# Should Vaccination be Required for All Children ?



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

i have been working on this one for a long time and can make little progress

i get every vaccination that i think has solid science behind it (the old pneumonia and the new pneumonia the old shingles and the new shingles and all the rest including flu shots, tetanus and so on) and my advice to every parent would be to absolutely get your child vaccinated and i would be angry to see unvaccinated children make vulnerable children (some of whom genuinely cannot be vaccinated) likely to get disease

i am deeply disturbed by the idea that the government can require vaccination by law, on the other hand we have stories like this of a boy who spent 47 days in the hospital (racking up an 800K bill) and almost died and yet when he was released ... his parents refused a second vaccination !

https://www.sciencealert.com/oregon...on-after-their-child-nearly-dies-from-tetanus

to not intervene on behalf of this boy amounts to child abuse

there is the option to not require vaccination but prevent children from attending public school etc, but that seems to me to be a completely unworkable solution since children are going to mix with other children socially in places outside school like libraries, parks, beaches and so on, but perhaps it is a good place to begin as it sidesteps mandatory vaccination and yet offers protection in school and puts non-legal pressure on parents to conform

i am interested in others opinions


----------



## off.by.10 (Mar 16, 2014)

As far as I'm concerned, for severe diseases, it should be get with the program or go live somewhere else. It's a very small price to pay to live in this great country where being healthy is so easy and accessible to everyone. I wouldn't include the yearly flu shot as it is more hit or miss and a larger burden.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

I think mandatory vaccination is a good idea, for children who aren't able to decide for themselves, someone else has to act for their interests. 
Scientifically sound action should be the premise.

However that is premised on the overwhelming risk/benefit ratio based on strong scientific data.

I do think there is a legitimate choice discussion, based on the principles.

1. It's technically a medical intervention on someones body. I think we should have very grave concerns about exactly when we authorize the government to mandate this.
There is a long and horrible history of the government acting, out of malice, willful ignorance, negligence, and even good intent resulting in incredible suffering for the people. 
I'm not suggesting vaccinations are this case, but we have to be clear exactly where the slippery slope ends.
For arguments sake, measles & polio yes, Flu shots maybe, HPV, malaria?

2. What if the science on the next intervention is bad, wrong, or politically motivated. I'm not suggesting there is any conspiracy, but I am somewhat uncomfortable with (insert political party of distaste here) had the power to apply a medical treatment without the individuals consent. 

Saying "oh the government hasn't abused citizens like that for a few decades" isn't much of a defence.


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

MrMatt said:


> I think mandatory vaccination is a good idea, for children who aren't able to decide for themselves, someone else has to act for their interests.
> Scientifically sound action should be the premise.
> 
> However that is premised on the overwhelming risk/benefit ratio based on strong scientific data.
> ...


so you are saying that, like in the case of say the polio vaccine which has all but eliminated the disease (except for current problems in africa and asia where some people are actively resisting vaccination) and where the evidence is long-standing and strong, mandatory vaccination should be required ?

and where evidence is weak or the vaccination is novel, it shouldn't be ?

like we should sort of make a list and rank it in order of scientific supportive research and then make a cutoff point ?

that actually sounds like a reasonable idea

though if we require this apart from schools, how will we enforce it ? at the pediatrician's office ? at the schools ? should parents bring their kids somewhere and file papers proving vaccination ?


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

I understand the importance of vaccination but am against mandatory vaccination on principle.

Here is the principle:

There are many forms of government, but one crucial point on which they differ is the question of individual rights. There are some systems, like the US Constitution and English common law, in which the individual is supreme and has rights that cannot be infringed even by government.

Then there are other systems in which the collective is everything and the individual is nothing. In these systems the individual may be sacrificed for the common good, whether you call that the Proletariat, the Master Race, the Chosen People, or whatever, once you decide that is ok you open the door to eugenics, ethnic cleansing, oppression, and even mass murder and genocide.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

Just make it mandatory for public school. This is justified because children are higher risk and also doesn't impede on one's freedom as they can home school instead, or find a private school that doesn't require vaccinations if so inclined




fatcat said:


> so you are saying that, like in the case of say the polio vaccine which has all but eliminated the disease (except for current problems in africa and asia where some people are actively resisting vaccination) and where the evidence is long-standing and strong, mandatory vaccination should be required ?





fatcat said:


> and where evidence is weak or the vaccination is novel, it shouldn't be ?


My work requires all the well established vaccines for africa and asia but the H1N1 vaccine was optional, as is the annual flu vaccine. I don't bother with the optional ones and haven't heard about H1N1 vaccines since like 2010


----------



## *PetePerfectMan* (Jan 24, 2019)

On my opinion, mandatory vaccination for children is important. As a child, they don't know what they are doing and anytime they can be hurt or diagnose. Vaccination is a way to protect the children from diseases.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> Then there are other systems in which the collective is everything and the individual is nothing. In these systems the individual may be sacrificed for the common good, whether you call that the Proletariat, the Master Race, the Chosen People, or whatever, once you decide that is ok you open the door to eugenics, ethnic cleansing, oppression, and even mass murder and genocide.



rusty don't u think the above bombast is a bit on the lurid & purple side though

industrialized countries have had vaccinations, treated water systems, iodized table salt & vitamin-B reinforced flours to prevent disease & maintain public health for the better part of a century now. Millions upon millions have benefited. 

persons who object can still find ways to avoid these mass treatments. No one is being forced. Inflammatory words like eugenics, ethnic cleansing, mass murder & genocide have no place in calm discussions about public health measures, imho.

.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

In Ontario elementary students have to present their vaccination cards or they aren't allowed to attend school.

Is that not the practice in all Provinces ? I agree it doesn't help with other public spaces, but it puts the parents of kids not vaccinated on notice that others are aware of it.


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

In AB it is mandatory to vaccinate for public school, even some private ones have the same policy. However, there is an 'out clause' since there are legitimately some kids that cannot be vaccinated due to medical reasons. However, I believe that some people can use that 'out' for other reasons.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

The vaccination program seems to be working well in Canada, I don't see any reason to change it.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

fatcat said:


> so you are saying that, like in the case of say the polio vaccine which has all but eliminated the disease (except for current problems in africa and asia where some people are actively resisting vaccination) and where the evidence is long-standing and strong, mandatory vaccination should be required ?
> 
> and where evidence is weak or the vaccination is novel, it shouldn't be ?
> 
> ...


Enforcement is "easy", you just provide proof of vaccination, or lawful exemption from the appropriate authority. In Ontario that is the Health unit AFAIK.

The problem is what is the right cut off point, who is best to judge the risks, and politicization of the data.
Also if you've ever seen an adverse reaction of a loved one up close, it's absolutely terrifying.


Finally from a practical standpoint, if you're fearful of governments and authority, what is the correct level of incentivization/coercion?


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

People can argue the moral, legal, religous freedom, slippery slope points ad naseum and never come to a solution all can accept.

From my perspective, we have vaccines readily available to all and the vast majority of parents have their children vaccinated. So we are not talking about most people at all, we are really just talking about those people who promote the false information regarding vaccines as in the case of measles and the MMR vaccine. They then refuse to have their children vaccinated and also manage to convince some others to follow their lead.

So for me, the question is not about the children being vaccinated and arguing whether it should be mandatory by law or whether that leads to the slippery slope, denial of religous freedom, etc. etc. The question is what should we do about the people who are advocating false information in cases like the MMR vaccine. Should that not be a criminal offense punishable by law?

If you remove the false information, parents will have no perceived reason to not have their children vaccinated. I see focusing on trying to control the children being vaccinated as akin to the 'Aspirin Cure'. When you have a headache, you take an Aspirin to try and get the headache to go away. But that only addresses the SYMPTOM, not the CAUSE. You may get rid of the headache but what caused the headache? That's still there.

Chidren not getting the MMR vaccine is a symptom of a problem, not the cause of the problem. Address the cause and the symptom will no longer exist. The cause is those spreading false information.


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

france is now requiring by law 11 vaccinations including diphtheria, tetanus, poliomyelitis, whooping cough, hepatitis B, measles, mumps and rubella

people who refuse have their children denied access to schools and nurseries etc like we do here but this seems to create a marginalized class of kids who are denied access (and should be denied access to parks, playground, roller rinks, beaches and all kinds of places where children gather)

also here in canada when children are denied access to public school, what happens ? how are they educated ? is it reasonable to expect this unvaccinated subgroup to live lives excluded from the mass ?

as our world grows smaller and we see air travel become more affordable and widespread we are going to see disease vectors proliferate, even now we are seeing diseases and pests (bedbugs) take hold where before they were eliminated and it is largely a result of travel

opting out does not seem workable anymore 

as to the issue of the spread of false (unproven is more correct) information, i see no way to deal with that other than talking back, i don’t want anti-vaxxers cenored

i guess i am saying in summary, that i now believe that the state should require basic immunizations (https://www.who.int/ith/vaccines/en/) for all children 

it seems to me to transcend left/right and citizen vs state arguments since 100% of us are vulnerable


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

Longtimeago said:


> From my perspective, we have vaccines readily available to all and the vast majority of parents have their children vaccinated. So we are not talking about most people at all, we are really just talking about those people who promote the false information regarding vaccines as in the case of measles and the MMR vaccine. They then refuse to have their children vaccinated and also manage to convince some others to follow their lead.


I take it you haven't followed the news in the last few years. Maybe the vast majority used to be vaccinated but it appears to no longer be true in Canada today.

Canada doesn't have a tracking system to accurately report vaccination rates in children but it's estimated well below the required rates for herd immunity. That means if one adult contracts the virus on vacation and carries the virus back in contact with one highly vulnerable child in Canada, that child can then spread it to more children even those who were vaccinated because the vaccination rate is below the threshold of herd immunity. Vaccinations are not a one and done thing like most people think, they require additional doses and boosters depending on the risk. The risk in Canadian children is now increased due to low immunization rates and the spread of the virus in other countries.



Longtimeago said:


> So for me, the question is not about the children being vaccinated and arguing whether it should be mandatory by law or whether that leads to the slippery slope, denial of religous freedom, etc. etc. The question is what should we do about the people who are advocating false information in cases like the MMR vaccine. Should that not be a criminal offense punishable by law?


Making the expression of opinion against the law? That is a far far far more slippery slope than simply requiring proof of vaccination or lawful exemption for public school imo. People have the freedom of home schooling without degrading the herd immunity too much

Yes the root cause is the spread of false information but we also have freedom of speech in Canada. Showing people studies doesn't seem to change their minds because they are free to believe what they want. Exhibit the climate change and religious threads


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

i agree with m3s that censorship is a more dangerous undertaking than simply talking back and letting the overwhelming majority pro-vaccination / science voices be heard

people are right to be leery of science and technology since they bring us the atomic bomb as well as the polio vaccine

to be clear, i am actually believing that mandatory vaccinations means mandatory, it doesn’t mean, you can just keep your kids out of school and not have them vaccinated 

i was a kid and i played in the dirt and to allow me to do that with having a tetanus shot is cruel and abusive

i am advocating mandatory vaccination of all basic and fundamental vaccines ... leaving out the flu for example is ok though a case could be made since it kills kids and elderly every year


----------



## off.by.10 (Mar 16, 2014)

Longtimeago said:


> Chidren not getting the MMR vaccine is a symptom of a problem, not the cause of the problem. Address the cause and the symptom will no longer exist. The cause is those spreading false information.


That's easier said than done. I think the that cause can be broken down in two components:
1) There are plenty of ignorant, gullible people.
2) Technology has made it far easier for them to propagate wrong ideas to many others.

Our best bet is probably to work on the first point through education. But we can only do so much. As for the second one... well good luck rolling back facebook.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

fatcat said:


> i agree with m3s that censorship is a more dangerous undertaking than simply talking back and letting the overwhelming majority pro-vaccination / science voices be heard
> 
> people are right to be leery of science and technology since they bring us the atomic bomb as well as the polio vaccine
> 
> ...


