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)

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 It's an exhaustive topic to explain, but to sum things up, the CDC's guidelines have been out of date for lyme disease for over 20 years.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.

1
0

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

AMA delenda est. They do a fairly good job defending against junk cures... at the expense of killing off a lot of potentially useful medications and raising prices on the good stuff through the roof. Again, removing choices.

1
-1

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

Indeed. I really think we would be better off with independent organizations that would put their seal of approval on whatever they like, and people could choose to take them into account or not, like the organizations that non-gmo farms use to raise consumer confidence that they are in fact selling non-gmo foods. There are apparently several, and they all have slightly different requirements in addition to being non-gmo, like what kinds of chemical or natural fertilizer can be used, etc.