[staringclown]

Ok. I watched catalyst on the ABC tonight. Turns out that we need 95% of people to be vaccinated against common (known) diseases to provide those vulnerable to these diseases protection against infection. In Byron the rate of immunisation is about 50%. The rates of infection in byron are disproportionately high.

The science is in. Vaccination works. But an increasing number of the populous reject the science in favour of some voodoo belief that vaccination is risky. And natural (do nothing) treatment is preferable. Survival of the fittest seems in vogue. I don't have kids and I have been immunised so I have little fear. Any parents out there have any opinions? Am I just paranoid and is the majority smarter than scientists and doctors on this matter as well?

Edit: Sense

[sydney3000]

You trust the pharmaceuticals? 95% of the world population live in poverty and they can't afford vaccines. The only way to implement such scheme would be to provide free healthcare and I don't see pharmaceuticals becoming non-profits.

[staringclown]

sydney3000, on 17 May 2012 - 11:52 AM, said:

You trust the pharmaceuticals? 95% of the world population live in poverty and they can't afford vaccines. The only way to implement such scheme would be to provide free healthcare and I don't see pharmaceuticals becoming non-profits.

I don't have to trust them. I have access to the data. I notice that polio is down this year.

[tor]

If, and this is a big if (i.e. it is not true and there is no way it could be true and anyone that believes it is a retarded person that shouldn't be allowed to breed), If vaccines caused autism in a certain percentage of cases then I would still take the vaccine.

Because Autism is way cooler than dead. Which is what polio does in much higher percentages. And also Autism is way better than f*cked legs. Which is what polio does in much higher percentages.

Hell there were entire towns in the states where all the kids died or were crippled for life in a single summer.

Find me one town where every kid has Autism and then I might consider pointing out the flaws in the correlation argument.

Until then I don't care if you think vaccines cause autism.

Edit to add: Why don't they get pissy about tetanus shots?

For my money (now that the rant has descended upon me) this is a bunch of parents basically choosing to have a dead kid rather than a disabled one because dead kids are much cooler, you get sympathy and everything but don't have to look after a crippled one. That idea of looking after a crippled kid (mentally or physically) is so abhorrent to the self indulgent weak minded f*ck faces that they would rather claim to believe shonky crap holistic healers because it is a socially acceptable way of saying "if my kid was f*cked up I would prefer he or she was dead"

This post has been edited by tor: 17 May 2012 - 12:09 PM

[Dead Money]

staringclown, on 17 May 2012 - 11:26 AM, said:

I don't have kids and I have been immunised so I have little fear.

Not necessarily, no immunisation is 100% effective for all patients.

Let's say you've got a vaccine that provides 100% protection for 85% of patients, is 50% effective for 10% of patients, and 0% effective for
5% of patients. (Sometimes the vaccine just doesn't take)

Now, if everyone takes the vaccine, then you will have herd immunity because 85% of the population is fully protected, and 10% of the population is partially protected. The disease just doesn't have enough carriers available to spread effectivly.

But if only say 70% of the population take the vaccine, you will no longer have herd immunity.

So if you've taken the vaccine, but you're one of the 10% for whome it is less effective, or one of the 5% for whome it is ineffective, then those selfish mongrels who refused to get immunised can still transmit the disease to you and get you sick, even though you got immunised.

http://en.wikipedia....i/Herd_immunity

But learning about science isn't as much fun as conspiricy theories!

Dead Money

[Solomon]

staringclown, on 17 May 2012 - 11:26 AM, said:

Any parents out there have any opinions? Am I just paranoid and is the majority smarter than scientists and doctors on this matter as well?

I was vaccinated against polio as a child. I remember lining up for my sugar cube.
My aunt was permanently crippled all her life.
My parents wouldn't have it any other way.

I'm a parent.
All my children were vaccinated.
Our babies were given triple antigen against german measles and mumps.

When I worked in a particular field, I was vaccinated against Hepatitis B.

I'm a grandparent.
My wife and I are soon to receive our shots for whooping cough, because of our grandchildren.