There are people fighting very very hard for censorship. 
https://www.thenation.com/article/climate-denialism-is-literally-killing-us/

I'm not sure how to balance it, but I guess it's better to have a few ignorant people making bad decisions than having censorship.


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

MrMatt said:


> There are people fighting very very hard for censorship.
> https://www.thenation.com/article/climate-denialism-is-literally-killing-us/
> 
> I'm not sure how to balance it, but I guess it's better to have a few ignorant people making bad decisions than having censorship.


for sure, i think there are people that are even more passionate about shutting up anti-vaxxers since their point of view more directly leads to death (the article in the op)

there are people on both left and right that want to outlaw the views of the other side, though far more on left are calling for censorship of various kinds whether it be climate, vaccines, the holocaust, immigration or just hurting peoples feelings for god sakes

i believe that everything should be allowed to be said, we can manage the dialogue by choosing where we go to say and hear things

in other words we need a red light district for speech which is where the anti-vaxxers can go and exchange lunacy but all should be able to speak


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

to be clear, i am now saying that essential (and i do believe we can arrive at a defintion of essential by merely following the who guidelines) vaccines are mandatory, required, of all citizens with only exceptions for legitimate health reasons

i am likely creating a category of “health criminals”, is this a good or bad idea ?

do we gain more in public health than we ultimately lose in personal autonomy and freedom from state coercion ?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

fatcat said:


> to be clear, i am now saying that essential (and i do believe we can arrive at a defintion of essential by merely following the who guidelines) vaccines are mandatory, required, of all citizens with only exceptions for legitimate health reasons
> 
> i am likely creating a category of “health criminals”, is this a good or bad idea ?
> 
> do we gain more in public health than we ultimately lose in personal autonomy and freedom from state coercion ?


In some cases yes, however we need to have strong trustworthy institutions to make sure we don't go "too far" and end up causing harm.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

humble_pie said:


> rusty don't u think the above bombast is a bit on the lurid & purple side though
> 
> industrialized countries have had vaccinations, treated water systems, iodized table salt & vitamin-B reinforced flours to prevent disease & maintain public health for the better part of a century now. Millions upon millions have benefited.
> 
> ...


None of the things you named are mandatory. No one is forced to drink fluoridated water, or penalized for using kosher salt.

I would rather have a government of laws than a government of men. In other words, I would rather have my rights enshrined in the constitution, than depend on the good will of a cop or a bureaucrat, no matter how well intentioned.

Let me ask you this. Can you think of a politician you would not like to have the power of life and death over you? Can you imagine a politician like that getting power? Do you really want to give that power to government? Not just today's government but any government that might come to power in the future?


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

humble pie may I ask if you think it possible for governments to go too far in abusing their citizens civil rights? Can you think of examples say, in south America, the middle east or China? Do you think it is possible for Canada to abuse its citizens civil rights, say for example First Nations or Japanese Canadians? In view of these facts don't you think it would be a good idea for civil rights to be guaranteed by the Constitution, rather than at the whim of government officials?


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

There was a time I might have trusted the government but not anymore. You should see some news stories of social justice warriors and political activists who would cheerfully barbecue you over a slow fire for disagreeing with them, and imagine them in positions of power. This is not even very far fetched because they certainly thirst after power and would grab it and run with it if they had the chance.

Or if that doesn't alarm you, imagine right wing conservatives coming after you with a Bible in one hand and a bull whip in the other, determined to save your soul and reform your behavior or kill you trying.

Why would you not want laws protecting your rights?


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

MrMatt said:


> In some cases yes, however we need to have strong trustworthy institutions to make sure we don't go "too far" and end up causing harm.


great point, faith and trust in institutions is vital, we need to know that the physicians, scientists and companies who deliver the research and then the vaccines are trustworthy and held to high standards and high esteem ... a huge challenge in these times when trust in all the institutions that we depend on is sinking lower and lower it seems

if we continue on the path of population density that we are now on we are going to be having these disease outbreaks as a matter of course, this measles thing is going to be just the beginning

i believe we are moving closer to mandatory vaccinations simply because we are too close together to allow opting out to work

there is no colony for all the anti-vaxxers to move to and live their seperate lives like there was even 50 years ago


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

If vaccination works, and you and your family are vaccinated, why would you care if someone else is vaccinated or not?


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> If vaccination works, and you and your family are vaccinated, why would you care if someone else is vaccinated or not?


a few reasons might be: 

1) vaccinations aren’t perfect and don’t provide complete protection so its possible to still get a form of the disease, they provide 85-95% protection so if the disease is completely eliminated you are going to be much safer

2) a simple, proven painless shot can prevent serious suffering (witness the young boy in the op) and even death and this is especially true and important for children whose parents refuse to have them vaccinated thus depriving them of their choice

3) we have no idea how these viruses may interact and combine or whether they may interact or combine with other unknown diseaes so eliminating a disease completely is very good idea

4) because we are moving toward a segregated society of the vaxxed and the non-vaxxed and this inevitably creates social discohesion that will become increasingly difficult to manage socially

5) the world is going to get more and more crowded and people are going to live closer and closer together so paying the utmost attention to public health is going to matter more than ever

6) universal vaccines are pro-social and further a sense of shared community


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> ... Also if you've ever seen an adverse reaction of a loved one up close, it's absolutely terrifying ...


And those who had some of these diseases before vaccines came out point out that more were affected with what they went through being horrifying, as well as permanent losses and in some cases, death.

So the question becomes, which has the lower incidence - reactions to the vaccine or the consequences without it.


Cheers


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

ask david letterman about his bout with shingles or anyone who has a bad go of shingles

the young boy in the op damn neared died and racked up bills of 800k in his struggle to survive and his parents still wouldn’t let him get a second shot

adverse reactions are no small thing but are rare with well used and proven vaccines and i just don’t think it is a fair argument vs getting the disease they will prevent


----------



## Spudd (Oct 11, 2011)

Also, we have universal health care in Canada. It is cheaper to vaccinate than to treat these diseases.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> If vaccination works, and you and your family are vaccinated, why would you care if someone else is vaccinated or not?


The effectiveness of a vaccination wears off over time and is never 100%. They rely on about 95% of the population having a vaccination that isn't expired. So yes it does matter if someone else is vaccinated or not

I suspect the typical Canadian may share your ignorance though. I also suspect many Canadians vaccinations are expired and they just aren't aware


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

i'd never heard of herd immunity before but my takeaway is that it means an entire herd is no longer protected when a significant percentage (not sure what percentage) of herd goes unvaccinated? ie all vaccinated herd creatures will also be at risk, just like the unvaccinated minority?

if i'm in the ballpark w the above, then we have to worry about more than just vaccinating children in public schools. I believe the proportion of children in private schools plus children who are home-schooled would be too high; this would mean that the entire herd including all public-schooled vaccinated children would be at risk.

kids mingle together & play together all the time. Beaches, playgrounds, summer camps, winter ski camps, ymca, community youth centres. Beyond a shadow of a doubt, unvaccinated kids are going to play with vaccinated kids. If herd immunity vanishes because too many unvaccinated kids in the general population, then all kids will be at risk.

what is the proportion of unvaccinated kids that will destroy herd immunity? can this proportion be lowered by also requiring vaccination for all kids in private schools that do receive any kind of gummint funding? this restriction has worked in quebec when applying various parts of the french language laws to private schools that receive some quebec gummint funding. 

enforcing vaccination for public school kids plus some/most private school kids would probably - i'm just theorizing here - result in a large enough cohort of kids that the fabled *herd immunity* would be maintained.

the only children outside such a vaccination protocol would be 1) home-schooled children & 2) the relatively few children whose parents would be able to send them to a school that could 100% pay for itself on tuition fees alone (there are very few of these schools in quebec)

this might work. It does impose stringent requirements upon the parents who choose to avoid vaccination for their children. Such parents must either carry out the heavy tasks of home schooling or else pay high tuition fees for the handful of private schools that operate without government subsidy. Although it sounds draconian, i for one believe such enforcement by the majority of parents/voters who approve of vaccination would be well within the boundaries of democracy & would be fair to all.

.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

m3s said:


> The effectiveness of a vaccination wears off over time and is never 100%.


Interesting, on my quick search I didn't see any data about this wearing off ...

On a side note, with the very small number of yearly cases in Canada and with most being vaccinated, why is there even a discussion about making this mandatory?


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

I guess you were searching for more than general statements?
https://www.healio.com/pediatrics/v...sles-outbreaks-catalyzed-by-vaccine-hesitancy
https://www.ctvnews.ca/chickenpox-vaccine-wears-off-over-time-study-1.233341

Tetanus needs a booster every ten years so the concept IMO shouldn't be foreign.


There are also unintended consequences to "newer, improved vaccines".


> Other studies demonstrated that the vaccine was behaving differently from the older, reactive one: children who had received even one dose of the older, whole-cell formula while it was still on the market were better protected against pertussis than those who received only the newer vaccine. (Of course, children who received the new vaccine were still better off than those who had never been vaccinated.)
> 
> *Clark points out that the original research on acellular vaccine in the 1980s tested whether it would protect but not for how long it would protect*.


https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-whooping-cough-vaccines-are-wearing-off/


While talking about travel vaccines for a trip to El Salvador, one of the member said that from while being testied for another health problem, the tests showed the previously applied Hep vaccinations were no longer present. I forget what was said to have wiped it out. 



For the "why is there even a discussion" ...


> In response to the outbreak, which has shone a light on the *low vaccination rate in Vancouver schools*, the B.C. government has announced it is planning to introduce mandatory immunization registration in time for the new school year in September.


https://globalnews.ca/news/5029646/measles-metro-vancouver-fraser-health/

There's also the France ... https://www.connexionfrance.com/Fre...e-to-lack-of-vaccination-coverage-say-doctors
The US ... https://www.healio.com/pediatrics/v...sles-outbreaks-catalyzed-by-vaccine-hesitancy


Basically something that spreads easily and was previously controlled is still a risk when areas like the Philippines that have much bigger issues (12,703 cases with 203 deaths) that Canadians travel to. Having people without vaccinations basically turns back the clock to when there were far faster spreading outbreaks. Throw in that with it being less common, people likely aren't taking the same precautions they would have as "hey, it's wiped out". 
https://www.who.int/philippines/new...rs-on-the-measles-outbreak-in-the-philippines


Keep in mind that that visiting Disney Land / Disneyland California Adventure between Dec. 15 and Dec. 20, 2015 resulted in at least 173 people infected, spread over 21 states by May 2015. 


Cheers


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

cainvest said:


> Interesting, on my quick search I didn't see any data about this wearing off ...
> 
> On a side note, with the very small number of yearly cases in Canada and with most being vaccinated, why is there even a discussion about making this mandatory?


Umm, do you have kids or grand kids? If so, tell me how you would feel if one of them died thanks to having contracted measles from some child whose parents didn't get them vaccinated. 

You may find that overly dramatic but it is in fact what can and DOES happen. People die from measles. So to say if most are vaccinated, why even discuss this, would suggest you don't understand the real issue. https://globalnews.ca/news/4967561/measles-danger-deaths/

Yes in Canada it has not been a problem in recent years but that says nothing to tomorrow if anti-vaccers continue to spread false information and even if people take a 'most are vaccinated, why even discuss it' attitude without doing their own research to learn WHY you should discuss it. 

It is interesting to note that when it strikes the children of 'anti vaccers', suddenly they change their mind about vaccinations. https://globalnews.ca/news/4948647/measles-vaccinations-spike-outbreak-anti-vaxxer-hotspot/

But if your child even though having had the MMR vaccine caught the measles from an un-vaccinated child in the meantime and died, you wouldn't be asking, 'why even discuss it being made mandatory.'


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

fatcat said:


> great point, faith and trust in institutions is vital, we need to know that the physicians, scientists and companies who deliver the research and then the vaccines are trustworthy and held to high standards and high esteem ... a huge challenge in these times when trust in all the institutions that we depend on is sinking lower and lower it seems
> 
> if we continue on the path of population density that we are now on we are going to be having these disease outbreaks as a matter of course, this measles thing is going to be just the beginning
> 
> ...


