from the Do-we-still-have-leper-colonies? dept.
The Center for American Progress reports
According to a national analysis conducted by an employee at the Vermont-based Physicians Computer Company (PCC), the majority of U.S. pediatricians will turn away patients who refuse to vaccinate their children. The findings come on the heels of California's ongoing measles outbreak, which has renewed a broader dialogue over vaccine policy, making doctors' approach to the issue a national concern.
Chip Hart, the company's Director of Strategic marketing and principal author of the study, discovered that 54 percent of the nearly 500 practices surveyed have some vaccine requirement, and will refuse treatment to parents who don't comply.
[...]Hart [mailed] his survey out to roughly 5,000 pediatricians across the country, of which 497 responded.
[...]Considering the fact that waiting rooms are particularly high-risk environments for disease transmission, especially very contagious diseases like measles, some doctors have started refusing to accept anti-vaccine patients.
[...]among the practices that made the switch to a vaccine requirement, 58 percent lost a few patients. But 61 percent of practices received a positive reaction from the patients who remained, while only 2 percent noted a negative reaction.
Perhaps the most provocative finding involves parents' response to doctors taking a stand. Of the practices that switched to a vaccine requirement, 68 percent reported that some new families opted to comply, and 17 percent answered that many new families permitted their children be vaccinated.
Related Stories
Live Science reports
Low vaccination rates are likely responsible for the large measles outbreak that began at Disneyland in California last December, a new analysis suggests.
The researchers estimated that the MMR (measles, mumps, and rubella) vaccination rate among the people who were exposed to measles in that outbreak may be as low as 50 percent, and is likely no higher than 86 percent. Since the beginning of this year, 127 cases of measles in the United States have been linked to the Disneyland outbreak, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
"While researchers have certainly speculated that low vaccine rates might be to blame for the 2015 Disneyland measles outbreak, our study confirms this suspicion in a scientifically rigorous way," said study author Maimuna Majumder, a research fellow at Boston Children's Hospital.
Because measles is such a highly contagious virus, vaccination rates of 96 percent to 99 percent are necessary to prevent outbreaks, Majumder said.
[...]In the analysis, which was published online [on Monday (March 16)] in the journal JAMA Pediatrics, the researchers created a mathematical model using data from both the official measles case counts collected by the California Department of Public Health during the outbreak and media-reported case counts. By using these two data sources, researchers were able to capture the transmission of the virus as the measles outbreak spread beyond California.
[...]Dr. William Schaffner, a professor of infectious diseases at the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine [...] said that the measles vaccine is so effective that it had eliminated measles from the entire Western Hemisphere--which was considered a public health triumph.
Related: Most US Pediatricians Have Banned the Kids of Anti-Vaxxers
(Score: 4, Insightful) by bob_super on Friday February 27 2015, @06:05PM
Because banning a minority composed or extremists from the common space is exactly how you de-radicalize them!
I can't blame the doctors for protecting their other patients. But the sum of the reactions of self-interested individuals (both anti-vaxxers and doctors) is detrimental to the whole group.
What the great civilization we've got here!
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday February 27 2015, @06:07PM
composed *of
(Score: 2) by buswolley on Friday February 27 2015, @06:46PM
Off topic, but admins, please move a Nimoy death to the front page. Having it tomorrow would suck.
subicular junctures
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 27 2015, @07:02PM
Yeah, no shit can we get stuff up faster, its like everything goes to the back of the line and not only do I not see it on Soylent for days after it happened, but hell /. is doing a better job at getting pertinent news up faster.
Yes yes I know its so stories get spaced out, and we don't have lotsa comments on one but not on the other, but lets save the time insensitive stuff for slow news days huh guys/gals?
(Score: 2) by mrcoolbp on Saturday February 28 2015, @06:42AM
I'm on the editing team, and we admit due to the nature of this project, we can always use more talented editors and more time zone coverage.
(Score:1^½, Radical)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 27 2015, @06:49PM
or comprised by?
oh and plus one on the Nimoy comment.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Wootery on Friday February 27 2015, @06:25PM
But it apparently is working, on families who are only weakly anti-vaxx.
The way I see it, banning those that refuse vaccines for non-medical reasons sends a strong and valuable message.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Friday February 27 2015, @07:31PM
But doctors choosing not to treat children, refusing to make some accommodation, in the interest of the child, seems ripe for litigious attacks from all sides.
Is that not a more immediate form of child abuse?
The child has as much choice in the matter of vaccinations as they have about skin color.
I understand doctors getting fed up, but other doctors are rushing into danger to fight Ebola. It would seem some accommodation could be made for the children (while still financially penalizing the parents).
Kimmel invited Doctors on his show [youtube.com]. They minced no words, and threw in a few expletives. Skip to 2:50 into the video if Kimmel is not your cup of tea.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Friday February 27 2015, @08:03PM
So what form of accommodation would you recommend? And who would pay for the increased costs?
If doctors still made house calls, then your argument would be reasonable. As they don't, I want to know what kind of accommodation you believe would both protect their other patients and be acceptable...including acceptably priced. (After all, if you'll pay enough I'm sure that house calls can be arranged. I just don't believe that ANY insurance company would cover that expense.)
