You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

1
-1

[–] metawizard 1 points -1 points (+0|-1) ago  (edited ago)

The safer ones are closer to the positive side of the scale, and you're right that they do have that information, if you really dig into the topic, but the political rhetoric is generally that nothing will go wrong and vaccines are absolutely infallible, and the bigger problem is that so many people buy into that mentality. Then they go out and vote. As a result, a considerably large portion of the population wants to make vaccines mandatory. There are edge cases that these people will never consider, and in the end, people get hurt as a result.

1
0

[–] o0shad0o 1 points 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

I'm going to get a bit convoluted here, so please bear with me.

Let's make the assumption that vaccines are largely effective, and not just a money-making conspiracy as some alledge. Given that, there are some strong arguments for mandatory immunization. Ring immunization is a thing; and also, the best way to breed diseases that bypass current immunizations is to put a mix of sick and immunized kids together.

Still, I'm an individualist, and I believe people should be allowed to make their own choices, and choose for their dependents.

The easiest way to fix the problem would be to have some schools mandate immunization, and others not. This would let people have the choice of immunizing their kids and sending them to one school, or to avoid it and school them separately, or homeschool them.

And here's where the government causes problems, by having public scools and area-wide mandates and by taking kids away from anti-vax parents and parents who homeschool their children.

Got any other suggestions on how to fix the problem?

1
-1

[–] metawizard 1 points -1 points (+0|-1) ago  (edited ago)

One could calculate the risks associated with mixing vaccinated and unvaccinated children, considering aspects like how well herd immunity will protect everyone, how risky an actual infection (is the specific disease something closer to the common cold or cancer?), and we could account for how easy or difficult the disease is to currently treat, success rates of such treatments and possible lingering effects. If we account for enough factors, I think we could afford to mix vaccinated and unvaccinated children.

I looked into some statistics a while ago, and close to 90% of the population gets the important ones. Some are close to 75%, but it was almost always between 75% and 95% for each one that I looked up. The lower rates were things like mild flu vaccines, and things like the hpv vaccine were closer to 90%. It's different for each disease of course, but 75% - 95% vaccination rates are usually more than high enough to prevent an epidemic.

I'm glad you believe in preserving the choice involved. That's a big part of it for me too. I don't really trust the government, and my mistrust has spread to the CDC as well, in part because of my experience with lyme disease. It's an exhaustive topic to explain, but to sum things up, the CDC's guidelines have been out of date for lyme disease for over 20 years. They've actively resisted updates despite new science. And they recommend 6 weeks of doxycycline to cure it. If it comes back, they'll tell you it's post-treatment lyme disease syndrome.

We've had evidence since the early 90's that the parasites can be found in the host after treatment. We've had evidence since the mid 90's that doxycycline does not kill it. It causes a shift to a dormant cyst form (which the CDC still doesn't acknowledge exists). They don't acknowledge that it can reinfect hosts, despite how common this is, and all of the science that backs it up. And the current recommended treatment varies a lot. It's a complicated disease, but generally it involves at least 2-4 different antibiotics being taken simultaneously, addressing all 3 morphological forms of borrelia along with coinfections for 3 months to 3 years depending on the specifics of each case. Doctors are being dragged to court over the antibiotic usage, and even having their medical licenses revoked. And researchers have come forward saying they were confronted by the CDC to change their findings on lyme, to alter the data and lie, and it's pretty obvious when you really get in depth with it. You end up with clear patterns of contradictory data. There is a lot to it; as I said, it's an exhaustive topic, but it goes well beyond what incompetence could possibly account for.

Kind of went off on a tangent there, but I think we would find that the risks associated with unvaccinated and vaccinated children attending the same school are largely blown out of proportion. And for a lot of things, like lyme disease, malaria, dengue fever, the zika virus, etc, all the scary things we like to avoid, I think we'll come up with some innovative ways of preventing initial infections without involving vaccines (in humans at least). We could design a virus that kills borrelia for example, and only borrelia. Once the borrelia become rare enough, the virus would go extinct. We'd have to find a way of error correcting or include an inbuilt method of self devitalization in the event of a mutation to reduce the risk of harmful mutations becoming a problem themselves, but I think that's an obstacle that we'll conquer in the very near term.