I feel like it’s not right to lump together people who are against being pressursd to get the flu vaccine (which is rather ineffective and must be done every year) with “anti-vaxxers”! There are some people who willingly get their kids vaccinated against dread diseases such as measles, smallpox, etc ( vaccine is very effective, and risk of disease sequellae is very high) but don’t want the flu vaccine, which is NOT that effective, and has to be re-formulated every year. (Someone must be making money off it, since every hospital requires employees to get the vaccine).
Someone with ebola is sick. Someone who is merely unvaccinated isn’t sick. And then after they’re cured of ebola you don’t send them out and treat them like they’re criminals. These aren’t comparable.
Vlad, I can understand why you would find my post offensive, and I must admit that it was a bit of hyperbole on my part, but I think you should understand how upsetting it is to many of us that people who refuse to vaccinate their children rely on herd immunity to keep their kids safe while putting other people’s at risk.
The good news in this day and age is that most HIV patient’s viral load is successfully treated and is often undetectable. If they cut themselves and someone else touches their fresh blood with an area where they happen to have an open wound there is a very very small chance of contagion. Risk of transmission from a patient with a very suppressed viral load is , according to this, at most 4% http://www.aidsmap.com/No-one-with-an-undetectable-viral-load-gay-or-heterosexual-transmits-HIV-in-first-two-years-of-PARTNER-study/page/2832748/
Measles is much, much more infectious than HIV. Back when we were discussing Ebola, much was made of the R0 of Ebola versus that of other infectious diseases (see http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2014/10/02/352983774/no-seriously-how-contagious-is-ebola ) Measles is actually one of the more contagious organisms out the (as visitors to Disneyland will attest).
Just to be clear, no.
http://mobile.aidsmap.com/Impossible-routes/page/1322840
I hope the news of these outbreaks emboldens more parents to stop just being polite and to ask the moms and dads of potential playmates whether their children are vaccinated. I also think schools that allow unvaccinated kids have a responsibility to inform parents of which students fall into this category. Maybe when their kids are ostracized enough the anti-vax parents will start to see the folly of their position (since obviously, concern about other children is not high on their list).
I think what she’s saying is that it’s the GOV’T looking at citizens as collateral damage in the immunization struggle. She seems to think the gov’t believes immunizations cause x (‘brain damage’ or whatever) and that they’re willing for a certain amount of citizens to be affected by x because of the perceived benefit to the rest of the population. Her belief is that her greater responsibility is to her child.
I’m beginning to think U of M (and all colleges) need a mandatory course on HIV transmission. Just a short, 30 minute course where all these myths can be dispelled.
As an HIV counselor at U of M, it really amazes me at how some of the smartest people can be so ignorant about something that affects so many. A sizable majority of the people who come to get tested have ZERO risk factors. I feel bad because they’ve often been stressing about the test for days when there was 0 chance of infection.
Perhaps some of the people not vaccinating remember the effects of Thalidomide on children of the women who took it for morning sickness. Not every drug that makes it to market is problem free, which can make people doubt the beneficial ones.
@vladenschlutte, because of HIV/AIDS, we have health care workers and other people at risk practice “universal precautions” against any and all blood borne diseases. Before the fear of HIV/AIDS contagion, people were much more laissez faire.
What would universal precautions be against airborne diseases in a place that doesn’t have enough vaccinated people to have “herd immunity”? Unfortunately, it is total quarantine.
The MMR has been well vetted. Dont know if it would be given to a pregnant female s am not familiar with its teratogenic risk, but it seems any comparison to thalidomide is silly.
austin, likely not. For a variety of reasons.
- Early Gen Xers got vaccines at school without issue and were very likely to vaccinate their kids.
- Those in late and after Gen X, the ones “opting out” are too young to remember Thalidomide.
- Thalidomide never really made it to the US so unless your parents are immigrants (my mom was and her mom was pregnant with her during the Thalidomide era in the UK) that’s not likely foremost on your mind.
I repeat, ** Thalidomide never made it to market in the US **
Even with all that, there are checks and balances that did not exist back then. Of course, that doesn’t mean anything to these nuts.
Vlad, are you vaccinated? If so, are you sorry your parents did so? If you ever have children, do you expect to have them vaccinated against measles?
However, even from a purely selfish point of view, the risk of getting the measles vaccine is far lower than the risk of getting measles. This is especially true with vaccine refusers out there who may be carriers, so a rational person looking selfishly at his/her own risk (or his/her kid’s risk) would go get the vaccine.
Actually, it is now available in the US. It inhibits blood vessel growth, which cancerous tumors need to stimulate in order to grow (but that effect is harmful to embryos and fetuses). It was also used to treat some effects of leprosy.
It is just from a position of absolute luxury that any of us can refuse vaccines. For most of human history, rampant disease was an absolute terror. If you knew that you or someone you love was likely to catch a disease, a disease that could kill or cause great harm, you wouldn’t refuse a preventative strategy.
Measles? Polio? They were almost completely eradicated. Smallpox? Let’s hope it doesn’t escape from some test tube somewhere. Syphillis? We can treat it now, unless you refuse antibiotics too!
“Actually, it is now available in the US. It inhibits blood vessel growth, which cancerous tumors need to stimulate in order to grow (but that effect is harmful to embryos and fetuses). It was also used to treat some effects of leprosy.”
And your point is? Romani was talking about treatment of nausea in pregnant women. It got approved for completely different indications, comes with a black box warming, and is never prescribed to pregnant women.
Thanks, BB :). I would’ve thought my post was clear, but apparently there are always those who are looking for the exceptions.
" Syphillis? We can treat it now, unless you refuse antibiotics too."
Unless it is a drug resistant strain.
Romani, welcome and thank you. 