An Epidemic of Fear: How Panicked Parents Skipping Shots Endangers Us All

[DealMonkey]

Dangerous levels of ignorance are epidemic in American society today.

From ignorant and angry blow-hards at town hall meetings spouting off about health care reform before they've even seen page one of any bill, to creationists blocking efforts to teach evolution in our schools, to bible-pounding parents trying to stamp out sex education in our schools in favor of just telling our kids not to have sex, we have a serious number of people with a huge disconnect between fact and fiction. A huge disparity between what these people believe and what actually works. A pervasive, willful ignorance concerning science and intellectualism in general.

But now, these people threaten us all. A grassroots movement that opposes the systematic vaccination of children and the laws that require it is growing in America. These people are refusing to vaccinate their children for fear it causes autism, despite absolutely no credible evidence that supports this belief. As a result, diseases that were relegated to third world shithole countries are now making a come-back in America.

Consider: In certain parts of the US, vaccination rates have dropped so low that occurrences of some children?s diseases are approaching pre-vaccine levels for the first time ever. And the number of people who choose not to vaccinate their children (so-called philosophical exemptions are available in about 20 states, including Pennsylvania, Texas, and much of the West) continues to rise. In states where such opting out is allowed, 2.6 percent of parents did so last year, up from 1 percent in 1991, according to the CDC. In some communities, like California?s affluent Marin County, just north of San Francisco, non-vaccination rates are approaching 6 percent (counterintuitively, higher rates of non-vaccination often correspond with higher levels of education and wealth).

That may not sound like much, but a recent study by the Los Angeles Times indicates that the impact can be devastating. The Times found that even though only about 2 percent of California?s kindergartners are unvaccinated (10,000 kids, or about twice the number as in 1997), they tend to be clustered, disproportionately increasing the risk of an outbreak of such largely eradicated diseases as measles, mumps, and pertussis (whooping cough). The clustering means almost 10 percent of elementary schools statewide may already be at risk.

In May, The New England Journal of Medicine laid the blame for clusters of disease outbreaks throughout the US squarely at the feet of declining vaccination rates, while nonprofit health care provider Kaiser Permanente reported that unvaccinated children were 23 times more likely to get pertussis, a highly contagious bacterial disease that causes violent coughing and is potentially lethal to infants. In the June issue of the journal Pediatrics, Jason Glanz, an epidemiologist at Kaiser?s Institute for Health Research, revealed that the number of reported pertussis cases jumped from 1,000 in 1976 to 26,000 in 2004. A disease that vaccines made rare, in other words, is making a comeback. ?This study helps dispel one of the commonly held beliefs among vaccine-refusing parents: that their children are not at risk for vaccine-preventable diseases,? Glanz says.

?I used to say that the tide would turn when children started to die. Well, children have started to die,? Offit says, frowning as he ticks off recent fatal cases of meningitis in unvaccinated children in Pennsylvania and Minnesota. ?So now I?ve changed it to ?when enough children start to die.? Because obviously, we?re not there yet.?

http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/10/ff_waronscience

Ignorance is a dangerous thing. These people are dangerous people. They believe things simply because they do. There is no logic here. No reasoning. Just pure magical thinking. I think it's time to stop coddling these people. They must be marginalized, discredited and stopped from reversing the progress we've made in this country by any means necessary.

 

[OCGuy]

I like how you have to throw in a jab at people who dont want a bloated health spending bill. :roll:

Sorry, I cant take the rest of your post seriously after that.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: OCguy
I like how you have to throw in a jab at people who dont want a bloated health spending bill. :roll:

Sorry, I cant take the rest of your post seriously after that.

Good point, OCguy. I opened the dictionary and under the entry for "ignorance" was some old angry jackass waving his fist at a town hall, meanwhile his prescriptions paid for by medicare were waiting to be picked up at the pharmacy. But I guess you're right, that dude was probably more informed about how the final legislation would play out than any of us ever hope to be.

 

[Genx87]

I'd say one of the bigger movements against Vaccinations are those associated with Autism. Somehow people are associating vaccinations with triggering Autism.

 

[cubeless]

what a joke... 2%? that's some small fraction of the illegal's kids... let's see some demographics for us evil racist types... not going to go looking for it, but saw something that showed that tb and such are being reintroduced by undocumented types...

and 'no medical proof'? a few years back that crowd was sure the 'evil humours' caused disease... i wonder what they will know in another decade or so about all of the shit that's going around today...

 

[daishi5]

Just to be clear, you support a law that will require parents to submit their children to a medical procedure/injection of foreign material against the parent's wishes? I understand the benefits, but I thought parents were the guardians of their children, not the state. I thought the government did not have the right to control someone's body, or does that argument only apply for abortions, and now that it is not about abortions the right to the sanctity of one's body is no longer allowed?

Just to be clear, I am aware there are some agent issues because the parents are deciding for the children, but if we can force parents to have their children vaccinated, why can't we force women to carry babies to term? If the vaccine does harm the child, should the parents be forced to pay the extra support costs, monetary and otherwise?

