RugbyRebels

The take up of the dual vaccination for MMR has fallen for a fourth year in a row to 87% well below a suitable 95% target for herd immunity.

Blame can be apportioned between sick bastards profiteering the situation, thick parents and/or thick people on the interweb, and the whole being egged along by Russian trolls

At some point we're going to have to ban those not getting immunised from partaking in society

It’s crazy that years after the debunking of this pseudoscience it’s still being listened to.

A suggestion in the Times today is that if you can’t prove your children have had all necessary vaccinations, then they don’t get to go to school.

Might seem a bit harsh but the idea of hundreds of children dying each year due to a treatable illness is utterly mental.

What is the point of banning a child that not been vaccinated? First off it is unlikely to have been the child's fault that they have not been vaccinated, so why should they be penalised. And second off, the only people who should be vulnerable to infection are others who have not been vaccinated.

The cost should fall to the knuckle-heads who do make the idiotic decision not to vaccinate their child. A default setting should apportion all of the costs of treatment for measles, mumps and rubella to the parents or guardians of those infected. Better yet, the courts should deal with those who willfully increase the risk of infection by refusing to allow their child to be inoculated.

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:What is the point of banning a child that not been vaccinated? First off it is unlikely to have been the child's fault that they have not been vaccinated, so why should they be penalised. And second off, the only people who should be vulnerable to infection are others who have not been vaccinated.

The cost should fall to the knuckle-heads who do make the idiotic decision not to vaccinate their child. A default setting should apportion all of the costs of treatment for measles, mumps and rubella to the parents or guardians of those infected. Better yet, the courts should deal with those who willfully increase the risk of infection by refusing to allow their child to be inoculated.

The bolded bit is not true. For a start, there are children who cannot be vaccinated due to allergies, illness, genetic disorders, etc. Secondly, the vaccine isn't 100% protective - I think it works in 99.5% if memory serves.

Those children are protected by herd immunity - if enough people in a population are immune, then the virus dies due to having no hosts to spread through. Barring unvaccinated children from school would bring the level back above where that would take effect.

More pertinently, it would force the waverers - those who are stupid and unsure and prefer to do nothing - to make a choice. Most of them, if told their child could not attend school without vaccinations, would cave pretty quickly.

Puja

Puja wrote:

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:What is the point of banning a child that not been vaccinated? First off it is unlikely to have been the child's fault that they have not been vaccinated, so why should they be penalised. And second off, the only people who should be vulnerable to infection are others who have not been vaccinated.

The cost should fall to the knuckle-heads who do make the idiotic decision not to vaccinate their child. A default setting should apportion all of the costs of treatment for measles, mumps and rubella to the parents or guardians of those infected. Better yet, the courts should deal with those who willfully increase the risk of infection by refusing to allow their child to be inoculated.

The bolded bit is not true. For a start, there are children who cannot be vaccinated due to allergies, illness, genetic disorders, etc. Secondly, the vaccine isn't 100% protective - I think it works in 99.5% if memory serves.

Those children are protected by herd immunity - if enough people in a population are immune, then the virus dies due to having no hosts to spread through. Barring unvaccinated children from school would bring the level back above where that would take effect.

More pertinently, it would force the waverers - those who are stupid and unsure and prefer to do nothing - to make a choice. Most of them, if told their child could not attend school without vaccinations, would cave pretty quickly.

Puja

Yeah, no. They're banned here. So the parents bribe the doctors...

Which is, frankly, atrocious.

I make a habit of eating fucking tuna when I'm with any anti-vaxxers and commenting about how I'm destroying my brain with all the mercury.

Fucking tosspots.

Stom wrote:

Puja wrote:

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:What is the point of banning a child that not been vaccinated? First off it is unlikely to have been the child's fault that they have not been vaccinated, so why should they be penalised. And second off, the only people who should be vulnerable to infection are others who have not been vaccinated.