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Friday February 27 2015, @08:38PM
House calls seem reasonable.
Small rented consultation space (perhaps housed in hospitals, accessible by an exterior entrance), where one patient at a time is accepted, no waiting facilities, and easy to scrub down.
Anti-Vaxer Van, (Rolling medical office, perhaps leased so that each doctor doesn't have to own one).
Payment in advance, no insurance billing, the parents would have to deal with that themselves.
The point is not to deny medical treatment to an innocent child, just because their parents are idiots.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Friday February 27 2015, @09:57PM
The doctor has offered medical treatment: he's told the parents the kid needs vaccinations. The parents refused. So why do they need a doctor? Obviously, they think they know more about medicine than the doctor.
Besides, what parents are going to pay for this? They'll just find some "alternative medicine" practitioner (quack) who agrees with them on vaccinations and gives their kid "supplements" for strep throat and bronchitis and measles.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Friday February 27 2015, @10:16PM
The parents refused. So why do they need a doctor?
Because kids need doctors occasionally.
Question: Do you actually have kids?
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Sunday March 01 2015, @01:48AM
No, but that's irrelevant. You haven't answered the question: what do the parents need a doctor for? Yes, kids need doctors occasionally, but these parents have decided the doctor is incompetent, or else they would heed his advice and get the kid vaccinated. The parents have decided they know more about medicine than the doctor obviously. So why do they need the doctor?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 28 2015, @06:05PM
> Obviously, they think they know more about medicine than the doctor.
Black and white geek-logic for the fail.
The logical conclusion of that line of reasoning is that doctors are infallible.
(Score: 4, Touché) by Grishnakh on Friday February 27 2015, @09:53PM
What exactly is the point of treating these children?
The parents have already decided that they know more about medicine than the doctor. So why are they even bothering to go to the doctor? And from the doctor's point-of-view, why bother having a patient that is going to disregard all your medical advice that doesn't agree with their preconceived notions?
If you want medical advice and treatment, go see a doctor. But if you think what he's telling you is crap, and all the other doctors agree with him and you refuse to believe them too, then there really isn't any point in you seeing a doctor at all.
These doctors are absolutely right. And it's not just these doctors. My mother, when working as a hospital nurse, saw doctors refuse to treat patients many, many times. These patients were smokers, suffering from various lung problems caused by the smoking. The first thing the doctor would order them to do is quit smoking. Some of them would downright refuse, and the doctors simply refused to treat them, and told them to just go home and die. They did. If you're going to refuse a doctor's advice, then the doctor is absolutely right to refuse to help you.
As for the children, they are the legal property of their parents, and doctors cannot (unfortunately) overrule them when they make these stupid decisions. Refusing to vaccinate your kid should be grounds for having him seized by the state and put in foster care, but that's not the law right now.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Friday February 27 2015, @10:03PM
Do not confuse the the innocent child with the ignorant parent.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 28 2015, @12:17AM
It is unfortunate for the child, but since the parents ignore the doctor's advice anyway what solution do you propose? Would removing the child from the parents and placing them with carers that are actually willing to heed the doctor's advice be an appropriate solution?
(Score: 2) by LaminatorX on Saturday February 28 2015, @03:10PM
The innocent child in this scenario that the doctor is concerned with is the baby across the waiting room from the unvaccinated kid carrying measles or whooping cough. Babies can die from these things. The pediatricians would love to help the anti-vaxxers' kid too, but won't let their other patients be endangered needlessly.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Saturday February 28 2015, @11:01PM
Why do you keep explaining this Like I don't understand that?
That's not my point at all. Follow the thread.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Sunday March 01 2015, @01:33AM
The stupid parents' innocent child is a lost cause. Unless you're willing to (and can somehow convince legislators to actually enact laws to) remove these kids from the parents' care, or at least force them to be vaccinated regardless of their parents' wishes, there's nothing the doctor can do.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by hash14 on Saturday February 28 2015, @12:12AM
There is a lesser of two evils here.
Yes, it is evil on the part of the doctor to refuse medical attention and treatment to anyone. But it is far worse to allow people to raise children while having no regard for public health. The idiotic decisions of these idiot parents has far-reaching consequences for society as a whole, while the negative impact of refusing to see the children of these nitwits is limited to their immediate family. And considering how many children probably end up in the pediatrics waiting room who have legitimate medical reasons preventing them from receiving vaccinations (I forget the specific medical term, but those who have immune systems which are too weak/otherwise prevent them from receiving vaccinations), I'm sure they and their families will appreciate this as well.
There are even lesser evil or even good and wholesome solutions to the problem, such as removing children from these parents. But inasfar as what these doctors can do by themselves, this is the best.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Aighearach on Saturday February 28 2015, @03:23AM
The doctors are not assigned to the children through some sort of central system where the child has some right to see that doctor. And this is not for emergency services, this is for routine services. Under the US system, the parents are coming to the doctor as a client, and either party is well within their rights to end the relationship at any time. There is no right to go into any doctor's office and receive services.
(Score: 1, Troll) by frojack on Saturday February 28 2015, @03:58AM
Under the US system, the parents are coming to the doctor as a client, and either party is well within their rights to end the relationship at any time. There is no right to go into any doctor's office and receive services.