Honestly that's the leftist argument for increased control and reduced freedom. 
"Things are different now, you just can't be allowed to do those things anymore"


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

humble_pie said:


> i'd never heard of herd immunity before but my takeaway is that it means an entire herd is no longer protected when a significant percentage (not sure what percentage) of herd goes unvaccinated? ie all vaccinated herd creatures will also be at risk, just like the unvaccinated minority?


I don't think "herd immunity" exists.

Looking at one of the US measles outbreaks, the biggest group infected were those without the vaccination. Then there's a big drop in numbers where a small number with a single dose vaccination were infected, a smaller number with two doses and the smallest number (one person) with three doses.

The protection from the vaccine seems to be from a much lower rate of infection, resulting in a slower spread and buying time for medical professionals to contain/deal with those who are contagious. 

High vaccination rates means more difficult for measles to spread while low vaccination rates essentially pushes the spread / death rates back up to what was previously the norm.


Cheers


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

Longtimeago said:


> Umm, do you have kids or grand kids? If so, tell me how you would feel if one of them died thanks to having contracted measles from some child whose parents didn't get them vaccinated.
> 
> You may find that overly dramatic but it is in fact what can and DOES happen. People die from measles. So to say if most are vaccinated, why even discuss this, would suggest you don't understand the real issue.


Do people drive cars with their kids inside? How could they knowing the death rates per year .... 

We all take risks in life, I would *probably* agree that the government would need to step in *if* there were serious risks to a significant portion of the population in Canada.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

m3s said:


> ... My work requires all the well established vaccines for africa and asia but the H1N1 vaccine was optional, as is the annual flu vaccine. I don't bother with the optional ones and haven't heard about H1N1 vaccines since like 2010.


Probably because H1N1 was brand new in 2009 where the seasonal flu vaccine now includes it. 

Of the reported 1,046 hospitalizations related to influenza with 24 deaths in 2018, most that were lab tested were the H1N1 virus subtype. 
https://globalnews.ca/news/4817208/flu-season-cases-2018/


Cheers


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

regarding herd immunity, it is simply the fact that the greater number of people vaccinated the less likely the disease is to spread

there will always be a portion of the population that remains unvaccinated because of health reasons or because they live apart and rarely come in contact with others

the massive deaths of first nations when they came into contact with smallpox infected europeans is a perfect example of what happens to unvaccinated people who come into contact with a disease

universal vaccination can eliminate a disease, those of us over the age of about 50 will have been vaccinated for smallpox and those of over under 50 will not have been vaccinated for smallpox because the disease is now effectively eliminated and vaccinations aren’t necessary 

mr. matt, yeah i did make the leftist argument for increased control, as i say in the op, i am trying to work my way through this and am undecided

i do think that things are different, people are mixing from all over the planet at unprecedented rates

this measels outbreak is just a harbinger of more to come and who knows what kinds of viruses are out there and capable of making a comeback and or combining with other viruses ?

we all have a stake in staying healthy and universal vaccinations is now worth considering 

preparing agreements on the groundwork for better public health as we migrate, travel and resettle is worth talking about

polio, a really bad disease, could have been eliminated like smallpox, the vaccine is very good but it still thrives because people are resistant to taking it


----------



## Saniokca (Sep 5, 2009)

Longtimeago said:


> Saniokca, let me ask you a few simple questions.
> 
> Do you have children? Do you have them vaccinated?


Yes I have two children under 3. They have not been vaccinated yet. They are not attending day care yet but do come in contact with other children and adults. In the next few months I will be researching the benefits/risks of each recommended vaccine (the lists as well as timing are different by country/region) and make a decision on each one.



Longtimeago said:


> If you have children and they are vaccinated, are you happy for them to go to school with children who are not vaccinated and will it bother you if your children become infected and dies? If you have children and do not get them vaccinated, are you happy to let them go to school and perhaps infect my child who then dies?


I would not be "happy" if any children die but I do care more about my children and yours (or anyone else's).



Longtimeago said:


> Forget, arguing numbers or studies, etc. and try talking about real life. If it is a choice of risking my child's health vs. telling you to get your kids vaccinated or keep them in the house 24/7 and never let them come near my child, I know which I will choose. I don't care if only 1 child dies in 100 years. If it is my child and it is because your child was not vaccinated, I will hold YOU responsible.


You can't forget about studies, numbers, etc. That's the whole point of vaccines... You seem to suggest that if 1 child will die out of 21 *Billion* and you could prevent that specific case by injecting these 21 billion people that's ok? How many deaths and other serious issues do you think will be created by this and what would the parents of those children would say to you? (yes I know you were using an extreme but in 100 years there are lets say 3 generations times 7 billion people - 21 in total). Using examples like this is how bad policies get promoted by radical governments.

Let me ask you a question: do you think alcohol should be banned since it is a big reason for car accidents?



Longtimeago said:


> Whenever someone attempts to argue against common sense, my response is always the same.


What are you basing your common sense on? Globe and mail? You do have to rely on experts plenty but sometimes things are not black and white (conflict of interests, money, etc. are powerful motivators). Do you ever ask for a second opinion?

You seem to be uncomfortable (and emotional) that I am asking questions and trying to figure this out. Why?


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

i confess i am having a hard time following you saniokca, i am not entirely certain what you are concerned about, is it a specific vaccine or vaccines in general ?

i don’t think we talk about vaccines in a general sense since some are well tested and proven (polio) and others are so new that we don’t have enough data (shingrix for shingles and maybe hpv)

here is a good primer on polio: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/poliomyelitis

1 in 200 infections leads to permanent paralysis and it can happen in a matter of hours ... the virus is still live on the planet (unlike smallpox which is now gone and lives only in labs)

your child could actually contract the polio virus from an infected person arriving from afghanistan, nigeria or pakistan where the virus is still active

are you saying that you would take the odds into account and decide whether to vaccinate ?

is there a serious likelihood that you would not have your child vaccinated?

i get the concern about vaccinations, the science isn’t settled with regard to all vaccines but with regard to some (polio and measles) we have massive and irrefutable evidence

finally, if your child was bitten by a bat ... it happens ... and the bat couldn’t be found to be tested, would you allow administration of the rabies vaccine ?


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

cainvest said:


> Interesting, on my quick search I didn't see any data about this wearing off ...
> 
> On a side note, with the very small number of yearly cases in Canada and with most being vaccinated, why is there even a discussion about making this mandatory?


So you think they just go from 100% to 0% on the day they expire? My child.. Yes the effectiveness wears off over time. I know because I get booster shots before visiting high risk areas regardless if it is "expired" on paper or not



cainvest said:


> Do people drive cars with their kids inside? How could they knowing the death rates per year ....
> 
> We all take risks in life, I would *probably* agree that the government would need to step in *if* there were serious risks to a significant portion of the population in Canada.


People used to drive cars without seatbelts until the government had to make a law so that half functioning adults would finally help-themselves-help-us-manage-the-medical-costs of people smashing their heads through windshields at every fender bender

*If* there is an outbreak it is far too late for the government to step in. Maybe you could train enough people to administer vaccinations but you sure won't find enough vaccines and it's too late to get a dose of the virus when it's already spreading anyways

To be honest I'm fine with thinning out the herd. Idiocracy was not fiction at all. The world is overpopulated and the growing population of conspiracy theory I-read-it-on-the-internetz *experts* is the worst thing for the planet


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

m3s said:


> So you think they just go from 100% to 0% on the day they expire?


That's the question I asked, when do they expire?

Did a quick search just now and some say at least 35 years for measles but they also qualify that with the following statement,
_"Why do we say “at least” in so many cases?
In general, that’s how long these vaccines have been around. As time goes by, we will hopefully find that they last much longer.
_



m3s said:


> *If* there is an outbreak it is far too late for the government to step in. Maybe you could train enough people to administer vaccinations but you sure won't find enough vaccines and it's too late to get a dose of the virus when it's already spreading anyways


If enough are already vaccinated here, the outbreaks should remain small and contained right?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Saniokca said:


> Let me ask you a question: do you think alcohol should be banned since it is a big reason for car accidents?


No, because alcohol doesn't cause car accidents. The vast majority of alcohol consumption is safe and responsible.
We shouldn't ban cars either, again because the vast majority of vehicle operation is safe and responsible.

Drunk driving should be banned, because it is a major cause of car accidents.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

cainvest said:


> That's the question I asked, when do they expire?
> 
> Did a quick search just now and some say at least 35 years for measles but they also qualify that with the following statement,
> _"Why do we say “at least” in so many cases?
> ...


The effectiveness of the MMR vaccine for Measles is 93% after the first dose and 97% after the second dose cainvest. How long it will last is 'at least' because as it notes in your quote, that's as long as they have data for. So what they are in fact saying is that since the vaccine was introduced, the data does not show any 'term' of effectiveness SO FAR. Perhaps when ti gets to 50 years out from 1963, they may find more cases are occuring which would suggest a booster is needed. But at present, that evidence does not exist YET.

Also, For those born before say 1970, they are generally considered to have acquired 'natural immunity' through exposures as it was common up until then. So normally if you live in Canada, no shots are required at all in that case. However, if you are in that age category and travel to areas where it is found or are in a job where you are more likely to be exposed, then getting the MMR shot IS suggested as a wise precaution still.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/healt...-measles-shot-what-you-need-to-know-1.1755722

The bottom line is the MMR vaccine is a good thing for all of us and those who refuse to be vaccinated or have their children vaccinated are putting everyone else at risk. As you will note in that last link from 2014 (which could as easily be an article from today), measles tends to pop up where you have a religious group who do not have their children vaccinated. But if their children attend the same school as your children, even when your children have been vaccinated, your children are at risk still since effectiveness is never 100%. 

The outbreaks remain small and contained as long as the group refusing vaccination remain 'contained'. That's why you see clusters such as in BC, based around a religious group. But when they mix with the general population, the outbreak may no longer remain 'contained'. So the whole issue is how do you effectively 'contain' it even if you understand someone having religious convictions that they wish to follow for themselves and their children? 

Their child only has to say walk through a mall and your child walks through 30 minutes later and your child can still catch the virus. Measles virus is one of the most contagious of all the viruses out there. So as the last link notes, the outbreak(in 2014) BEGAN within a religious group but it spread beyond that group. So NO the outbreaks cannot be counted on to 'remain small and contained'.

Saniokca, your two children when over 12 months old should already have had their first shot. They are now at high risk of getting the virus themselves if exposed and then present a high risk of spreading the virus if they do get it. I presume you do perhaps take them through a mall from time to time. They don't have to be going to school before you are risking their health and the health of other people's children. 

I don't mean to be rude or attack you personally Saniokca, but you are being irresponsible and saying you intend to do more research is saying, 'I intend to do what I should have done in the first year of my first child's life, 2 years too late.' 

" In the next few months I will be researching the benefits/risks of each recommended vaccine (the lists as well as timing are different by country/region) and make a decision on each one."

The time for that was 2 years ago.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

Longtimeago said:


> Also, For those born before say 1970, they are generally considered to have acquired 'natural immunity' through exposures as it was common up until then. So normally if you live in Canada, no shots are required at all in that case. However, if you are in that age category and travel to areas where it is found or are in a job where you are more likely to be exposed, then getting the MMR shot IS suggested as a wise precaution still.


I would *guess* the only reason to get another shot for those who travel (or high risk) is because it's easier to do than to actually go through the test to check your current immunity level. 