The cost should fall to the knuckle-heads who do make the idiotic decision not to vaccinate their child. A default setting should apportion all of the costs of treatment for measles, mumps and rubella to the parents or guardians of those infected. Better yet, the courts should deal with those who willfully increase the risk of infection by refusing to allow their child to be inoculated.

The bolded bit is not true. For a start, there are children who cannot be vaccinated due to allergies, illness, genetic disorders, etc. Secondly, the vaccine isn't 100% protective - I think it works in 99.5% if memory serves.

Those children are protected by herd immunity - if enough people in a population are immune, then the virus dies due to having no hosts to spread through. Barring unvaccinated children from school would bring the level back above where that would take effect.

More pertinently, it would force the waverers - those who are stupid and unsure and prefer to do nothing - to make a choice. Most of them, if told their child could not attend school without vaccinations, would cave pretty quickly.

Puja

Yeah, no. They're banned here. So the parents bribe the doctors...

Which is, frankly, atrocious.

I make a habit of eating fucking tuna when I'm with any anti-vaxxers and commenting about how I'm destroying my brain with all the mercury.

Fucking tosspots.

Well, that's the loonie true-believers and they're immune to policy, facts, and science, if not measles. It's the wishy-washy wafters that this would convert.

Puja

The problem is that there appears to be no downside to not getting your child vaccinated. Back on the mid 20 th century there wouldn’t have been a debate, just fricking do it. Because of actual issue like certain anti sickness drugs for pregnant women, as soon as one of these scares flares up its seized upon, because you can’t obviously trust anything the government tells you, even if top scientists are onboard.

There needs to be a downside to this that idiot parents will grasp. Otherwise those diseases will be back and children will die unnecessarily. If that sounds a bit alarmist, it really isn’t.

Puja wrote:

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:What is the point of banning a child that not been vaccinated? First off it is unlikely to have been the child's fault that they have not been vaccinated, so why should they be penalised. And second off, the only people who should be vulnerable to infection are others who have not been vaccinated.

The cost should fall to the knuckle-heads who do make the idiotic decision not to vaccinate their child. A default setting should apportion all of the costs of treatment for measles, mumps and rubella to the parents or guardians of those infected. Better yet, the courts should deal with those who willfully increase the risk of infection by refusing to allow their child to be inoculated.

The bolded bit is not true. For a start, there are children who cannot be vaccinated due to allergies, illness, genetic disorders, etc. Secondly, the vaccine isn't 100% protective - I think it works in 99.5% if memory serves.

Those children are protected by herd immunity - if enough people in a population are immune, then the virus dies due to having no hosts to spread through. Barring unvaccinated children from school would bring the level back above where that would take effect.

More pertinently, it would force the waverers - those who are stupid and unsure and prefer to do nothing - to make a choice. Most of them, if told their child could not attend school without vaccinations, would cave pretty quickly.

Puja

99.5% is pretty good odds. I'd take that and let the allergic, queasy and genetically disordered take their chances too. Particularly the allergists. I went through my early to mid-20s as a platoon commander with a galloping allergy to rape seed just as half of Wiltshire seemed to be under the bastard stuff - and it was the fecking half that the Army wanted me to crawl through. Did I bleat? Did I feck. I just dosed myself up on industrial quantities of anti-Histamine and tried to stay awake long enough to stop myself drying out. It was a decade long hangover with none of the night before fun to get you through.

And now half of fecking Sainsburys is clogged with shyte because the lactose/dextrose/gluten/sesame/plastic/linoleum/cotton-wool-bud/glass/brasso/cider intolerant insist on being catered for. Every child should be vaccinated against everything and the vaccine should include every known allergen too.

Now, where's my van with the exhaust pipe hose?

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:

Puja wrote:

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:What is the point of banning a child that not been vaccinated? First off it is unlikely to have been the child's fault that they have not been vaccinated, so why should they be penalised. And second off, the only people who should be vulnerable to infection are others who have not been vaccinated.