You must not be from the US. You can lose your licence just by turning away a gay guy with aids, or a muslim, or a black.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by MozeeToby on Friday February 27 2015, @06:26PM
You may be right, but I think you also underestimate just how transmissible measles is. One patient coming in for a high fever and rash, not knowing what they have, and suddenly every child under 1 that came through the waiting room that day needs to be quarantined for at least a week. Pediatricians' offices are practically the definition of a place you don't want unvaccinated kids hanging around because it's all but ensured kids that can't be vaccinated will be exposed.
(Score: 0, Troll) by eravnrekaree on Friday February 27 2015, @07:28PM
Good point. Many have thought that a major reason for it was that they were trying to punish anti-vaxxers, but, your point makes a little more practical sense. In once advanced western countries, Measles was eradicated, so its not all that likely that such a transmission would occur at this moment, however, measles has been making a comeback. But anti-vaxxers are not completely to blame, also to blame are absurd immigration policies which allow in people from disease infested third world countries, who could be carrying who knows what else as well.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday February 27 2015, @11:14PM
You're right! We should welcome the benefits enjoyed by populations protected from the perils of international travelers and excessive tourism.
Like Gaza and North Korea.
(Score: 2) by Aighearach on Saturday February 28 2015, @03:19AM
If they have to be "put down" for the sake of herd immunity, we deserve a vote. It would pass, is my guess. But it would be easier to just load vaccine into tranq rifles and vax them from a distance. Maybe we can build a drone for that. After all, everyone is here in the future already! http://everyoneishereinthefuture.com/two.html [everyoneishereinthefuture.com] (MEDICAL WARNING: FLASHING LIGHTS) If you make it all the way to AmishGuy2006 you'll see another plan. "We think it's just here, but it's happening everywhere."
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 27 2015, @06:28PM
I propose they go find a Dr that will accept them.
The only sad part is when someone brings measles to that waiting room Darwin will strike.
(Score: 2) by Magic Oddball on Friday February 27 2015, @08:11PM
Darwinism is when the person making an extremely foolish decision dies prior to reproduction — not when the ignorant person reproduces and kills somebody else with their foolishness.
(Score: 5, Informative) by bob_super on Friday February 27 2015, @08:25PM
Anti-vaxxers' shitty decisions remove their children from the gene pool. Direct Darwinism.
People living in a society that tolerates anti-vaxxers get some of their offsprings removed from the gene pool... Indirect Darwinism?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 27 2015, @10:05PM
Go back a lot of years and there were drive-in churches where an open air theater that was available Sunday morning got used by a preacher.
Garden Grove, CA[1] [cinelog.org]
It's still a thing in some places.
Daytona Beach, FL [topspeed.com]
Now, some enterprising physician could make a drive-in waiting room where the various patients would never have to intermingle.
Call them in via their car radios.
Have a separate exterior door for each examination room and have a sanitation procedure for e.g. door knobs.
Charge a premium for the service.
The rest of us will call it a stupidity tax.
[1] That evolved into the Crystal Cathedral which went bankrupt in 2010.
-- gewg_
(Score: 5, Insightful) by K_benzoate on Friday February 27 2015, @06:34PM
de-radicalize
You're not going to persuade the true believers that they've been wrong all along. The best you can do is use restrictions like this to keep marginally antivax parents from committing to not getting their kids vaccinated. And banning the unvaccinated at least minimizes their contact with vulnerable groups--like children who cannot be vaccinated or are too young to get their shots.
The worst part of this whole situation is you have a boneheaded decision being made by an individual which doesn't affect themselves (that'd be fine, personal freedom/responsibility) but instead harms someone else who is too young to make decisions for themselves or have a say in the matter.
Climate change is real and primarily caused by human activity.
(Score: 2) by Nobuddy on Friday February 27 2015, @07:24PM
Sounds like teaching them a region as a child as well.
(Score: 4, Informative) by K_benzoate on Friday February 27 2015, @08:21PM
Sounds like teaching them a region as a child as well.
I wish there was some way to ban that practice that didn't feel onerous and authoritarian. Sadly, there is not. There is something we could do, and that's have mandatory religion and philosophy classes in school starting as young as possible, before Junior High. Teach factual information about the world's religions; what they believe, their history, and traditions--with no commentary on the truth or falsehood of any of them. By presenting them all equally, this will undermine the claims by their parents that any one religion has a privileged position over the others.
Climate change is real and primarily caused by human activity.
(Score: 2) by tynin on Friday February 27 2015, @11:34PM
Going deeper offtopic, but when you allow this, you must also accept that their can be new religions. This leads to recursive loop of religions that further make teaching about them all factual, a huge burden at the detriment of teaching something more valuable. See TFSM. Plus I'd wager strongly that most parents wouldn't be a big fan of their kids learning of LaVeyan Satanism and how many similarities it has to how modern Christians live their lives.
(Score: 3, Informative) by K_benzoate on Saturday February 28 2015, @01:25AM
I'd wager strongly that most parents wouldn't be a big fan of their kids learning of LaVeyan Satanism
A lot of parents don't like their kids learning of evolution, and consider it pretty much Satanism already.