Based on the fact they don't recommend another shot for those staying in Canada it would *suggest* it's a life long vaccine. Rather than guessing though, I'd like to see some hard numbers based on immunity tests of vaccinated people over the decades to see if the rate of effectiveness drops over time.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

The vaccines that they give to Canadian children seem to be the ones that last for *life*: MMR, Hep A and B. I seem to remember getting Hep A and/or B shots in school but I don't have records of my vaccinations from childhood. I was given 2 more booster shots of MMR as an adult travelling/living/working in high risk areas, so apparently it's just not "one and done 100% forever". Some vaccines I was given again because the vaccine was improved/upgraded etc

There are dozens of others vaccines that expire within 1-10 years that most Canadians don't get unless they travel. Obviously the government has done a risk assessment and only gives the most beneficial vaccines to Canadian children. Maybe that is because the others expire long before most children would travel or more likely it's a cost/resource saving decision. Vaccines are generally viewed as very easy preventative medication that reduces a lot of risk

As for your personal risk assessment what are the cons? You have to drive to the hospital and sit in a waiting room? You have to see your child cry? Teenagers of anti-vaxxers are sneaking out of their homes to get vaccinated now because apparently it's easier for a teen to decipher between science based preventative medication and playboy model Jenny McCarthy internet conspiracy


----------



## s1231 (Jan 1, 2017)

We need aware of those risks.
2–10% of healthy individuals failing.....
then what's rate of unhealthy (weak immune system) ones? 

- Primary vaccine failure to routine vaccines: Why and what to do?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4962729/

About 2–10% of "healthy individuals" fail to mount antibody levels to routine vaccines. Comparing the immune responses to different vaccines in non-responder and high-responder vaccinees revealed that hypo-responsiveness is antigen/vaccine-specific at the humoral but not at the cellular level. We found that T-regulatory as well as B-regulatory cells and the production of IL-10 are involved in non/hypo-responsiveness. Non-responsiveness increases with age and in particular vaccination to a novel vaccine in persons > 65 years is associated with a high low/non-responder rate, indicating that vaccine schedules and doses (at least for primary vaccination) should be adapted according to age.

In light of the growing number of allergic but also obese people, 
our current studies concentrate on these risk groups to reveal whether different vaccination approaches are necessary for optimal protection compared to healthy individuals. These studies are in line with the significant paradigm shift taking place in many fields of medical research and care, and will extend the concept of personalised medicine into the field of vaccinology.


- When vaccinations fail to cause response: Causes vary with vaccine and person
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-08-vaccinations-response-vary-vaccine-person.html

Ageing process of the immune system involved
In people, who did not react to the TBEV vaccination by forming antibodies ("non-responders"), this did not change even with a more recent TBEV vaccination. "These non-responders are mainly older people. They do not form any antibodies and cellular immunity to the antigen injected, this indicates that an ageing process in the immune system is playing a role," explains Wiedermann-Schmidt. 


- If Your Immune System Is Compromised, Can You Get Vaccinated?
Weigh the risks and benefits with your doctor 
https://health.clevelandclinic.org/if-your-immune-system-is-compromised-can-you-get-vaccinated/

.....But common autoimmune inflammatory diseases can leave your immune system weakened, too. These include rheumatoid arthritis, Crohn’s disease and others.
Medications play a part, too, such as biologic drugs used to treat rheumatoid arthritis and similar conditions. These drugs are designed to stop the immune system from malfunctioning, Kirchner says.

Which vaccines pose a risk?
So-called “ live ” vaccines carry the biggest risk for immunocompromised patients. Examples of live vaccines include herpes zoster (shingles); the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine; and yellow fever. The FluMist version of the flu vaccine is live, too.
Timing is everything in some cases. Patients whose disease may progress to the point of needing biologic drugs in a few years might want to get vaccinated sooner rather than later.
Instead of gently “poking” the immune system to create antibodies as it would for typical patients, a live vaccine might make someone with a compromised system ill because of underlying problems with their immune response, Kirchner notes.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

cainvest said:


> I would *guess* the only reason to get another shot for those who travel (or high risk) is because it's easier to do than to actually go through the test to check your current immunity level.


I get my blood drawn for aircrew medical at least every two years and I never heard them do any tests for immunity. They did a tuberculin skin test when I started this job and european counterparts were already immune if I remember correct

Vaccines are not cheap so you would think it would be cheaper to do a blood test especially if you are already running other blood tests. On the other side it's called a booster shot, it boosts your immunity, so why not if travelling to high risk area

I'm guessing for most people they wouldn't even give it to you again for a short vacation to a tourist area. Do Canadians even pay for any vaccines? I know most travelling from other countries have to pay $$$$ for international travel vaccines


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

Google result,

_The MMR Titer is a blood test that checks if you are immune to Measles, Mumps and Rubella. It measures your antibody levels to get a sense for whether your immune system has the capability to respond to an infection with one of these diseases_

BTW, I had to pay for shots years ago for travel outside Canada to the Caribbean. It's been a while so I don't remember if there is a cost for regular vaccines like MMR or MMRV.


----------



## noodles (Apr 8, 2014)

Unequivocally and without question or exception, yes. If parents want their kids to partake in the activities of a normal society, including attending public school, go to sporting events, playing sports, engaging in public recreation, then the health of the general public is more important than kow-towing to the outdated and myopic tinfoil brainfarts of closed-minded parents who see their precious little urchins as needing to remain societal-unmolested treasures never to be dictated to by anyone.


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

m3s said:


> I get my blood drawn for aircrew medical at least every two years and I never heard them do any tests for immunity. They did a tuberculin skin test when I started this job and european counterparts were already immune if I remember correct
> 
> Vaccines are not cheap so you would think it would be cheaper to do a blood test especially if you are already running other blood tests. On the other side it's called a booster shot, it boosts your immunity, so why not if travelling to high risk area
> 
> I'm guessing for most people they wouldn't even give it to you again for a short vacation to a tourist area. Do Canadians even pay for any vaccines? I know most travelling from other countries have to pay $$$$ for international travel vaccines


You are right. Vaccinations are expensive. Last year when we went to South America we have the whole family vaccinated and it cost just over $2000. A large chunk was because my Spouse was missing some vaccinations and boosters. We could have gone to a doctor for them and it would’ve been less expensive but since we were all there we decided to just pay for it. My company covers $200 in travel vaccinations in a year the previous trip we took we were out of pocket about $100 a person.

I think it’s really important to make sure your vaccinations are up-to-date especially traveling. My parents Went on overseas trip and came back sick. the doctor found out that she had been infected and it could’ve been fatal if she had not been vaccinated.


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

Saniokca said:


> I don't know enough to have/not have concerns... One study was discredited (again based on my limited knowledge) if there is no evidence of the link - that's good. If there are studies that prove that there isn't even better. I'm also not sure where the idea that there could be a link particularly with autism originated. Why not obesity, cancer, anything else (pulling out of a hat)? Sounds like scaremongering.


The study that you referred to was discredited because the doctor/researcher in charge was caught making up data. The reason vaccinations was tied to autism Is that at around the time toddler’s are getting their 2 year vaccinations completed, Is also the time that the first signs of autism are detected. There have been other studies that also showed that when vaccinations were delayed, the same percentages of occurrences of autism still remained. 

This was all going around at the same time my kids were little and we had to decide to vaccinate. A lot of the parents in our group were deciding and researching vaccinations.

I went through a ton of studies and spoke And spoke to many medical professionals. The research clearly showed that the risk of vaccination than the risks not to vaccinate. Our biggest concern at the time, was that my child may have an age allergy. So we waited a little longer only until we could confirm she didn’t have an allergy. 

That same year, out of our baby groups, 8/12 vaccinated for the flu. 5 got sick (4 that didn’t vacinate, plus one other) . Out of those 5, the 4 that didn’t vacinate all ended up in the hospital because their fous were so severe. Pretty everyone, has vacinate since then. That’s anecdotal, but it was good enough for me to see. 

I think even if your kid isn’t in school, if they go anywhere with other people or kids, you are at risk.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

Plugging Along said:


> I think it’s really important to make sure your vaccinations are up-to-date especially traveling. My parents Went on overseas trip and came back sick. the doctor found out that she had been infected and it could’ve been fatal if she had not been vaccinated.


There's a growing trend of young people travelling now who aren't vaccinated and it does become fatal. Travelling is much more accessible and affordable today but a lot of young people are ignorant of vaccines and medical travel insurance. It seems to be a combination of digital/remote work and carefree parent generation (from the 60s/70s maybe?) I follow a lot of travel blogs and death of young uninsured travelers is logistical mess to say the least. All easily preventable too.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

Saniokca said:


> Eclectic12 - Thank you for the lengthy post ...


No problem ... sometimes I worry I've combined too much into a single post.




Saniokca said:


> ... I think the main information I'd like to have is the percentages: e.g. how many die per 1,000 (or per 1M, whatever is easier) who get the disease, how many have severe long term effects, how many are fine ...


Prior to the vaccine for measles being introduced to Canada, a couple of sources say one death per thousand infected where *every child born in Canada* was infected. Getting the measles was part of living. The infection rate was 90% where the combination of being infectious for four days before visible symptoms showed up and how long the infectious material coughed out lives (two hours after being expelled) made it spread like a wild fire.

I see to recall that encephalitis was at 3 per 1,000. 


It seems that today, one of twenty children get pneumonia. A rare but fatal measles complication known as subacute sclerosing panencephalitis, (SSPE) causes cognitive and motor deterioration that leads to death. It shows up seven to ten years after the measles infection. The rate of SSPE was estimated to be one in 100,000 people in developed countries but a review in California found one in 1,367 among children infected with measles before 5 years of age and one in 609 infants infected before 1 year of age. 

https://www.vaccinestoday.eu/stories/how-measles-can-change-a-life/




Saniokca said:


> ... The same information would be good to have about the vaccines. One of the problems is what about long term effects of the vaccines (10, 20, 30 years down the road) - I would imagine that this is very difficult (impossible?) to study and likely very expensive.


Yes, for better or worse - thought the short term numbers are good.

I have seen a couple of sites that strangely call measles "benign" where surviving it is touted as the best method. My family who lived through it, those who were infected by it and doctors practicing at the time disagree with this point of view.




Saniokca said:


> ... It's all about odds. What if you knew that the risks of side effects on the label are higher than risks of the disease?


There seem to be more numbers that suggest it's better with it than without it. The few claims I've found so far for risks don't seem to have much to back them up.




Saniokca said:


> ... Sorry I am bit confused on this paragraph (the second sentence).


The "With measles having a 90% infections rate as well as the virus surviving two hours after the infected person has left the room, I am doubtful the spread will be stopped all that quickly." part?

These are two of the reasons that it's hard to stop the measles from spreading. Throw in that people are infectious for three or four days before it is obvious they have the measles. The point is that it can quickly mushroom so that today's number becomes a drop in the bucket.




Saniokca said:


> ... I think that numbers/deaths/etc. are important to compare and study with the possible negative effects of the vaccines. The drop in infection rates do suggest that they work to eliminate the disease but to blindly trust in them that there are no negative repercussions is not the way to go.


Almost no infections means no complications or permanent damage from measles - not to mention pretty much zero deaths. 

If the vaccine repercussions are bad enough to stop ... shouldn't there be similar deaths, future deaths and permanent damage that would be noticed?
We are talking about basically yearly deaths prior to the vaccine. 




Saniokca said:


> ... Antibiotics treat many things and now questions are asked whether they over-prescribed. What about opioids?
> ... I am not suggesting abandoning medicine and moving back into caves but we should make informed decisions as much as possible. In my opinion Doctors are not very different from any other profession: there are plenty of bad ones who take shortcuts or are just greedy.


Then what are you suggesting?

The Canadian numbers from the pre-vaccine times seem to be pretty much what happens in the parts of the world that still struggle with the measles. Where immunization has dropped - Canada has has outbreaks in the hundreds.

Without some proof the vaccine is an issue, beyond some rather dubious claims - is it worth the risk that does not seem to have changed a lot over the years?




Saniokca said:


> ... If the percentage is lower that could mean that more people were infected which would make the number of deaths even less significant. I know this sound cold - I deal with mortality tables all the time and we are talking about numbers.


If they didn't go to a medical facility so there were counted ... sure.