Basically this comes down to whether or not the government should be able to control decisions about peoples bodies, for years the answer has been no, what is different about this?

 

[Newfie]

Originally posted by: Genx87
I'd say one of the bigger movements against Vaccinations are those associated with Autism. Somehow people are associating vaccinations with triggering Autism.

That movement is a joke. There is no scientific basis to back a link between vaccines and autism (thimerosal included) and sadly people, mostly children, are going to pay the price for such ignorance.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: daishi5
Just to be clear, you support a law that will require parents to submit their children to a medical procedure/injection of foreign material against the parent's wishes? I understand the benefits, but I thought parents were the guardians of their children, not the state. I thought the government did not have the right to control someone's body, or does that argument only apply for abortions, and now that it is not about abortions the right to the sanctity of one's body is no longer allowed?

Just to be clear, I am aware there are some agent issues because the parents are deciding for the children, but if we can force parents to have their children vaccinated, why can't we force women to carry babies to term? If the vaccine does harm the child, should the parents be forced to pay the extra support costs, monetary and otherwise?

Basically this comes down to whether or not the government should be able to control decisions about peoples bodies, for years the answer has been no, what is different about this?

Try weighing your concerns against the very real possibility of a gnarly disease outbreak that only happens because parents are too ignorant to get their kids vaccinated. I'd rather not get polio, only because you believe you have a right not to properly vaccinate your kids.

As Spock would say, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: daishi5
Just to be clear, you support a law that will require parents to submit their children to a medical procedure/injection of foreign material against the parent's wishes? I understand the benefits, but I thought parents were the guardians of their children, not the state. I thought the government did not have the right to control someone's body, or does that argument only apply for abortions, and now that it is not about abortions the right to the sanctity of one's body is no longer allowed?

Just to be clear, I am aware there are some agent issues because the parents are deciding for the children, but if we can force parents to have their children vaccinated, why can't we force women to carry babies to term? If the vaccine does harm the child, should the parents be forced to pay the extra support costs, monetary and otherwise?

Basically this comes down to whether or not the government should be able to control decisions about peoples bodies, for years the answer has been no, what is different about this?

Try weighing your concerns against the very real possibility of a gnarly disease outbreak that only happens because parents are too ignorant to get their kids vaccinated. I'd rather not get polio, only because you believe you have a right not to properly vaccinate your kids.

As Spock would say, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

Just remember that when lastday rolls around and your life clock starts to blink red.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Newfie

Originally posted by: Genx87
I'd say one of the bigger movements against Vaccinations are those associated with Autism. Somehow people are associating vaccinations with triggering Autism.

That movement is a joke. There is no scientific basis to back a link between vaccines and autism (thimerosal included) and sadly people, mostly children, are going to pay the price for such ignorance.

I understand that but they have convinced millions of parents of this link.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: daishi5
Just to be clear, you support a law that will require parents to submit their children to a medical procedure/injection of foreign material against the parent's wishes? I understand the benefits, but I thought parents were the guardians of their children, not the state. I thought the government did not have the right to control someone's body, or does that argument only apply for abortions, and now that it is not about abortions the right to the sanctity of one's body is no longer allowed?

Just to be clear, I am aware there are some agent issues because the parents are deciding for the children, but if we can force parents to have their children vaccinated, why can't we force women to carry babies to term? If the vaccine does harm the child, should the parents be forced to pay the extra support costs, monetary and otherwise?

Basically this comes down to whether or not the government should be able to control decisions about peoples bodies, for years the answer has been no, what is different about this?

Try weighing your concerns against the very real possibility of a gnarly disease outbreak that only happens because parents are too ignorant to get their kids vaccinated. I'd rather not get polio, only because you believe you have a right not to properly vaccinate your kids.

As Spock would say, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

If you get polio because somebody else wasnt vaccinated. Doesnt that indicate you werent vaccinated as well? ;

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: daishi5
Just to be clear, you support a law that will require parents to submit their children to a medical procedure/injection of foreign material against the parent's wishes? I understand the benefits, but I thought parents were the guardians of their children, not the state. I thought the government did not have the right to control someone's body, or does that argument only apply for abortions, and now that it is not about abortions the right to the sanctity of one's body is no longer allowed?

Just to be clear, I am aware there are some agent issues because the parents are deciding for the children, but if we can force parents to have their children vaccinated, why can't we force women to carry babies to term? If the vaccine does harm the child, should the parents be forced to pay the extra support costs, monetary and otherwise?

Basically this comes down to whether or not the government should be able to control decisions about peoples bodies, for years the answer has been no, what is different about this?

Try weighing your concerns against the very real possibility of a gnarly disease outbreak that only happens because parents are too ignorant to get their kids vaccinated. I'd rather not get polio, only because you believe you have a right not to properly vaccinate your kids.