Climate change is real and primarily caused by human activity.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Sunday March 01 2015, @01:40AM
Good luck with that idea. What to you is "factual and unbiased" will be biased to someone else because you didn't talk about their weird little sect and talk about how their sect is correct. Worse, with some religions you could be sued for teaching about them: the Scientologists will immediately sue the schools for revealing their "trade secrets" when you tell about how they believe in Xenu and the Galactic Confederation.
(Score: 4, Funny) by Grishnakh on Friday February 27 2015, @08:29PM
What's wrong with teaching children about regions? Different regions are different; it's a simple fact. The Deep South, for instance, is very different from the Northeast in many ways, both culturally and in climate and topography. The southwest is even more different with its deserts. How can there be anything wrong with teaching children about a region?
(Score: 3, Funny) by Aighearach on Saturday February 28 2015, @03:29AM
In 6th Grade I represented my school at the State Geography Fair. I've always worried that my award would distinguish me, but I never thought I would lose access to medical care.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Friday February 27 2015, @06:36PM
Because banning a minority composed or extremists from the common space is exactly how you de-radicalize them!
I can't blame the doctors for protecting their other patients...
Which is the doctor's primary duty? Protecting their patient's health or de-radicalizing morons?
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Friday February 27 2015, @10:47PM
You have the apostrophe wrong:
patient's should be: patients'
This quote should be at the forefront of your mind today.
"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one."
Deradicalizing morons protects the vast supermajority of the doctor's patients' health, perhaps at the expense of one patient's health.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Saturday February 28 2015, @04:41AM
Great, now do you have any suggestion how a doctor, whose well-informed opinion a radicalized anti-vaxxer is already rejecting outright, could realistically attempt t de-radicalize someone? I sure don't - so with that option off the table anyway, I'd certainly prefer they do what they can to protect their more rational patients.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Saturday February 28 2015, @11:41PM
You can't de-radicalize a person. It isn't even worth trying. You can merely hope that whatever harm they do is self-focused.
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Monday March 02 2015, @10:19AM
You said:
You can't de-radicalize a person. It isn't even worth trying. You can merely hope that whatever harm they do is self-focused.
Which sounds like a good reason for keeping anti-vax kids out of surgeries.
But earlier you said, in response to someone in support of banning:
Deradicalizing morons protects the vast supermajority of the doctor's patients' health
So are you for or against keeping anti-vax kids out of surgeries?
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Monday March 02 2015, @10:13AM
It's perfectly cromulent to use the singular "patient" while still referring to patients in general.
A mechanic's job is to fix their customer's car.
A mechanic's job is to fix their customers' cars.
Both sound okay to me.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Friday February 27 2015, @10:41PM
Well, if they die off from disease, it will reduce their numbers, perhaps to the point of irrelevance.
(Score: 2) by Aighearach on Saturday February 28 2015, @03:06AM
If they stay radical but their children fail to prosper then they lose the long game.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by TrumpetPower! on Friday February 27 2015, @06:06PM
I like the spin given by the article...but I find it profoundly depressing and more than just a wee bit terrifying that a whopping 46% of pediatricians are okay with perpetuating medical child abuse and endangerment.
Worse...those same 46% are putting their vaccinated children at heightened risk of disease from all the little Typhoid Marys who come to the clinic.
It's high past time that we made it damned clear that failure to vaccinate a child is child abuse, and that parents who don't vaccinate their children are child abusers and bad parents and bad people. Child Protective Services needs to investigate each and every one of these cases, and to remove the children from these abusive situations if they can't be resolved.
(With, of course, exceptions granted in the vanishingly-small number of cases where vaccination is medically contraindicated, such as for children with certain allergies or compromised immune systems.)
b&
All but God can prove this sentence true.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Ethanol-fueled on Friday February 27 2015, @06:20PM
WUT
Well, not necessarily. other than your few genuine paranoids, many parents just don't trust our government and its relationship with big pharma. We are unlike other countries in that our government pays out whenever big pharma's vaccines cause damage. Do vaccines cause autism or brain damage? I don't know. Is fearmongering and medicalizing normal behavior used to unnecessarily push big pharma's crap onto people? Most certainly.
Think about all those unvaccinated people streaming in illegally from Mexico and South America. Where is the media concern about them? Why vilify the odd Hollywood celebrity or ultra-conservative religious parents when there is a more insidious elephant in the room, undocumented immigrants? Who will call CPS and Human/Health services on them? Or is that not politically correct?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Wootery on Friday February 27 2015, @06:39PM
WUT
No, TrumpetPower is correct. Vaccinations are not 100% effective. Exposing a vaccinated individual to unvaccinated individuals still puts that vaccinated individual at risk... just a good deal less than if he were never vaccinated.
Do vaccines cause autism or brain damage? I don't know.
Then let me enlighten you: the answer is no. There have been studies on this stuff. It's not a matter of guesswork.
Is fearmongering and medicalizing normal behavior used to unnecessarily push big pharma's crap onto people? Most certainly.
In other words, facts be damned, it simply must be a conspiracy by big-pharma.
Think about all those unvaccinated people streaming in illegally from Mexico and South America. Where is the media concern about them?