The point was that in *less than two months* these numbers were infected and died. If it isn't contained - these numbers can mushroom due to how contagious measles are. What today is "not significant", if not dealt with could easily escalate. 




Saniokca said:


> Eclectic12 said:
> 
> 
> > Car accidents aren't contagious?
> ...


The point is the measles infected person is impacting more than a single or few people ... unless they are hermits. The splotches don't show up until around the fourth day of being contagious so it would similar to the same car killing/significantly injuring for four days before the police bothered to impound the car/driver. 

If you have been around someone with measles that is contagious, you have been exposed where all that remains to see what the results of the exposure is.


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

m3s said:


> The vaccines that they give to Canadian children seem to be the ones that last for *life*: MMR, *Hep A and B* ...


As I say, what was reported by an 18 year old was that her Hep A and B *didn't last two years*, let alone "for life".




s1231 said:


> We need aware of those risks.
> 2–10% of healthy individuals failing.....
> then what's rate of unhealthy (weak immune system) ones?


No idea but as I say, it has been pointed out to me that it can be extremely short (see above).




m3s said:


> ... I'm guessing for most people they wouldn't even give it to you again for a short vacation to a tourist area.


I waited too long to get the full battery for Hep A and B so the travel clinic doctor gave me the option of taking two thirds then completing the third part after I was back or since I wasn't going to tourist resort, doing the typical tourist things that puts one at risk of one of the two (I forget which) - I could just do the one type.




m3s said:


> ... Do Canadians even pay for any vaccines?


My work doesn't cover travel vaccines so not only have I paid for vaccines - it has added up to hundreds of dollars.

One of the reasons I like the travel clinic I go to is that they check what types of things are being reported in the travel country then adjust what from the run of the mill recommendation. Others have had the clinic pull up the recommended list which includes things that aren't happening. Those people have paid pretty close to a thousand dollars for vaccines for a single twelve day trip.


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

m3s said:


> There's a growing trend of young people travelling now who aren't vaccinated and it does become fatal ...


Fortunately we were able to convince the student to pay the $150 to get vaccinated before going to South America, so the fatal part didn't come into play. 

If he had been concerned about reactions/side effects, I could have understood a bit. However, despite saving up thousands for his trip and easily available information that the areas he planned to visit had outbreaks what the vaccination prevents - he thought the $150 was too much to be spending. :rolleyes2:


Cheers


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

Eclectic12 said:


> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-whooping-cough-vaccines-are-wearing-off/
> 
> 
> While talking about travel vaccines for a trip to El Salvador, one of the member said that from while being testied for another health problem, the tests showed the previously applied Hep vaccinations were no longer present. I forget what was said to have wiped it out.


First I've heard of hepatitis wearing off, that would mean none of them are truly for life. Although my records show I've had both Hep A/B as an adult and I specifically remember getting them in elementary school, and probably younger as well

You link refers to whooping cough vaccines wearing off. I believe this is the tetanus diphtheria vaccine that has a 10 year expiration on my records and I had that in 2001 and 2010, probably 10 years prior, and probably again in 2019



Hepatitis ALifeHepatitis BLifeMeasles Mumps Rubella2nd for high riskTuberculin Skin Test2 StepPolio10 yearsYellow fever10 yearsTetanus diphtheria10 yearsMeninggococcal Meningitis5 yearsTyphoid3 yearsCholera2 yearsJapanese Encephalitis1 yearRabies4 step for high riskAntimalarialhigh risk regionsAnthraxhigh risk regions


----------



## OhGreatGuru (May 24, 2009)

No, whooping cough is not tetanus or diphtheria. It is _Bordetella Pertussis_ and the vaccine is Pertussis vaccine. The vaccine was for a long time combined with Diptheria-Pertussis-Tetanus (DPT) (The current acronym seems to be Tdap, just to confuse people). The combination would typically be renewed at 10-yr intervals. But it appears to have been primarily for the limited life of the Diptheria-Tetanus shot. It seems to me health officials have changed their views on renewing the DPT. I think I have a flyer on it somewhere.

PS. I couldn't find the flyer I was thinking of. But Ontario's vaccination recommendations http://www.health.gov.on.ca/en/public/programs/immunization/static/immunization_tool.html include pertussis for infants, children, and adolescents. It's no longer listed in the recommendations for adult vaccination (unless the adult has not been vaccinated as a child.). So this supports my recollection that they no longer repeat DPT (or Tdap) for adults.

PPS. Tetanus & Diphtheria are supposed to be renewed every decade. The Tdap vaccine is supposed to provide lifetime protection against Pertussis.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

Yea my records say "TD" in 2001 and something ineligible/code in 2010. Something to watch for when I get jabbed this year


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

Clinics taking new steps to stop spread of measles, including banning unvaccinated children

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-doctors-clinics-taking-new-steps-to-fight-against-vaccination/


----------



## s1231 (Jan 1, 2017)

It would be better wait mandatory vaccine til see the new ones (immunogenic) actually works + well established. 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3905323/

To date, despite multiple efforts, the reality is that for the practical, socio-cultural, and immunologic reasons outlined above, we have not eradicated measles. As a result, measles is re-emerging as a public health threat, and our current tool for prevention has limitations that increasingly look to be significant enough that sustained elimination, much less eradication, are unlikely. Perhaps it is time to consider, in earnest, the development of the next generation of measles vaccines.

Such next-generation vaccines could achieve the goal of measles eradication if such vaccines are more immunogenic than current vaccines, result in extremely high rates of protective immunity stable over a lifetime, and are widely accepted by the populace.


Vaccines and immunology
https://www.melbournebiomed.com/the-precinct/research-platforms/vaccines-and-immunology/

The Melbourne Biomedical Precinct has a long history of leadership in immunology. Melbourne Biomedical Precinct researchers are developing new vaccines and therapies to prevent, treat and cure diseases that affect Australians, along with hundreds of millions of people across the globe.

An alarming development is the rise of ‘superbugs’ that are developing resistance to our most potent antibiotics. For example, over 480,000 people develop multi-drug-resistant tuberculosis alone each year and Australian patients are increasingly at risk from infection by drug-resistant bacteria in hospitals. 
Melbourne Biomedical Precinct researchers are recognized leaders in understanding bacteria and why they can become resistant to antibiotics, developing new techniques to identify microbes that are developing drug resistance. 
Melbourne Biomedical Precinct researchers are also investigating new drugs that can kill off microbes or render them harmless..

A better understanding of the immune system is also helping us develop breakthrough immunotherapy treatments, which effectively co-opt the immune system to combat diseases such as cancer.


----------



## s1231 (Jan 1, 2017)

The Interaction between Nutrition and Infection
https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/46/10/1582/294025

Infection and malnutrition have always been intricately linked. Malnutrition is the primary cause of immunodeficiency worldwide, and we are learning more and more about the pathogenesis of this interaction. Five infectious diseases account for more than one-half of all deaths in children aged <5 years, most of whom are undernourished. Micronutrient deficiencies have effects such as poor growth, impaired intellect, and increased mortality and susceptibility to infection.
Malnutrition and nutritional alterations, common complications of human immunodeficiency virus infection, include disorders of food intake, nutrient absorption, and intermediary metabolism and play a significant and independent role in morbidity and mortality.

...Worldwide, ∼2 billion people are affected by micronutrient deficiencies, including vitamins A, C, and E and minerals zinc, iron, and iodine. The effects are poor growth, impaired intellect, and increased mortality and susceptibility to infection. Micronutrients have a relationship to antibody formation and the development of the immune system. These ill effects are preventable by supplements, fortification, and diet change.

... Vitamin A deficiency and measles, which is estimated to kill 2 million children per year, are closely linked. Measles in a child is more likely to exacerbate any existing nutritional deficiency, and children who are already deficient in vitamin A are at much greater risk of dying from measles.

The 21st century provides new information and new challenges. With new technologies and political changes,
it is hoped that a healthier, more disease-free, and better-nourished population will emerge.


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

s1231 said:


> The Interaction between Nutrition and Infection
> https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/46/10/1582/294025
> 
> Infection and malnutrition have always been intricately linked. Malnutrition is the primary cause of immunodeficiency worldwide, and we are learning more and more about the pathogenesis of this interaction. Five infectious diseases account for more than one-half of all deaths in children aged <5 years, most of whom are undernourished. Micronutrient deficiencies have effects such as poor growth, impaired intellect, and increased mortality and susceptibility to infection.
> ...


it may well be that the world is “undernourished” including, if you listen to some people, those of us in food abundant countries where the soil and chemicals render the nutritional value of our food less than ideal

nevertheless, the measles vaccine currently in use is proven effective beyond doubt and a vaccination rate above 95% will give us herd immunity 

if i understand you correctly, i see you saying that there is no sense in vaccinating now in hopes of a better vaccine ?

measles was active and destructive in the 50s and 60s when food quality was presumably better since we had less pesticides 

i think that measles, mumps, polio to name a few are not going to spare perfectly healthy and robust children ... which is not to say that common sense dictates that we should give our children healthy and nutritious food


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

s1231 said:


> ... An alarming development is the rise of ‘superbugs’ that are developing resistance to our most potent antibiotics. For example, over 480,000 people develop multi-drug-resistant tuberculosis alone each year and Australian patients are increasingly at risk from infection by drug-resistant bacteria in hospitals. Melbourne Biomedical Precinct researchers are recognized leaders in understanding bacteria and why they can become resistant to antibiotics, developing new techniques to identify microbes that are developing drug resistance...


This short you tube video from Harvard MS illustrates the little buggers happily mutating to deal with higher antibiotic concentrations.


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

There is State of Local Emergency declared in NY. 153 cases of measles in a pop of 300k

http://https://www.rte.ie/news/us/2019/0327/1038903-new-york-measles/

I absolutely think vaccinations should be mandatory unless medically exempt.


----------



## OhGreatGuru (May 24, 2009)

See https://ottawacitizen.com/news/loca...reat-to-vaccine-campaigns-in-developing-world

Key Quote:
_In fact, the World Health Organization declared the anti-vaccination movement one of the Top 10 health threats in 2019._


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

new york county bans unvaccinated children from public spaces because of measles outbreak

https://www.theverge.com/2019/3/26/...n-unvaccinated-children-public-spaces-measles

much of the outbreak is concentrated in the ultra orthodox jewish community who eschew vaccinations in washington state, in a tight-knit slavic community

i think we are inevitably moving into a vaccinations required in public spaces world, for better or worse, a two classes of children world actually i think it will be for worse and unfair to kids who will be prevented from participating in lots of activities 

but so far i am still holding against actually mandatory by law vaccinations and think social and public pressure will raise herd immunity but i also think that we will see rising calls for mandatory vaccination


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

fatcat said:


> new york county bans unvaccinated children from public spaces because of measles outbreak
> 
> https://www.theverge.com/2019/3/26/...n-unvaccinated-children-public-spaces-measles
> 
> ...



On one side - I feel everyone should vaccinate unless there is a medical reason, on the other, I don't feel that the government should be making parenting decisions. That being said, I do think that there should be interventions when the decisions a person makes (not to vaccinate) impacts others, especially unknowingly. Also, in the case with children, they don't have a voice in these decisions, that can have dire consequences. So I look at it as the best interest of the child to have mandatory vaccinations. 

I just don't feel that social and public pressure is enough. Non vaxers will find like minded people like them to reinforce their views.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

Either that or keep them at home. We have had several outbreaks in Lethbridge, south of Calgary. Nothing to do with an orthodox Jewish community. Everything to do with those who place natural medicine and health practices above the scientific variety. Hence we have had three unnecessary deaths of children all of which have resulted in criminal charges.


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

ian said:


> Either that or keep them at home. We have had several outbreaks in Lethbridge, south of Calgary. Nothing to do with an orthodox Jewish community. Everything to do with those who place natural medicine and health practices above the scientific variety. Hence we have had *three unnecessary deaths of children *all of which have resulted in criminal charges.