All of these injections carried a level of risk.
I accept that.
To suggest I understand why parents would not do this, would be lying.
I cannot comprehend, why they would not take every precaution, no matter if there are risks.
We have got too soft and sensitive in a whole range of areas of life, and it is going to come back to bite us.
Toughen up.
All of life is risk.
In this case, the benefits far outweigh the risks, as far as I'm concerned.

Tor,
Nice rant.
You are really passionate about this.
As am I.
What a mob of drongo's.

[staringclown]

Dead Money, on 17 May 2012 - 01:26 PM, said:

Not necessarily, no immunisation is 100% effective for all patients.

Let's say you've got a vaccine that provides 100% protection for 85% of patients, is 50% effective for 10% of patients, and 0% effective for
5% of patients. (Sometimes the vaccine just doesn't take)

Now, if everyone takes the vaccine, then you will have herd immunity because 85% of the population is fully protected, and 10% of the population is partially protected. The disease just doesn't have enough carriers available to spread effectivly.

But if only say 70% of the population take the vaccine, you will no longer have herd immunity.

So if you've taken the vaccine, but you're one of the 10% for whome it is less effective, or one of the 5% for whome it is ineffective, then those selfish mongrels who refused to get immunised can still transmit the disease to you and get you sick, even though you got immunised.

http://en.wikipedia....i/Herd_immunity

But learning about science isn't as much fun as conspiricy theories!

Dead Money

T'is true. It's the ultimate tragedy of the commons scenario. There is a reliance upon others becoming immunised to afford the protection to the most vulnerable. The point of the article on catalyst was to show that in epidemiological terms, stopping infection to the most vulnerable required 95% immunisation. In real terms the plague will emanate from byron bay. And all those stupid hippies. I teach science.

[tom]

tor, on 17 May 2012 - 12:05 PM, said:

For my money (now that the rant has descended upon me) this is a bunch of parents basically choosing to have a dead kid rather than a disabled one because dead kids are much cooler, you get sympathy and everything but don't have to look after a crippled one. That idea of looking after a crippled kid (mentally or physically) is so abhorrent to the self indulgent weak minded f*ck faces that they would rather claim to believe shonky crap holistic healers because it is a socially acceptable way of saying "if my kid was f*cked up I would prefer he or she was dead"

I think most of what you say is true enough but these parents in their own minds think they are just doing the right thing and protecting their kids.

[tom]

Dead Money, on 17 May 2012 - 01:26 PM, said:

So if you've taken the vaccine, but you're one of the 10% for whome it is less effective, or one of the 5% for whome it is ineffective, then those selfish mongrels who refused to get immunised can still transmit the disease to you and get you sick, even though you got immunised.

Thanks for the explanation dead money. I watched catalyst tonight too but did not completely get my head around the 5% innefective message because catalyst used the baby too young to be vaccinated as an example. I was not sure whether this was the 5% number?

I disagree however with your description of those who do not give their kids vaccinations. The government has even tried tying parenting payments to vaccinations and it still does not get full take up. this is conscientious objection on the face of it. Under those circumstances I would not call it selfish as much as stupid.

Maybe the baby bonus should be half at birth and half when the kid gets immunised. I reckon that would fix the issue.

[Witchsmeller Pursuivant]

tom, on 17 May 2012 - 02:31 PM, said:

Thanks for the explanation dead money. I watched catalyst tonight too but did not completely get my head around the 5% innefective message because catalyst used the baby too young to be vaccinated as an example. I was not sure whether this was the 5% number?

I disagree however with your description of those who do not give their kids vaccinations. The government has even tried tying parenting payments to vaccinations and it still does not get full take up. this is conscientious objection on the face of it. Under those circumstances I would not call it selfish as much as stupid.

Maybe the baby bonus should be half at birth and half when the kid gets immunised. I reckon that would fix the issue.

Maybe there should be no baby bonus and parent should lobotomise themselves and maybe have some concern for their kids, and the rest of society. Of course, lobotomy and concern for society might be mutually exclusive.

[Popeye]

Solomon, on 17 May 2012 - 01:31 PM, said:

--- snip ---
What a mob of drongo's.