The cost should fall to the knuckle-heads who do make the idiotic decision not to vaccinate their child. A default setting should apportion all of the costs of treatment for measles, mumps and rubella to the parents or guardians of those infected. Better yet, the courts should deal with those who willfully increase the risk of infection by refusing to allow their child to be inoculated.

The bolded bit is not true. For a start, there are children who cannot be vaccinated due to allergies, illness, genetic disorders, etc. Secondly, the vaccine isn't 100% protective - I think it works in 99.5% if memory serves.

Those children are protected by herd immunity - if enough people in a population are immune, then the virus dies due to having no hosts to spread through. Barring unvaccinated children from school would bring the level back above where that would take effect.

More pertinently, it would force the waverers - those who are stupid and unsure and prefer to do nothing - to make a choice. Most of them, if told their child could not attend school without vaccinations, would cave pretty quickly.

Puja

99.5% is pretty good odds. I'd take that and let the allergic, queasy and genetically disordered take their chances too. Particularly the allergists. I went through my early to mid-20s as a platoon commander with a galloping allergy to rape seed just as half of Wiltshire seemed to be under the bastard stuff - and it was the fecking half that the Army wanted me to crawl through. Did I bleat? Did I feck. I just dosed myself up on industrial quantities of anti-Histamine and tried to stay awake long enough to stop myself drying out. It was a decade long hangover with none of the night before fun to get you through.

And now half of fecking Sainsburys is clogged with shyte because the lactose/dextrose/gluten/sesame/plastic/linoleum/cotton-wool-bud/glass/brasso/cider intolerant insist on being catered for. Every child should be vaccinated against everything and the vaccine should include every known allergen too.

Now, where's my van with the exhaust pipe hose?

There are 70 million people in the UK, which means 0.5% is 350,000 people. That's not including the too ill and allergic and - to clarify - too ill in this case means cancer patients, and allergic in this case doesn't mean sniffles, allergic means risk of anaphylactic shock and death.

Also, we're not talking about 350,000+ people being put at risk for any good reason, but because some science-resistant conspiracy nutters have an idea in their head and have decided to endanger others. I don't see any need to make concessions to them.

Puja

You, Sir, are an opinionated scoundrel and I agree with you with damnable violence.

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:You, Sir, are an opinionated scoundrel and I agree with you with damnable violence.

How dare you!

Puja

One of the issues here - which I understand isn't the case in the UK - is the list of required vaccines. Some of them are insane.

I completely disagree with excess vaccines. Like flu shots. They're big on flu shots over here. I've never had one in my life and, you know what, I had flu once. Wasn't nice but I didn't die nor get any lasting condition from it.

I really think there should be a nice short list of agreed upon vaccines that are seriously needed. And don't put together 6 or 7 different things to one sitting. Spread them out a bit.

But it needs to be mandatory.

Stom wrote:One of the issues here - which I understand isn't the case in the UK - is the list of required vaccines. Some of them are insane.

I completely disagree with excess vaccines. Like flu shots. They're big on flu shots over here. I've never had one in my life and, you know what, I had flu once. Wasn't nice but I didn't die nor get any lasting condition from it.

I really think there should be a nice short list of agreed upon vaccines that are seriously needed. And don't put together 6 or 7 different things to one sitting. Spread them out a bit.

But it needs to be mandatory.

Why? What's the rationale behind that?

And while flu wasn't a big deal for you, it can be for the young, the old, and the infirm. What's the downside of a flu shot? Genuine question - I don't know what side-effects have been listed.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Stom wrote:One of the issues here - which I understand isn't the case in the UK - is the list of required vaccines. Some of them are insane.

I completely disagree with excess vaccines. Like flu shots. They're big on flu shots over here. I've never had one in my life and, you know what, I had flu once. Wasn't nice but I didn't die nor get any lasting condition from it.

I really think there should be a nice short list of agreed upon vaccines that are seriously needed. And don't put together 6 or 7 different things to one sitting. Spread them out a bit.

But it needs to be mandatory.

Why? What's the rationale behind that?