I don't know the numbers, and it's possible you're right that that's a bigger issue (though I doubt it - I understand the measles outbreaks are the result of anti-vaxxers, not immigrants), but the difference is in voluntarily propagating disease by refusing vaccination, where presumably the immigrants never had the choice.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Friday February 27 2015, @06:54PM
Also, in this case, the relevant vaccines are long out of patent protection, so there's practically no money to be made in it. That eliminates most of the motivation for a grand conspiracy by big pharma.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Friday February 27 2015, @07:07PM
I'm sure the lowest bidder is still making some sort of profit, but still, good point.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Ethanol-fueled on Friday February 27 2015, @07:08PM
Oh, really? I remember when there was a big hullabalooza about Swine Flu in teh United States, and the recommended medicine was Tamiflu.
it seems that there is not [drugs.com] a therapeutically equivalent version of Tamiflu in the United States.
And, even having not mentioned that example, when I was growing up the flu was just a necessary evil people dealt with. It sucked and it was uncomfortable and it caused lost productivity but like the common cold people expected to get over it and get on with their lives.
There was none of this "flu vaccine" bullshit that there is today.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by TrumpetPower! on Friday February 27 2015, @07:26PM
Dude...how the fuck can you be glad of the fact that people don't get the flu as often, don't die from it as much, and don't get it as bad?
And...what fucking downside has your flu-fevered imagination cooked up that you think you'd suffer from the vaccine?
I swear...people like you make me almost as sick as viruses themselves. What -- there's not enough misery in the world already that you want to perpetuate some of the worst of it?
You obviously hate civilization. May I suggest?
Leave.
b&
All but God can prove this sentence true.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Wootery on Friday February 27 2015, @07:34PM
It sucked and it was uncomfortable and it caused lost productivity but like the common cold people expected to get over it and get on with their lives.
No, you're an ignorant fool. It kills hundreds of thousands of people each year. [who.int]
And no, that's nothing new. [oxfordjournals.org]
(Score: 3, Informative) by Grishnakh on Friday February 27 2015, @08:32PM
I thought I read that the whole reason this crap came about was because Andrew Wakefield came up with some scheme to make a new, patented vaccine and wanted to discredit all the existing, out-of-patent vaccines which is why he manufactured that study.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Alyssey on Friday February 27 2015, @08:25PM
Mexican here... Did you know that vaccination is obligatory for us? No religion/beliefs/I want to reasons for us. O-BLI-GA-TO-RY
(Score: 2) by DECbot on Friday February 27 2015, @10:10PM
My wife is from South America, so I can confirm that there are obligatory vaccination for registered aliens. However, the point the GP made was that the undocumented aliens, who knows what the fuck kind of vaccinations they have? It's certainly not documented, but an increase of not-usually-seen-in-the-US types of viruses are being reported in US communities with large populations of undocumented aliens.
cats~$ sudo chown -R us /home/base
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 27 2015, @11:42PM
"Mexican here... Did you know that vaccination is obligatory for us? No religion/beliefs/I want to reasons for us. O-BLI-GA-TO-RY"
Good. All you jackasses whining about 'child abuse' when someone protects their child? This is for you. Move to Mexico. And STFU.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 28 2015, @12:05AM
OK, now you went and did it. This time you went too far!!! You just had to do it, right? What's with know-it-alls like you, injecting actual facts into an otherwise finely-crafted, ill-informed, fear-mongering, xenophobic rant? This is SN, after all, where one man's "common sense" opinion is just as good as another's thoroughly researched book larnin', dammit!
(Score: 4, Insightful) by TrumpetPower! on Friday February 27 2015, @06:39PM
Vaccines aren't perfect -- at least, not until vaccination rates get high enough for herd immunity to kick in, or, ideally, for the disease vector to go extinct.
If you've been vaccinated, you still could catch the disease. You probably won't, and it likely won't be as severe as if you hadn't been vaccinated...but you're still at risk. Your risk is "merely" (though very significantly) reduced.
Then you're an idiot.
There's absolutely zero evidence that they do, and all the fearmongering about them comes from Andrew Wakefield who fraudulently manufactured "evidence" to that effect for his own financial gain.
And, even if there was a minuscule risk -- and there most emphatically, most certainly, unquestionably is not -- the risk from the diseases prevented by vaccination is not hypothetical; it's very, very, very real. As in, real children really dying or suffering through agonizing illness or being disfigured for the rest of their shortened lives.
Ever seen an iron lung? No? Know why?
Jonas Salk's magic little sugar cube put the iron lung manufacturers out of business.
And fucking idiotic ignorant sociopaths like you who hate children want to see them come back....
b&
All but God can prove this sentence true.
(Score: 2, Troll) by Ethanol-fueled on Friday February 27 2015, @07:30PM
Hah.
I never said that vaccines were always bullshit, and that I want people to get polio, or whatever the hell it is you insinuated in calling me a sociopath.
Things are very different now than they were then. Polio was fucking serious. The flu is not. I am not saying that vaccines are bullshit, and that people can just magically beat every illness.
What I am saying is that people are not vaccinating because they don't trust big pharma or the government, which are intertwined more than they should be. Back in the polio days people cared about other people more than they care about profit. Look me in the eye and tell me with a straight face that I need a fucking flu vaccine.