I think you've summed it up perfectly in that last sentence.

I spent 12 years in the Navy and another 26 as a Merchant Seaman, requiring all manner of vaccinations on an ongoing and regular basis. I have had no ill effects other than self induced*, my two children were vaccinated similarly including a son who was also working overseas for some years. None of us have suffered with the maladies we were immunised against, nor any other ill effect.

* I went out on the booze after being specifically warned that it could have unpleasant side effects immediately after having had a needle for whatever it was. ... Cholera I think.

[Mr Medved]

Witchsmeller Pursuivant, on 18 May 2012 - 12:08 AM, said:

Maybe there should be no baby bonus and parent should lobotomise themselves and maybe have some concern for their kids, and the rest of society. Of course, lobotomy and concern for society might be mutually exclusive.

Mrs Medved has a child on the way.

It will not be getting the Hep-B vaccine on day one. The risk of a newborn contracting Hep-B (if the mother isn't a carrier) is very, very low. On a risk trade-off we feel it is better to wait until the baby is 3-6 months old before considering Hep-B vaccination. It will most likely receive it. Why wait? I don't see how injecting a foreign substance like that on day one is a good thing. The vitamin K injection seems to be low risk with important benefits so we'll go with it.

For other vaccines it will be on a case-by-case basis (most likely we will opt to vaccinate). Simply saying all vaccines are good or all vaccines are bad really isn't an intelligent approach. Vaccinations can be risky, and not vaccinating can be risky.

One thing I didn't realise this week is public and private hospitals ban male circumcision (in Victoria).

This post has been edited by Mr Medved: 18 May 2012 - 04:16 AM

[Ugg]

tor, on 17 May 2012 - 12:05 PM, said:

For my money (now that the rant has descended upon me) this is a bunch of parents basically choosing to have a dead kid rather than a disabled one because dead kids are much cooler,

As much as I enjoy your rants Tor, I have to disagree that this is the motivation. I think it comes back to not understanding the science and in particular not understanding statistics. I also think that the action of injecting with the risk of bad side effects feels like it carries a stronger burden on consequences than the inaction (which is really another form of action) of not injecting and leaving it up to the Gods/nature.

I once again refer to my neighbour as my source of all Perth mainstream mindsight. A trained nurse, strongly opposed to vaccines, very much for homeopathy, naturopaths (rule of thumb is to be suspicious of labels ending in 'path'), rearranging pot plants and chiropractors (duck). Frowns on us for giving our kid Ventolin when he has asthma. We have some interesting discussions

This post has been edited by Ugg: 18 May 2012 - 04:57 AM

[urchin]

well anti-intellectualism is a time honoured part of human society. don't understand something? it must be because it's an evil conspiracy not because you are too stupid to understand its rationale and value... witch-burning in different guise, really.

but the internet does seem to pour gasoline on the fire and the nutcases reach a much broader audience. i'm all for healthy scepticism (actually i'm more for brutal cynicism) but that has to be applied to the conspiracy theorists as well as to the gov'ts.

[Ruffian]

Mr Medved, on 18 May 2012 - 04:16 AM, said:

Mrs Medved has a child on the way.

It will not be getting the Hep-B vaccine on day one. The risk of a newborn contracting Hep-B (if the mother isn't a carrier) is very, very low. On a risk trade-off we feel it is better to wait until the baby is 3-6 months old before considering Hep-B vaccination. It will most likely receive it. Why wait? I don't see how injecting a foreign substance like that on day one is a good thing. The vitamin K injection seems to be low risk with important benefits so we'll go with it.

For other vaccines it will be on a case-by-case basis (most likely we will opt to vaccinate). Simply saying all vaccines are good or all vaccines are bad really isn't an intelligent approach. Vaccinations can be risky, and not vaccinating can be risky.

One thing I didn't realise this week is public and private hospitals ban male circumcision (in Victoria).

Absolutely correct.
This is pretty much the strategy we used for our two kids.

The thimerasol that was generally considered to be the 'cause' of the alleged autism cases was phased out years ago.