This is the part that bugs me. The unnecessary deaths. I am glad there are criminal charges, but that doesn't bring the kids back. Also, what if one of their unvaccinated kids gets another person sick (who have a valid reason for either not being vaccinated or it's worn off), should the parents changed then? I think so, but how would one even find that other parent?


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

Emergency declared in NY over measles, unvaccinated barred from public spaces



> The directive follows an order from the county last December that barred unvaccinated children from schools that did not reach a minimum 95-percent vaccination rate. That order—and the directive issued today—are intended to thwart the long-standing outbreak, which has sickened 153 people, mostly children.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Oh geez. I also checked in with a couple friends who are doctors in a few scattered cities (Winnipeg, St Louis MO, Boston MA) and all of them express concern about measles outbreaks. They all have kids by the way.

Another reminder that even if you're an adult, it's possible you have insufficient immunization. See page 8 of this thread.


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

right james, all kinds of immunizations fade with time, tetanus, pneumonia ... i would be damn sure getting a booster of polio if someone from africa or pakistan or afghanistan brings cases to canada, something that is not out of the question

anti-vaxxers are quickly forming into something like a cult and i think they are rightfully in for a rough time socially and politically

calls for disallowing non-vaccinated kids to mix socially are rising quickly


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

fatcat said:


> anti-vaxxers are quickly forming into something like a cult and i think they are rightfully in for a rough time socially and politically
> 
> calls for disallowing non-vaccinated kids to mix socially are rising quickly


How does one find it if the kid on their sports team, school, at the doctors office, at the mall, etc been vaccinated? Even if people call for non vacinnated kids to stay away from the public, how does one enforce it.


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

Plugging Along said:


> How does one find it if the kid on their sports team, school, at the doctors office, at the mall, etc been vaccinated? Even if people call for non vacinnated kids to stay away from the public, how does one enforce it.


for school and other organized activities require parents to provide proof of vaccination which would be registered with whatever authority is supervising the children’s activity 

for malls and parks, not so easy, which is why i think we will start to see a growing movement toward mandatory vaccination 

but yeah, if these outbreaks continue and the anti-vaxxers dig in, it could get very contentious which is why i started the thread, to see whether simply mandating vaccination is the best way out, we all have to do it except those with health issues


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

Here's what bothers me. Once you decide the individual's rights can be sacrificed for the good of the group or of society as a whole where do you draw the line? Should people be vaccinated by force against their will? What else should they be forced to do for the good of society, or what rights should they be deprived of if it is for the benefit of society? 

That is a trick question because you aren't the one who gets to decide. Those decisions will be made by someone with an agenda quite different to yours and the line will get pushed back and pushed back until you end up somewhere you may not want to go.


----------



## off.by.10 (Mar 16, 2014)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> Here's what bothers me. Once you decide the individual's rights can be sacrificed for the good of the group or of society as a whole where do you draw the line?


What do you think taxes are if not something forced on the individual for the good of society as a whole? They're much more invasive than a vaccine as far as I'm concerned. The government is forcing me to dedicate a % of my lifetime to helping out others. That's time I'm not getting back, ever.

So I think we went over that line a long time ago. "rights" are just another form of political agenda.


----------



## Saniokca (Sep 5, 2009)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> Here's what bothers me. Once you decide the individual's rights can be sacrificed for the good of the group or of society as a whole where do you draw the line? Should people be vaccinated by force against their will? What else should they be forced to do for the good of society, or what rights should they be deprived of if it is for the benefit of society?
> 
> That is a trick question because *you aren't the one who gets to decide*. Those decisions will be made by someone with an agenda quite different to yours and the line will get pushed back and pushed back until you end up somewhere you may not want to go.


That's one of my issues with making it mandatory as well.



off.by.10 said:


> What do you think taxes are if not something forced on the individual for the good of society as a whole? They're much more invasive than a vaccine as far as I'm concerned. The government is forcing me to dedicate a % of my lifetime to helping out others. That's time I'm not getting back, ever.
> 
> So I think we went over that line a long time ago. "rights" are just another form of political agenda.


I don't think the two are comparable but taxes may be a good example of your liberties being encroached on. From my limited knowledge taxes started out very low and temporary (?) - and look where they are now... Do you think we should live in capitalism, socialism, communism, etc? Well your answer doesn't matter because society may think very differently. It's great if you agree but seems to me that you're not thrilled with the current tax system.

I asked the question a few times but if we have eradicated a disease in Canada why do we keep vaccinating instead of requiring people who come in (or travel abroad) to get tested, be temporarily quarantined or any other measures that would prevent them from bringing it here (we can start from countries which have low rates of vaccination)? Money... I could say that someone going to the Philippines or to pray at the wailing wall (just examples) is putting me in danger. Should we ban all travel to these places?

P.S. Based on more readings I am gravitating to the conclusion that people should probably vaccinate. However, the producers/developers of vaccines (and any kinds of medications for that matter) should be under *a lot* of constant scrutiny (whether it should be on the current schedule, at current doses, or a different formula; studying the long term effects). I am very skeptical that the latter is happening and there are plenty of reasons - the main one I'm guessing is $$$.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

Saniokca said:


> I asked the question a few times but if we have eradicated a disease in Canada why do we keep vaccinating instead of requiring people who come in (or travel abroad) to get tested, be temporarily quarantined or any other measures that would prevent them from bringing it here (we can start from countries which have low rates of vaccination)?


Remember vaccinated people can still get sick, I don't believe there are any that provide 100% immunity. Given that, would you quarantine and test all travelers that come into Canada?


----------



## Saniokca (Sep 5, 2009)

cainvest said:


> Remember vaccinated people can still get sick, I don't believe there are any that provide 100% immunity. Given that, would you quarantine and test all travelers that come into Canada?


No they don't provide 100% immunity but the theory is that if you have 95% vaccination rate the disease doesn't survive too long and disappears. So if we've achieved it here presumably all cases are imported from abroad right? Why is the answer to keep vaccinating here instead of pressuring and putting the onus on countries that have low rates and haven't eradicated the disease? We've done our part haven't we?

If all cases of outbreaks in Canada are due to people bringing it from abroad why would the preference be to mandate our own citizens vs. those in other countries? Unless they eradicate it there we will always have to vaccinate instead of being able to stop (at least for some diseases like measles).


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

Saniokca said:


> So if we've achieved it here presumably all cases are imported from abroad right? Why is the answer to keep vaccinating here instead of pressuring and putting the onus on countries that have low rates and haven't eradicated the disease? We've done our part haven't we?


If we didn't vaccinate here and one sick person "slipped in" what would happen?


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

Saniokca said:


> No they don't provide 100% immunity but the theory is that if you have 95% vaccination rate the disease doesn't survive too long and disappears. So if we've achieved it here presumably all cases are imported from abroad right? Why is the answer to keep vaccinating here instead of pressuring and putting the onus on countries that have low rates and haven't eradicated the disease? We've done our part haven't we?
> 
> If all cases of outbreaks in Canada are due to people bringing it from abroad why would the preference be to mandate our own citizens vs. those in other countries? Unless they eradicate it there we will always have to vaccinate instead of being able to stop (at least for some diseases like measles).


The problem is right now is several considerations:
- There are still cases in Canada due to people not vaccinating, so you would have to get ride of those cases in order for the diseases to be officially eradicated in Canada
- Once eradicated in Canada, in order to keep it that way, its would require isolation of Canadians from any one not vaccinated. That would include not just people flying in and out of Canada but also anyone flying through Canada. That would require essentially closing all borders or restricting any flights connecting through Canada. Would you have someone passing through Canada on their way to somewhere be required to show vaccination? It would requite any one who flies to be vaccinated. 

Trying to control outbreaks in Canada is much easier than trying to control the world. I guess you could say if you are to step foot on Canadian soils or outside of Canada, then you must vaccinate. I guess I would be okay for anyone who travels in or out of Canada must be vaccinated.


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

Saniokca said:


> No they don't provide 100% immunity but the theory is that if you have 95% vaccination rate the disease doesn't survive too long and disappears. So if we've achieved it here presumably all cases are imported from abroad right? *Why is the answer to keep vaccinating here instead of pressuring and putting the onus on countries that have low rates and haven't eradicated the disease? We've done our part haven't we?*
> 
> If all cases of outbreaks in Canada are due to people bringing it from abroad why would the preference be to mandate our own citizens vs. those in other countries? Unless they eradicate it there we will always have to vaccinate instead of being able to stop (at least for some diseases like measles).


this is precisely what the bill and melinda gates foundation is doing ... one of their major initiatives is universal vaccination, it’s a smart use of their money


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

off.by.10 said:


> What do you think taxes are if not something forced on the individual for the good of society as a whole? They're much more invasive than a vaccine as far as I'm concerned. The government is forcing me to dedicate a % of my lifetime to helping out others. That's time I'm not getting back, ever.
> 
> So I think we went over that line a long time ago. "rights" are just another form of political agenda.


Is that your answer? You don't deserve civil rights because taxes?


----------



## off.by.10 (Mar 16, 2014)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> Is that your answer? You don't deserve civil rights because taxes?


No, just pointing out that there is precedent for the government forcing us to do something for the good of society as a whole.

If you're going to wave the "rights" card, what about my right to remain healthy? We can argue in circles all day long that way and get absolutely nowhere. I don't think it's a useful way to frame the debate.


----------



## lonewolf :) (Sep 13, 2016)

Recently in part of New York children that were not vaccinated against measles are not aloud in public places.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

off.by.10 said:


> No, just pointing out that there is precedent for the government forcing us to do something for the good of society as a whole.
> 
> If you're going to wave the "rights" card, what about my right to remain healthy? We can argue in circles all day long that way and get absolutely nowhere. I don't think it's a useful way to frame the debate.


You don't have the right to remain healthy. If you did you could sue the government any time you got sick. You should have the right to not be coerced or intimidated by government when you have committed no crime but apparently we threw that idea overboard long ago.


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

2 cases of measles brought into victoria from people "who contracted it traveling abroad"

https://www.cheknews.ca/two-measles-cases-confirmed-in-victoria-island-health-says-547594/

this is how it happens, imagine if it were polio and your child was in the emergency room alongside people bringing in polio, the polio virus can cripple or kill within hours


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

Saniokca said:


> No they don't provide 100% immunity but the theory is that if you have 95% vaccination rate the disease doesn't survive too long and disappears. So if we've achieved it here presumably all cases are imported from abroad right? Why is the answer to keep vaccinating here instead of pressuring and putting the onus on countries that have low rates and haven't eradicated the disease? We've done our part haven't we?
> 
> If all cases of outbreaks in Canada are due to people bringing it from abroad why would the preference be to mandate our own citizens vs. those in other countries? Unless they eradicate it there we will always have to vaccinate instead of being able to stop (at least for some diseases like measles).


Saniokca, we live in the world that exists today, not the world you wish was. YOU have failed to have your children vaccinated by your own admission and all I read here is YOU trying to suggest that everyone else in the world should have to, so that you don't have to.

You write, "We've done our part haven't we?" Yes, most of us have done our part but YOU on the other hand have not. It is clear to me that you have an agenda and that agenda is to justify not having your children vaccinated here in Canada. My only sympathy is for your children who you are CLEARLY willing to put at risk. At the same time you are also putting other people's children at risk which makes your behaviour doubly wrong.

We cannot control what other people do or do not do. We can only control our own behaviour. Therefore, responsible parents have their children vaccinated as and when their doctors advise it should be done. YOU have not done that. Instead of trying to say we should not allow anyone into (and you would have to also include OUT OF if they are going to return) the country who has not been vaccinated, deal with YOUR own behaviour.