And while flu wasn't a big deal for you, it can be for the young, the old, and the infirm. What's the downside of a flu shot? Genuine question - I don't know what side-effects have been listed.

Puja

I honestly cannot remember and cannot be arsed to look it up.

On flu shots, I just hate the idea of these kinda things you don't need. Like vitamin supplements when a good diet will suffice.

But at least it isn't the US...

Stom wrote:

Puja wrote:

Stom wrote:One of the issues here - which I understand isn't the case in the UK - is the list of required vaccines. Some of them are insane.

I completely disagree with excess vaccines. Like flu shots. They're big on flu shots over here. I've never had one in my life and, you know what, I had flu once. Wasn't nice but I didn't die nor get any lasting condition from it.

I really think there should be a nice short list of agreed upon vaccines that are seriously needed. And don't put together 6 or 7 different things to one sitting. Spread them out a bit.

But it needs to be mandatory.

Why? What's the rationale behind that?

And while flu wasn't a big deal for you, it can be for the young, the old, and the infirm. What's the downside of a flu shot? Genuine question - I don't know what side-effects have been listed.

Puja

I honestly cannot remember and cannot be arsed to look it up.

On flu shots, I just hate the idea of these kinda things you don't need. Like vitamin supplements when a good diet will suffice.

But at least it isn't the US...

The reason I ask is that I see "spreading them out" quite often on the internet, but every scientist I've asked about it says there's no benefit and, in fact, it can be worse because it means a longer time getting vaccinations and risking side effects, rather than just getting the done in as short a number of shots as possible.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Stom wrote:

Puja wrote:
Why? What's the rationale behind that?

And while flu wasn't a big deal for you, it can be for the young, the old, and the infirm. What's the downside of a flu shot? Genuine question - I don't know what side-effects have been listed.

Puja

I honestly cannot remember and cannot be arsed to look it up.

On flu shots, I just hate the idea of these kinda things you don't need. Like vitamin supplements when a good diet will suffice.

But at least it isn't the US...

The reason I ask is that I see "spreading them out" quite often on the internet, but every scientist I've asked about it says there's no benefit and, in fact, it can be worse because it means a longer time getting vaccinations and risking side effects, rather than just getting the done in as short a number of shots as possible.

Puja

There's probably a difference in how they're administered. But they like to put vaccines the UK and other countries don't give into the same group as essential vaccines here. So while your kid gets the necessaries, they also get pointless ones, too. But I can't remember which and I can't be bothered to find the book and translate it to English

So I'll say you're right and leave it... It's late and I'm enjoying a nice glass of red. Nice, but not amazing, unfortunately.

Influenza ravaged populations of entire countries in the early part of last century and in this day and age of globe trotting it is only constant vigilance that prevents pandemics. Vitamins are catalysts for biochemical reactions that maintain cell function in the face of stressors caused by infection. They are not antibodies nor do they regulate immune system function. The only way to confer immunity is exposure to specific antigens. Influenza viruses are constantly mutating and each season has to deal with new variants as the organism is in a constant state of antigenic shift. It is a remarkable organism and only HIV comes close to this level of antigen variation. Last year 80 000 people in the US died of the flu. It is not a cold (which is caused by adenovirus). Flu shots are a scientifically sound means of reducing the health burden and avoiding pandemics.

Not MMR but even so: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-46267038

Anti-vaccine community behind North Carolina chickenpox outbreak

belgarion wrote:Not MMR but even so: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-46267038

Anti-vaccine community behind North Carolina chickenpox outbreak

We still don't vaccinate for chickenpox in the UK.

Do people in the US still have pox parties?

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

belgarion wrote:Not MMR but even so: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-46267038

Anti-vaccine community behind North Carolina chickenpox outbreak

We still don't vaccinate for chickenpox in the UK.

Understand & know that it was more the fact that the people in that NC county can opt out on religious grounds
cos medical ones I can in a way understand but because you believe in a mythical sky being you can endanger the health
of your family & others is just fecking stupid