Instead of blaming anti-vaxxers and calling for their lockup, perhaps we should take steps to ensure that more people trust the government and it's stances on vaccination, and not dilute the seriousness of debilitating disease by fearmongering every little bug going around -- like what is going on now.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by TrumpetPower! on Friday February 27 2015, @08:25PM
Fuck you, asshole. The fucking flu fucking kills hundreds of thousands of people every year [who.int], and sickens millions.
Indeed -- and I know exactly how we should start.
And that's by getting genocidal sociopaths like you to stop inventing and spreading lies about the safety and efficacy of vaccines.
I know there's damned little chance of shutting you up, but that's because you're the type of sick fuck who likes the fact that literally dozens of people have puked themselves to death from the flu in just the time it's taken me to type this reply.
b&
All but God can prove this sentence true.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Friday February 27 2015, @08:38PM
perhaps we should take steps to ensure that more people trust the government and it's stances on vaccination
Ethanol-Fueled actually has a good point here, if people would stop reflexively down-modding him just because they don't like some other things he says.
One really, really, really big problem in this country is that people don't trust the government. And for good reason! They send us to unnecessary wars (Vietnam, Iraq) for corporate profits, the lock us up in corporate-run prisons for profit, they ban relatively harmless drugs so they can profit with the prison-industrial complex and asset forfeiture, they murder us (especially if we're black) with their thug cops, they spy on us with the NSA, I could go on and on.
Contrast this to some European government, like maybe Iceland, Luxembourg, or Denmark. If that government said "please come to our government-run health clinics and get free vaccinations", how many people there would think this is some grand conspiracy or something? Probably none, because the governments in those countries haven't done so much to earn the distrust of their citizenry.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anal Pumpernickel on Friday February 27 2015, @09:17PM
One really, really, really big problem in this country is that people don't trust the government.
This is not actually a problem. People should scrutinize everything the government (or any authority, really) does and see if it's just or makes sense. This is how free societies can better remain free. And contrary to what you said, the governments in those other countries should not be blindly trusted either, as they are made up of people who can make mistakes or abuse their power, just like any government.
The real problem is not that people don't trust the government; it's that people blindly trust the government when it comes to certain issues (military worship, supporting the NSA's mass surveillance, etc.) and blindly distrust them on other issues. Mindless trust or distrust is what is foolish. The anti-vaxxers have a problem with mindless distrust.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Friday February 27 2015, @09:48PM
Oh please. There's a difference between scrutinizing government actions (or any authority) and completely distrusting it. Denmark is at the top of the world's quality-of-life indices (along with Norway and Sweden), and has a very strong economy and high standard of living (better than here); I'm sure people there don't harbor the complete distrust of government and police that people here do, and they aren't worse off for it. The difference is that their government is made of up people who aren't nearly as bad as the people who make up our government, so they haven't done so much to earn the complete distrust of their people the way our government has. Go into any low-income, predominantly-black neighborhood in the US, and ask people there if they trust the police.
it's that people blindly trust the government when it comes to certain issues (military worship, supporting the NSA's mass surveillance, etc.)
The military worshippers don't trust the government, they trust the military and only the military. And it's the Democrats who support the NSA's mass surveillance (it would be reversed if we had a Republican in the White House, but since the NSA is Obama's baby the GOP voters are pissed about it and the Dem voters are supporting it). But I imagine most of the anti-vaxxers probably don't fall into either camp.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Friday February 27 2015, @11:11PM
Oh please. There's a difference between scrutinizing government actions (or any authority) and completely distrusting it.
As I made clear in my comment. You should neither mindlessly trust or distrust something.
Go into any low-income, predominantly-black neighborhood in the US, and ask people there if they trust the police.
Nor should they. It's not a matter of trust, but about deciding if the government should have a certain power. Does it infringe upon our fundamental liberties or constitution? Can it easily be abused, perhaps to do that? Will it be effective (the least important question)? These sorts of questions need to be asked. Trust is mostly emotional. Logic, analysis of the effects of the proposed/existing powers, and evidence should rule the discussion.
The military worshippers don't trust the government, they trust the military and only the military.
The military is part of the government, so they do trust that part of the government. It's not a matter of "I trust the government 100%." or "I don't trust any part of the government at all." for most people, not even most anti-vaxxers.
And it's the Democrats who support the NSA's mass surveillance (it would be reversed if we had a Republican in the White House, but since the NSA is Obama's baby the GOP voters are pissed about it and the Dem voters are supporting it).
Sure, some republicans say they oppose it, but surprisingly, a lot of them are in open support of it. You would think they'd be opposed to it because Obama is in favor of it, but that partisan logic does not usually work when it comes to matters of warmongering and increasing the government's power in unacceptable ways.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Saturday February 28 2015, @03:42AM
Ethanol-Fueled actually has a good point here, if people would stop reflexively down-modding him just because they don't like some other things he says.
Totally agree here, except that I don't know how we will get them to stop (Ethanol and the anti-vaxxers) without either modding them down or teaching them about regions. Some people dislike some regions because of past racism, so the analogy is apt. (Where did the "region" typo start? I can't seem to find the fons et origio. )
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Saturday February 28 2015, @03:54AM
the fons et origio
Sorry to reply to my own post, but found it! It was nobody who first typed "region" instead of "religion". Understandable slip of the keyboard. But if nobody did it, how did it possibly show up in this thread? Hmmm, a vaccine?