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

Longtimeago said:


> Saniokca, we live in the world that exists today, not the world you wish was. YOU have failed to have your children vaccinated by your own admission and all I read here is YOU trying to suggest that everyone else in the world should have to, so that you don't have to.
> 
> You write, "We've done our part haven't we?" Yes, most of us have done our part but YOU on the other hand have not. It is clear to me that you have an agenda and that agenda is to justify not having your children vaccinated here in Canada. My only sympathy is for your children who you are CLEARLY willing to put at risk. At the same time you are also putting other people's children at risk which makes your behaviour doubly wrong.
> 
> We cannot control what other people do or do not do. We can only control our own behaviour. Therefore, responsible parents have their children vaccinated as and when their doctors advise it should be done. YOU have not done that. Instead of trying to say we should not allow anyone into (and you would have to also include OUT OF if they are going to return) the country who has not been vaccinated, deal with YOUR own behaviour.


saniocka says upthread in post #100 that he *is* going to vaccinate:

P.S. Based on more readings I am gravitating to the conclusion that people should probably vaccinate.


----------



## Saniokca (Sep 5, 2009)

Longtimeago said:


> Saniokca, we live in the world that exists today, not the world you wish was. YOU have failed to have your children vaccinated by your own admission and all I read here is YOU trying to suggest that everyone else in the world should have to, so that you don't have to.


That's not what I said at all. I said that if all cases start from someone importing it from abroad why should we continue to inject our population instead of requiring other countries to eradicate the diseases there so that they could not be brought in.



Longtimeago said:


> You write, "We've done our part haven't we?" Yes, most of us have done our part but YOU on the other hand have not. It is clear to me that you have an agenda and that agenda is to justify not having your children vaccinated here in Canada. My only sympathy is for your children who you are CLEARLY willing to put at risk. At the same time you are also putting other people's children at risk which makes your behaviour doubly wrong.


By "We've done our part" I mean the western world who's (for the most part) been vaccinating for a few generations now.

Re "agenda" You know when I talk to people who are against vaccines they are 100% sure that my agenda is the opposite - to vaccinate everyone until the end of times. When I talk to people who are pro vaccines they probably think I am an antivaxer (or whatever the term is). I am asking questions with one agenda: I am trying to understand which route is better for my children. So far there is much more bs from the anti crowd but the pro vaccine stuff is not much better (in one of my posts I go through one of these articles and it's full of rubbish. This should change if you (or "we") want more people to vaccinate.



Longtimeago said:


> *We cannot control what other people do or do not do. We can only control our own behaviour.* Therefore, responsible parents have their children vaccinated as and when their doctors advise it should be done. YOU have not done that. Instead of trying to say we should not allow anyone into (and you would have to also include OUT OF if they are going to return) the country who has not been vaccinated, deal with YOUR own behaviour.


So you don't want to control others but you're perfectly fine with controlling me? I say "don't want" because there are ways (sanctions, wars, electing/bribing the right officials, etc) - we're just not willing to take them at this point.

The only point I agree about is that I should have done the research a few years ago. One person delaying one or two vaccinations by 2-3 years will no affect you.


----------



## Saniokca (Sep 5, 2009)

Here's a conspiracy theory question: Would the pharma company want some diseases for which they produce vaccines to completely disappear or would they prefer that some countries continue to be hotbeds for spreading them (which will in turn require countries that have eradicated the disease to continue to vaccinate). That would hurt profits. Think back to smoking and the laws/"studies" that industry promoted (and in some parts of the world still does). There are plenty of bad ones and in the past they were endorsing tobacco. The doctors which you would like me to trust blindly are the same as any other profession - they could be wrong (medicine changes and things that were recommend in the past are considered big no-nos now). 

John Oliver had an interesting piece on the lobbying that tobacco companies still do today in third world countries which are quite abhorrent.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UsHHOCH4q8

The point here is that I have very little faith in corporations and I want these companies/industries be constantly monitored. The downside of this is that tougher regulations will make future research more expensive which could result in slower development of future vaccines.


----------



## Saniokca (Sep 5, 2009)

fatcat said:


> saniocka says upthread in post #100 that he *is* going to vaccinate:
> 
> P.S. Based on more readings I am gravitating to the conclusion that people should probably vaccinate.


Thank you. And yes this looks like the likeliest outcome for us. It's not because I am convinced that this is the absolutely the right way but because (in my mind, based on limited research, etc.) it has a higher chance of being the lesser evil. Feels very similar to elections where you don't like any of the choices.


----------



## s1231 (Jan 1, 2017)

Saniokca said:


> Here's a conspiracy theory question: Would the pharma company want some diseases for which they produce vaccines to completely disappear or would they prefer that some countries continue to be hotbeds for spreading them (which will in turn require countries that have eradicated the disease to continue to vaccinate). That would hurt profits. Think back to smoking and the laws/"studies" that industry promoted (and in some parts of the world still does). There are plenty of bad ones and in the past they were endorsing tobacco. The doctors which you would like me to trust blindly are the same as any other profession - they could be wrong (medicine changes and things that were recommend in the past are considered big no-nos now).
> 
> John Oliver had an interesting piece on the lobbying that tobacco companies still do today in third world countries which are quite abhorrent.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UsHHOCH4q8
> ...


 surprising & crazy stuff in history!
heroin cough syrup, THO - RADIA, cocaine toothache drops, 
Children's Soothing Syrups (contained, "...morphin sulphate, chloroform, morphine hydrochloride, codeine, heroin, powdered opium, cannabis indica,)

- 8 Crazy Things People Used to Think Were Healthy
https://dustyoldthing.com/8-crazy-cures/

While there is plenty of good old-fashioned wisdom that doesn’t get a fair shake these days,
these treatments could quite literally have killed you.
And, aren’t we glad we’ve moved on from these dangerous medicines and surgeries! 
Who knows what they’ll be looking back on 100 years from now as unhealthy medicine,
but at least it won’t be mercury and radium.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

Is this what you want?
"Unvaccinated Children Torn From Parents in Horrifying Late Night SWAT Raid "
SWAT team kicks in the door at 1 am to seize children from horrified parents. It takes 10 days for the parents to get a hearing, meanwhile the children are in police custody.The state’s attorney argued that the children shouldn’t be returned to their parents yet because they’d been hostile to DCS workers and weren’t cooperating. Gee I wonder why.

https://www.azcentral.com/story/new...-down-door-check-feverish-toddler/3223829002/

https://www.theorganicprepper.com/u...m-parents-in-horrifying-late-night-swat-raid/

All you koolaid drinkers can ignore this story, it didn't appear on CNN or in the Wall Street Journal.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> Is this what you want?


"DCS took their kids and treated these parents like they were criminals.”

Anti-vaccine parents have indeed been trialed as criminals for the death of their children, as they should be

"DCS must have probable cause to believe a child is at imminent risk of harm and there’s no less-intrusive alternative to removal, or DCS must have probable cause to believe a child is a victim of sexual or physical abuse that can only be evaluated by trained medical personnel."

You realize that an unvaccinated child with a fever could die if they ignore health professionals? I guess back to your climate change conspiracy theories

Idiocracy has become reality and maybe it's time to let natural selection run its course


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

m3s said:


> "DCS took their kids and treated these parents like they were criminals.”
> 
> Anti-vaccine parents have indeed been trialed as criminals for the death of their children, as they should be
> 
> ...


Do you realize a vaccinated child with a fever could die if they ignore health professionals?
Do you realize that a vaccinated person without a fever could die if they listen to health professionals?

The truly crazy thing about that case is that the reason the parents didn't go to the hospital was because the fever broke.

Now think about this, you have a kid, who was sick, the fever is going down, you see no serious risk, do you want to spend hours, and the cost (this is the US) AND expose them to further diseases at the hospital ER? 
You want to know what drives people to avoid the governments and doctors?

I had a 2 year old, they got sick a lot, I spent many nights wondering if I should take them in, or not.
I've gotten to the point where I was packing a hospital bag with their favourite toys and snacks with ice packs, then didn't go because the fever dropped half a degree.

A really important detail is that the article says NOTHING about the 2yr olds condition at or after the time of seizure. The last comment was that his temperature was near normal and he was playing. 
Then later that he had RSV, which as the article also states most kids have by the time they're 2.

So yes, the kids are seized because he had a virus and didn't take him to the ER, now they've torn this family apart for a month as punishment for letting people know about this case.

I wonder how many kids will die because the parents are afraid to go to the doctor, because if they don't do exactly what they say, their kids will get seized. 
Even if it's just a completely normal virus that all of us have had, even after they force unnecessary medical treatment on the child, even after they're better, they'll continue to traumatize and hold all your kids.

It's among a parents worst nightmare.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> Do you realize a vaccinated child with a fever could die if they ignore health professionals?
> Do you realize that a vaccinated person without a fever could die if they listen to health professionals?
> 
> The truly crazy thing about that case is that the reason the parents didn't go to the hospital was because the fever broke.


You don't seem to comprehend that a fever is a life threatening symptom for an unvaccinated child, which could also threaten other innocent bystanders

Adults are free to take or leave the advice of health professionals. They can't force you to do anything

Police aren't forcing any adults to listen to doctors either.. they are protecting innocent children and the public from negligent conspiracy theory parents

Knowingly neglecting a child medical care that could result in death of a child and others is not the same as deciding to ignore a doctor as an adult that only harms themselves..

You are free to believe whatever conspiracy you want but not to harm children and others with your theories


----------



## Saniokca (Sep 5, 2009)

m3s said:


> You don't seem to comprehend that a fever is a life threatening symptom for an unvaccinated child, which could also threaten other innocent bystanders
> 
> Adults are free to take or leave the advice of health professionals. They can't force you to do anything
> 
> ...


Hospitals are just "wonderful". There is a reason many people use them as a last resort... Kids are sick all the time - would you take them to hospital every time they have a fever?

Personal anecdote: We took our infant to a checkup and she had some rash in the diaper area. The doctor prescribed a steroid based cream. The pharmacist said that they this cream was discontinued close to a decade ago and suggested we try a cream without steroids. Worked very well. Sure it's not a "life and death" situation but doesn't exactly inspire confidence. As I mentioned above the trigger happy doctors pushing IVF didn't score any points either.

Also here is a piece I saw many years ago about hospitals - I doubt much has changed.
https://www.cbc.ca/marketplace/episodes/2012-episodes/dirty-hospitals

For some reason I think I saw you posting stuff about cars in the past? I tried searching for some posts but couldn't really find anything. Do you always do all the recommended things by your dealership? If not then aren't you endangering "innocent bystanders"?


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

Saniokca said:


> Hospitals are just "wonderful". There is a reason many people use them as a last resort... Kids are sick all the time - would you take them to hospital every time they have a fever?


If they weren't vaccinated... yes! A fever is a symptom of measles which can be deadly and highly contagious

A diaper rash is not deadly, contagious or prevented by vaccinations. It's prevented by changing the diaper and proper hygiene. Doesn't really compare

My car always complies with safety inspections that are required to legally drive in public.

The police enforce these public safety requirements, not dealer "recommendations" nor diaper changes nor personal hygiene


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

m3s said:


> You don't seem to comprehend that a fever is a life threatening symptom for an unvaccinated child, which could also threaten other innocent bystanders
> 
> Adults are free to take or leave the advice of health professionals. They can't force you to do anything
> 
> ...


I've never said a fever isn't a serious symptom. It most certainly is, in ALL children. I'm quite aware of this. 
I wonder why you point out the unvaccinated, 2yr olds aren't fully vaccinated for several dieseases anyway.

You don't seem to comprehend a few things.

1. The child didn't have a fever at the time of the seizure.
2. They had their children seized over a typical childhood virus.
3. DCS is abusing their power by holding the children, they stated in court that they don't even know the steps the parents need to take to get them back.

It's absolute insanity, and thats WHY people don't trust the government.


----------



## Saniokca (Sep 5, 2009)

m3s said:


> If they weren't vaccinated... yes! A fever is a symptom of measles which can be deadly and highly contagious


A fever is a symptom to 100 different things.



m3s said:


> A diaper rash is not deadly, contagious or prevented by vaccinations. It's prevented by changing the diaper and proper hygiene. Doesn't really compare


Do you have children? Hygiene is not the only reason for diaper rashes. The point of this wasn't to compare it to measles but to show an example of some doctors providing poor advice.



m3s said:


> My car always complies with safety inspections that are required to legally drive in public.
> 
> The police enforce these public safety requirements, not dealer "recommendations" nor diaper changes nor personal hygiene


Right and vaccines are currently not required by law (the topic of this thread). That's why I asked whether you are doing the "recommended" things.


