about the immune system and you will get the same answer from each of them every time.We know just enough about financial systems to constantly screw things up.We know enough about the human immune system to keep lots and lots of people from dying. That ain't no hyperbole. My apologies here Proto, but I have to vent. I am a feminist. Please excuse me.Your analogy sucks and I will not address it. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

You are painting a picture that is simply inaccurate, a picture that imagines doctors as crazy, hypo-carrying villains backed by some wicked g-men. It's a fanciful caricature built from fear and misinformation.Children are frightened of doctors, but I don't understand how a grownup can think this way.

You can still question it. And, in fact, you can even try to make it non-compulsory.That's the thing about a democracy. We can have compulsory bans on smoking dope with the knowledge that we can still question those bans and even try to change them if we want. If society made vaccinations compulsory, it wouldn't prevent you from questioning them or from doing what everyone else does when they want a law changed badly enough.Jon

Oh, well my kids have been thoroughly vaccinated then. Really? Our immune system responds the same way to a virus in the nose or lungs or gut as it does to one in the blood? That is news to me. Can I get tetanus or an immune response to it from eating dirt? Why isn't vaccine induced resistance as robust as a naturally acquired immunity? How does vaccination affect the immunities passed from mother to child? Hmmm. I wonder if there is any connection between our financial system and the health of our people.We do know lots about immunity but do you really think that we know everything or even most of the things about a biologic system that has evolved over billions of years? It is this type of arrogant confidence that bothers me. When I go looking for info from, say, Health Canada or the CDC all I get is a big sell. I don't want their opinion I want the information. And the information is there but you really have to dig to get at it. Why? It took me 18 mths and $15 to get information that the tobacco companies are required by law to supply to the gov't. Why?The system for reporting adverse reactions is a joke. Established as an appeasement for ignorant mothers whose children happened coincidentally to die in temporal proximity to a vaccination. The GSK report cited previously indicates that there has been an uptake of somewhere between 18 and 70 million doses of Infanrix hexa over the period. 76% of event reports came from 3 out of 41 countries. How do you do a reaction study with numbers like that and conclude that everything is fine? When I see reports of adverse reactions that disassociate the 2 events of vaccination and death within 7 days it boggles the mind. It is like saying that being punched in the face and having a bloody nose are only temporally connected and not necessarily causally related. I understand that I do not have all of the info related to these reports but wtf?Remember that I am pro vaccination but not blindly so. It seems that even the act of questioning the wholesale adoption of vaccination is frowned upon. The analogy is a good one and you have failed to address it. You are equating a passive condition like not being vaccinated with something like smoking in a crowded elevator. You may want to investigate the connection between the feminist movement and the anti-vaxxers.