(Score: 4, Informative) by Nobuddy on Friday February 27 2015, @07:27PM
then you are being willfully ignorant. No study has shown any link or even significant correlation between the two. The whole thing was started by a now disbarred/delicensed doctor who falsified data to boost sales of his own measles vaccine over MMR shots.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by c0lo on Friday February 27 2015, @10:35PM
Add Amish to your list [vox.com].
They caused (and made, as patients) more than half of the measles cases in 2014.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Disagree) by tathra on Friday February 27 2015, @06:26PM
if the parents don't consent, the pediatrician doesn't really have a choice. they can't exactly force medicine or treatments on somebody actively refusing it. the only choice they're left with is to protect their non-delusional patients by keeping the dangerous ones away.
i agree though, failure to vaccinate to vaccinate a child who can be vaccinated should be counted as child abuse, at least for vaccinations that have been around for, say, at least 50 years, since it could be argued that "controversial" vaccinations such as HPV haven't been around long enough to justify their safety or something. not that i agree with that, but not receiving the HPV vaccination doesn't put one's self and everyone else at nearly as much risk as not receiving the MMR or Polio vaccines, so not every vaccination should count as "refusal is abuse".
(Score: 4, Insightful) by TrumpetPower! on Friday February 27 2015, @06:48PM
Of course the pediatrician has a choice. The pediatrician can forbid unvaccinated children from her premises, and she can report the child abusers to Child Protective Services.
You don't seem to understand how these things work. First, there's a very specific process by which any new medical treatment gains approval for safety and efficacy. Second, childhood vaccinations are determined by a separate schedule, and new vaccines are only added to that schedule (as a recommendation for all children) after the vaccines have been available on the market for some time.
Your "50 year" rule would have killed countless children over the years and maimed many others.
There are lots of things that parents should have a choice over when it comes to the medical care of their children...but not for matters of public health and infectious diseases. It's your right to swing your fist at a punching bag all day long, but it's not your right to swing your fist at my face. And it's not your right to make your children vulnerable to infectious diseases, and it's most emphatically not your right to thereby make your neighbor's children also vulnerable to infectious diseases.
b&
All but God can prove this sentence true.
(Score: 1, Disagree) by Username on Friday February 27 2015, @06:29PM
Vaccinated children are typhoid marys, not the unvaccinated. Mary was immune to typhoid, that is how she was able to spread it. Just like all the infected vaccinated children spread disease to unvaccinated children.
Kind of annoys me that people use it backwards.
(Score: 4, Informative) by danmars on Friday February 27 2015, @06:46PM
She was an asymptomatic "healthy" carrier, not immune. This is completely different - a vaccinated child who hasn't been infected can't spread the disease, and thus is not at all like Typhoid Mary. Don't pick fights on the Internet if you don't know what you're talking about.
(Score: 1) by Username on Friday February 27 2015, @07:23PM
A vaccinated person can catch a disease and spread it. It is a perfect example of typhoid mary, even if she wasn’t immune. That’s why soldiers who may have contacted anthrax are segregated, even though they’re all vaccinated against it because they can spread the bacteria to an unvaccinated person.
(Score: 1) by Username on Friday February 27 2015, @08:48PM
PS: asymptomatic and immune are not mutually exclusive. If she wasn’t immune, you better call up britannica and NPR and have them change the definition of Typhoid Mary.
(Score: 2) by danmars on Saturday February 28 2015, @12:16AM
I was kind of going for funny here (I'm no epidemiologist myself), but that's okay. I think TrumpetPower! was just referring to people willfully spreading a dangerous disease, which seems like an apt comparison. From my understanding Typhoid Mary had been told she was spreading the disease and continued anyway, similar to how these parents are spreading measles when they should know better.
That said, if you had included a more thorough explanation of how Typhoid Mary is unlike the "infected child and willfully ignorant parent" pair, I bet you would have gotten informative mods. Care to elaborate?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 27 2015, @06:54PM
With most diseases you actually have to be sick, before you are contagious. You don't catch Measles from someone who isn't sick from measles
Well it bothers me that you are trying to correct people but you have no idea what you are talking about.
(Score: 4, Informative) by frojack on Friday February 27 2015, @06:58PM
Not exactly correct.
Typhoid Mary was an asymptomatic carrier of fairly high loads of typhoid bacteria, Salmonella typhi, probably for having had typhoid herself. (Although she denied this). She also refused to wash her hands. An Anti-washer, she was the patron saint of Anti-Vaxers.
Vaccinated children never develop that level of bacteria or virus load, because their immune system is trained to attack and destroy it.
In fact it wasn't until 2013, that researchers at the Stanford University School of Medicine announced they were making breakthroughs in understanding the exact science behind asymptomatic carriers they discovered bacteria that cause typhoid may hide in macrophages [huffingtonpost.com], a type of immune cell.
A vaccination (had they been available) would have prevented even Mary from carrying typhoid by preventing the disease an opportunity to hide.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1) by Username on Friday February 27 2015, @08:00PM
She was immune to typhoid [google.com], and an asymptomatic carrier.