----------



## OhGreatGuru (May 24, 2009)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> I...
> 
> https://www.azcentral.com/story/new...-down-door-check-feverish-toddler/3223829002/
> 
> ...


It sounds like a horrible story, but if you search around on the internet you can find there is a little more background than "SWAT Team grabs kids for not being vaccinated"

The ant-vax attitude of one parent is just background. For example see https://www.azfamily.com/news/chand...eRdDKJwuRt0DnCaPkaLzPjwQaQ3-Fvxo4B_JQMOhTnPeE . The kids were not grabbed for being unvaccinated. 

A) The parents did not take a child with a fever of 105 to ER as the doctor recommended
b) The doctor called DCS because of his concern for the child's safety (It's possible the mother's anti-vax policy influenced his opinion as to whether the mother was competent to make a reasonable decision - but that is speculation);
c) The parents refused to answer the door when police knocked on the door to investigate;
d) When police telephoned them the parents still refused to come to the door to discuss the situation with either police or the DCS investigators;
e) After forcing entry the police found all 3 children sick, and the house a mess.

It is in fact the job of DCS to intervene and seize children who are not being adequately cared for, and the police provide support to them.

I would suggest to you that an alternative story line might have been: _*2-Year old child dies because DCS refused to intervene when doctor called them!*_

Child apprehension is never fun, and cases are rarely black & white.

This is admittedly speculation on my part, but given the speed with which DCS responded, it would not at all surprise me if DCS already had a file on this family. But of course they are not allowed to publicize that because of privacy laws.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

Saniokca said:


> A fever is a symptom to 100 different things.


A fever is more serious risk if it is a symptom of an unvaccinated disease that could kill not only the unvaccinated but others as well. I don’t see why it’s so hard to understand.



Saniokca said:


> Do you have children? Hygiene is not the only reason for diaper rashes. The point of this wasn't to compare it to measles but to show an example of some doctors providing poor advice.


Doctors don't force you to follow their advice. If a doctor suspects you are neglecting a child however they should report you to the proper authorities. Doctors practice science based medication and make recommendations. They are not infallible miracle workers. Butt rashes don’t just magically appear



Saniokca said:


> Right and vaccines are currently not required by law (the topic of this thread). That's why I asked whether you are doing the "recommended" things.


Vaccinations should be required to attend public school unless you have a good reason, just like safety inspections should be required to drive in public unless you have a valid exemption. You're free to have a junk car in your yard. You’re free to neglect your own health too but not to risk the life of children or the public


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

My father was surprised to hear from a doctor that store bought orange juice is not actually healthy at all, despite the bogus claims of "all natural" etc

Canadians consume chemical crap from the grocery store every day without a second thought and then suddenly become enlightened health experts at the hospital


----------



## Saniokca (Sep 5, 2009)

m3s said:


> A fever is more serious risk if it is a symptom of an unvaccinated disease that could kill not only the unvaccinated but others as well.


"if" is the key word - why do you immediately jump to the diseases for which we have vaccines? 



m3s said:


> I don’t see why it’s so hard to understand.


It's phrases like this that create antagonism and usually end the discussion. If you want to have one - change the tone. If not, then you're wasting your time.



m3s said:


> Doctors don't force you to follow their advice. If a doctor suspects you are neglecting a child however they should report you to the proper authorities.


So far failure to vaccinate hasn't been defined as neglect.



m3s said:


> Doctors practice science based medication and make recommendations. They are not infallible miracle workers.


"Science based" is great - that's why overall we mostly trust them. When you add money to the equation the science can be (and very often) is manipulated.



m3s said:


> Butt rashes don’t just magically appear


Nothing is magical but you keep jumping to conclusions. Diaper rashes are often the result of introducing new foods.




m3s said:


> Vaccinations should be required to attend public school unless you have a good reason, just like safety inspections should be required to drive in public unless you have a valid exemption. You're free to have a junk car in your yard. You’re free to neglect your own health too but not to risk the life of children or the public


So after you buy a new car when are you required to have it inspected? Not until you sell it. Cars and vaccinations are different things - the only reason I brought it up is to show that people are very often ignoring the recommendations. Based on your earlier response you are one of them.



m3s said:


> My father was surprised to hear from a doctor that store bought orange juice is not actually healthy at all, despite the bogus claims of "all natural" etc


So you don't trust the orange juice industry but pharma is ok?



m3s said:


> Canadians consume chemical crap from the grocery store every day without a second thought and then suddenly become enlightened health experts at the hospital


Yes and that's my point - instead of blindly trusting the label people should question what's behind it. It's unfortunate but that's the reality.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

There is quite a difference between fresh squeezed orange juice and bottled or frozen. I have a juicer and make my own when oranges are on sale. If I use the bottled or frozen I often hop it up with a little Vitamin C powder.

The question is, what is this doctor comparing it to? Even bottled orange juice is better for you than Coke or tequila. But I agree the bottled doesn't compare with fresh.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

Saniokca said:


> "if" is the key word - why do you immediately jump to the diseases for which we have vaccines?


Risk management 101 - something with known deadly consequence that is also known/tested to be easily preventable vs something benign that is not easily preventable



Saniokca said:


> So far failure to vaccinate hasn't been defined as neglect.


If your child dies due to failure to vaccinate you will indeed be charged and trialed for negligence resulting in death. If 1000 other children die as a result of your negligence you risk far worse. I doubt $1MM liability insurance will suffice



Saniokca said:


> "Science based" is great - that's why overall we mostly trust them. When you add money to the equation the science can be (and very often) is manipulated.


Sure. And yet, the government is saving a fortune by vaccinating its citizens. The recent ebola outbreak cost billions and killed +10000. Sure it would have cost millions to vaccinate and evil corporations would make profit



Saniokca said:


> So after you buy a new car when are you required to have it inspected? Not until you sell it. Cars and vaccinations are different things - the only reason I brought it up is to show that people are very often ignoring the recommendations. Based on your earlier response you are one of them.


Depends on the province. Some provinces require annual safety inspections. In the provinces that don't people neglect their vehicles. Dealer recommendations are not the same as safety inspections or vaccinations



Saniokca said:


> So you don't trust the orange juice industry but pharma is ok?


I'm saying people consume worse from unregulated sources on a daily basis without question but suddenly become concerned internet experts when it's a highly regulated and tested vaccination against infectious disease



Saniokca said:


> Yes and that's my point - instead of blindly trusting the label people should question what's behind it. It's unfortunate but that's the reality.


It's been questioned to death Saniokca and the information is available ad naseum. Risk management 101 again. Small side effects and trace chemicals (that people consume daily) vs deadly epidemic (see West Africa)



Saniokca said:


> It's phrases like this that create antagonism and usually end the discussion. If you want to have one - change the tone. If not, then you're wasting your time.


It's hard not to talk down when you compare a deadly epidemic to diaper rashes. After a certain point you have to wonder if one is replying for pride or discussion. I'm only replying for the sake of others.

This has been beaten to death across the web and I haven't seen any reasonable debate yet.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> There is quite a difference between fresh squeezed orange juice and bottled or frozen. I have a juicer and make my own when oranges are on sale. If I use the bottled or frozen I often hop it up with a little Vitamin C powder.
> 
> The question is, what is this doctor comparing it to? Even bottled orange juice is better for you than Coke or tequila. But I agree the bottled doesn't compare with fresh.


Do some googling on the state of bottled orange juice today. It's basically sugar water with chemical flavour packs labelled dubiously as natural. At least coke doesn't claim to be anything other than unhealthy corn syrup water

Living in a climate like Canada I don't see how many Canadians can avoid consuming far worse chemicals that are packaged and sold as "healthy food" in our grocery stores than getting vaccinated once in 10 years


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

m3s said:


> Do some googling on the state of bottled orange juice today. It's basically sugar water with chemical flavour packs labelled dubiously as natural.




jumping from the important - children, their health - to the frivolous - orange juice - what's that about ojus being sugar water plus chemical flavour?

might you be posting about those similar looking containers that say "orange drink" rather than orange juice?

the ones i buy are labelled "100% fresh squeezed orange juice no sugar added regular pulp" It's hard to believe that packagers like Minute Maid are printing lies right on their product containers, whose contents might not be fresh squeezed ojus after all but chemically treated water instead.

containers labelled "fruit drinks" are indeed flavoured sugar water though. I don't buy em.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

humble_pie said:


> might you be posting about those similar looking containers that say "orange drink" rather than orange juice?
> 
> the ones i buy are labelled "100% fresh squeezed orange juice no sugar added regular pulp" It's hard to believe that packagers like Minute Maid are printing lies right on their product containers, whose contents might not be fresh squeezed ojus after all but chemically treated water instead.


I'm talking about orange juice marketed as "all natural" such as Tropicana (PepsiCo) Simply Orange/Minute Maid (Coca-Cola) Florida's Natural etc.. It's still processed, pasteurized, and artificially flavored. It's chemically altered despite what the label claims

It's not just orange juice. America has a serious misleading label problem (Europe is much better here imho) Orange juice is the easiest example to dissect



> When the juice is stripped of oxygen it is also stripped of flavor providing chemicals. Juice companies therefore hire flavor and fragrance companies, the same ones that formulate perfumes for Dior and Calvin Klein, to engineer flavor packs to add back to the juice to make it taste fresh. Flavor packs aren’t listed as an ingredient on the label because technically they are derived from orange essence and oil. *Yet those in the industry will tell you that the flavor packs, whether made for reconstituted or pasteurized orange juice, resemble nothing found in nature. *The packs added to juice earmarked for the North American market tend to contain high amounts of ethyl butyrate, a chemical in the fragrance of fresh squeezed orange juice that, juice companies have discovered, Americans favor.


source

I don't see how many people in Canada could avoid consuming misleading food products from our grocery store and yet there is no outrage about food but rather vaccines.



humble_pie said:


> Containers labelled "fruit drinks" are indeed flavoured sugar water though. I don't buy em.


Orange juice contains sugar as well and the pasteurized stuff has been stripped of its natural flavours and some of its original healthy nutrients. You're probably better off buying cheaper frozen orange juice but we've all be duped by marketing

Let's not get into why oranges sold in Canada look nothing like the oranges I've seen growing on trees.. and the oranges are probably harmless compared to the produced food in the aisles, mostly based on HFCS


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

I don't believe this is an April Fools joke

1 April 2019: Massachusetts health officials alert residents about potential exposure to measles in multiple locations



> The Massachusetts Department of Public Health (DPH) has confirmed that a person was diagnosed with measles in greater Boston on Sunday, March 31, 2019. During the infectious period, the individual went to locations where other people may have been exposed.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

m3s said:


> I'm talking about orange juice marketed as "all natural" such as Tropicana (PepsiCo) Simply Orange/Minute Maid (Coca-Cola) Florida's Natural etc.. It's still processed, pasteurized, and artificially flavored. It's chemically altered despite what the label claims
> 
> source




i did read the article. Very interesting. Highly recommended.

in actual fact i only buy a 1.85 ltr container of OJ maybe 4-5 times a year. We are not OJ drinkers, mostly eat raw oranges & raw grapefruits.

most of the time i buy frozen concentrate. We don't even dilute it w local water into juice, mostly i serve frozen OJ as a topping for yogurt, ice cream, berries & fruit desserts because a splash of froz OJ is delish. Froz grapefruit concentrate is also good as topping except that kids with their more delicate palates don't like the sharply acidic grapefruit (pucker up)


i was horrified to read in your linked article that bottled as-is "orange juice" has actually spent up to a year hibernating in giant storage tanks before being artificially flavoured back to taste like OJ. Gah. I had no idea. That info has put me off bottled OJ for the rest of my life.


----------