But - it has to be a case-by-case basis from here on out.

In previous decades vaccinations were generally reliable and generally targeted to benefit both the individual (lower chance of individual adverse consequences of illness) and the broader society (fewer epidemics, lower healthcare costs, healthier & more resilient population).

However now there is now a new player - the pharmaceutical companies that manufacture the vaccines. They are largely after profits and the turn-around time on the development of new vaccines is becoming much shorter. This means that consequences - both long and short term - are no longer as well known for all vaccines.

For example, there is some fairly good evidence that the chickenpox vaccine wears off as you age, which may well leave people vaccinated with it susceptible to the very painful related disease Shingles as they get older, and both their own immune system and the vaccine induced immunity start to weaken. This really can't be known with any certainty until the first Varicella vaccinated cohort reaches about 55/60.
And all for a bit of immunity from chickenpox, which is an annoying but mild childhood disease - but a painful and debilitating adult disease.

There are also increasingly frequent 'bad batches' of vaccines, which either don't take at all, or which sicken those vaccinated by them - like the flu vaccine used in Perth a couple of years ago that caused febrile convulsions in small kids.

Don't get me wrong - I love vaccinations for things like polio, tetanus and diphtheria.
Those diseases are killers, and I am grateful for the ability to protect my kids from them.

But I am somewhat concerned by the modern marketing that is trying to make out that all vaccines are equal. They aren't.

And I don't trust big pharma any further than I could kick them.


Re circumcision - I used to be mildly anti-circumcision - why fix it if it ain't broke?
But then I encountered a fellow who had undergone adult circumcision due to one of the several medical problems that can afflict uncircumcised men.
I'd strongly recommend infant circumcision now.

[recession we had to have]

Mr Medved, on 18 May 2012 - 04:16 AM, said:

Mrs Medved has a child on the way.

Congrats!

One thing I didn't realise this week is public and private hospitals ban male circumcision (in Victoria).

Medicare is reviewing the benefit for it as well

[zaph]

Ruffian, on 18 May 2012 - 09:14 AM, said:

Re circumcision - I used to be mildly anti-circumcision - why fix it if it ain't broke?
But then I encountered a fellow who had undergone adult circumcision due to one of the several medical problems that can afflict uncircumcised men.
I'd strongly recommend infant circumcision now.

those medical problems are not common. imo it would be better to circumcise if and when it becomes necessary.

[Dead Money]

tom, on 17 May 2012 - 02:31 PM, said:

I disagree however with your description of those who do not give their kids vaccinations. The government has even tried tying parenting payments to vaccinations and it still does not get full take up. this is conscientious objection on the face of it. Under those circumstances I would not call it selfish as much as stupid.

On most cases you're probably right - ignorance rather than selfishness. And Ruffian has a point that not all vaccines are created equal, but my understanding is that it is overwhelmingly better for the population to be vaccinated in most cases. On an individual case - it's actually better in a lot of cases to not be vaccinated. If the herd has immunity, you can not be vaccinated, and thus avoid the (generally mild) side effects, while still enjoying 'immunity' due to the herd effect. But that's a case of personal interest trumping the overall good - because if everyone does that - we all suffer!

Having said all of that, I can understand that exposing one's child to a (very small) potential risk because it's 'better for society as a whole', is not a no brainer for a parent. Protective urges and what not

[staringclown]

urchin, on 18 May 2012 - 09:13 AM, said:

well anti-intellectualism is a time honoured part of human society. don't understand something? it must be because it's an evil conspiracy not because you are too stupid to understand its rationale and value... witch-burning in different guise, really.

but the internet does seem to pour gasoline on the fire and the nutcases reach a much broader audience. i'm all for healthy scepticism (actually i'm more for brutal cynicism) but that has to be applied to the conspiracy theorists as well as to the gov'ts.

It amuses me that something that held the promise of the great library of Alexandria for enhancing the sum total of human knowledge ends up as a monstrous porn search engine, social media and a global speakers corner. It's what europe must have felt like during the age of enlightenment.

I'm down with the brutal cynicism.