I can understand that vaccinated children never become as infectious as the unvaccinated, but unvaccinated children do develop symptoms unlike typhoid mary.
Vaccinations do not make people into disinfectants.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Friday February 27 2015, @08:11PM
Vaccines aren't perfect, and some are better than others. I *believe* that measles vaccine is one of the more effective ones. There are some that don't even give ANY immunity, but merely decrease the severity of the disease. And even those are often (usually?) worthwhile.
OTOH, I'm no expert. This is just based on reading popular science articles. And some vaccines actually ARE (or were) dangerous. Some people, e.g., turn out to be allergic to horse serum. But even so tetanus shots are worthwhile.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 27 2015, @08:46PM
but I find it profoundly depressing
I find it both.
On the one hand they are taking a stand. The other they are doing, oh I dont know..., their jobs. Their jobs is to help sick people and prevent it if they can. They take an oath to do so.
Should you get your kids the shots. Sure. But the idea you can not is appealing. But *extreemly* stupid. I like the idea people can do stupid things and are not forced to do the 'right' things. We call that freedom. Unfortunately one persons freedom can be another persons persecution :(
(Score: 2) by TrumpetPower! on Friday February 27 2015, @08:59PM
Your freedoms end when they endanger the health and safety of others.
Failure by parents to vaccinate their children not only endangers their children, it endangers all those who interact with said children.
Start with child car seat laws. Should parents have the "freedom" to let their kids ride unsecured in the back of an open pickup truck? Few would grant the parents such freedom.
Now, add on the fact that it's not just their own children themselves the parents are putting at risk, and any notion of "freedom" quickly gets equated with the "freedom" to shoot a gun into the air in the middle of the city whenever you feel like it.
b&
All but God can prove this sentence true.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 28 2015, @04:42PM
I can take it further then...
I do not like what you said so you should go to jail you hurt my feelings. Feelings should not be hurt.
Freedom is just that. The freedom to do stupid things. Stupid things get you and others hurt.
I would rather have an educated population than one who lives under the thumb of what others think is 'right'.
Like I said I like the 'idea'. But in practice it is not a good thing.
Few would grant the parents such freedom
I would.
You and I will just have to disagree. Your idea of freedom is I can only do things if it does not hurt anyone else. That means I pretty much can not do anything. As every action I do has the potential to end up hurting someone either mentally or physically.
(Score: 2) by Magic Oddball on Friday February 27 2015, @08:57PM
Child Protective Services needs to investigate each and every one of these cases, and to remove the children from these abusive situations if they can't be resolved.
CPS exists to protect the immediate safety of kids, and they're already so buried in hellish cases where kids' lives are actively endangered that they routinely miss signs of serious trouble until the child is dead. To quote a recent BBC article on one toddler [bbc.com] as a sad example:
A pathologist told his inquest that the 20-month-old was beaten so hard that he was left blind minutes before he died. ... He had sustained 31 bruises to his head that medical experts told his inquest were consistent with being punched.
As enraging as the anti-vaxxers are, their kids aren't in immediate danger like that; they would be taking CPS time & resources away from kids that *really* need it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 27 2015, @06:28PM
Daddy was an anti-Vaxxer
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Username on Friday February 27 2015, @06:42PM
Hospitals are breeding grounds for disease, especially the newer antibiotic resistant bacterial ones.
Should go back to doctor housecalls.
(Score: 2, Funny) by eravnrekaree on Friday February 27 2015, @07:18PM
Great idea! The anti-vaxxers will go to anti-vaxxer pediatrician, which will completely wall off the anti-vaxxer community in an information bubble, thus making sure that no pro-vax information should ever reach them. Do these pro-vax people think that if they spit on anti-vaxxers that the anti-vaxxers will somehow be impressed and decide to switch sides? No, its going turn them away futher. Its said you get more bees with honey than vinegar. Duh.
(Score: 3, Informative) by dyingtolive on Friday February 27 2015, @08:50PM
I've literally always heard the phrase as "you get more FLIES with honey than vinegar", and you actually don't: http://xkcd.com/357/ [xkcd.com]
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday February 27 2015, @10:03PM
Great idea! The anti-vaxxers will go to anti-vaxxer pediatrician, which will completely wall off the anti-vaxxer community in an information bubble, thus making sure that no pro-vax information should ever reach them. Do these pro-vax people think that if they spit on anti-vaxxers that the anti-vaxxers will somehow be impressed and decide to switch sides? No, its going turn them away futher. Its said you get more bees with honey than vinegar. Duh.
I think I see where you are going with this and would like to subscribe to your newsletter. So, we use honey to attract all the anti-vaxxers into a small walled off area. Then, natural selection takes care of the rest.
You know, the simplest solutions really are the best!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 28 2015, @01:29AM
And they almost never work as advertised. Hint: even though these unvaccinated kids may be segregated at the doctor's office, they still interact with all the other kids on the playground. Or are you planning to put these kids and their parents into concentration camps as well?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 28 2015, @01:43AM
They've already done that themselves. Like most delusional subgroups, they only go to sites/news sources that tell them what they want to hear and stuff that reinforces their delusional beliefs. You can't get through to people who refuse to accept reality, and you can't help people who don't want to be helped.