As Spock would say, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

If you get polio because somebody else wasnt vaccinated. Doesnt that indicate you werent vaccinated as well? ;

Shut up! This is no place for logic!!!

 

[Moonbeam]

This is the story of Fox News writ small. The average person,, bless his heart, is intellectually vacant with undeveloped reasoning skills, but filled like almost everybody with fear. That fear, that basic paranoia, the inability to feel the past, to know the origins of terror in childhood, causes folk to project their fears out there on the unknown.

What can you do. Simply put, people are mentally deficient in reasoning skills and can't do simple things like properly analyze risk. Some fuck head who wants to make money can come along, like fox news and every other manner of charlatan and sell them a book or a cable channel and play upon these hapless fools, and to the destruction of the general welfare. Ideally, I suppose, they should simply be exterminated as parasites feeding on and amplifying the already tremendous level of paranoia out there, because they are a kind of cancer. But we civilized beings pretend we are above that sort of thing, naturally until we have a Nazi Germany on the march somewhere and we fire bomb their cities killing thousands and millions. Then of course, after the psychosis has blossomed and millions are dead, we finally become just like them.

Alternatively you can try to tell people their self hate, their childhood trauma is the source of this evil, but good luck with that. People would rather kill such a messenger than heed that advise.

You can focus down the message, say try to teach how vaccines save so many more lives than they risk, but you can't tell the insane anything. Try telling Republicans, for example, they are the party of death. Good luck with that too.

An other answer is for those who actually can think to lead those who can't and make it illegal not to get vaccinated for various diseases, the penalty, say being death, since that is what not getting vaccinated may very well mean for others.

Or, we could simply expose everybody to deadly viruses and eliminate those unvaccinated from the population.

So we see that we are a mentally ill society and there is nothing at all that we can do to fix it that anybody in his trained sheep mode will permit. The truth is rather ugly, no?

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Newfie

Originally posted by: Genx87
I'd say one of the bigger movements against Vaccinations are those associated with Autism. Somehow people are associating vaccinations with triggering Autism.

That movement is a joke. There is no scientific basis to back a link between vaccines and autism (thimerosal included) and sadly people, mostly children, are going to pay the price for such ignorance.

I understand that but they have convinced millions of parents of this link.

Tens of millions of people also think Sarah Palin is the answer to their problems.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Newfie

Originally posted by: Genx87
I'd say one of the bigger movements against Vaccinations are those associated with Autism. Somehow people are associating vaccinations with triggering Autism.

That movement is a joke. There is no scientific basis to back a link between vaccines and autism (thimerosal included) and sadly people, mostly children, are going to pay the price for such ignorance.

I understand that but they have convinced millions of parents of this link.

Tens of millions of people also think Sarah Palin is the answer to their problems.

Ok???????

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: shiner

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: daishi5
Just to be clear, you support a law that will require parents to submit their children to a medical procedure/injection of foreign material against the parent's wishes? I understand the benefits, but I thought parents were the guardians of their children, not the state. I thought the government did not have the right to control someone's body, or does that argument only apply for abortions, and now that it is not about abortions the right to the sanctity of one's body is no longer allowed?

Just to be clear, I am aware there are some agent issues because the parents are deciding for the children, but if we can force parents to have their children vaccinated, why can't we force women to carry babies to term? If the vaccine does harm the child, should the parents be forced to pay the extra support costs, monetary and otherwise?

Basically this comes down to whether or not the government should be able to control decisions about peoples bodies, for years the answer has been no, what is different about this?

Try weighing your concerns against the very real possibility of a gnarly disease outbreak that only happens because parents are too ignorant to get their kids vaccinated. I'd rather not get polio, only because you believe you have a right not to properly vaccinate your kids.

As Spock would say, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

If you get polio because somebody else wasnt vaccinated. Doesnt that indicate you werent vaccinated as well? ;

Shut up! This is no place for logic!!!

Actually, there's no illogic there. Vaccines aren't 100% effective (though the polio vaccine is about as good as they come). A small percentage of those vaccinated for polio can still contract the disease if exposed to an infected person.

Edit: Another factor to consider is that some individuals are allergic to some component of the vaccine and therefore can't receive it.

Thus, those who are able to be vaccinated but refuse place others in danger.

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: shiner

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: daishi5
Just to be clear, you support a law that will require parents to submit their children to a medical procedure/injection of foreign material against the parent's wishes? I understand the benefits, but I thought parents were the guardians of their children, not the state. I thought the government did not have the right to control someone's body, or does that argument only apply for abortions, and now that it is not about abortions the right to the sanctity of one's body is no longer allowed?

Just to be clear, I am aware there are some agent issues because the parents are deciding for the children, but if we can force parents to have their children vaccinated, why can't we force women to carry babies to term? If the vaccine does harm the child, should the parents be forced to pay the extra support costs, monetary and otherwise?

Basically this comes down to whether or not the government should be able to control decisions about peoples bodies, for years the answer has been no, what is different about this?

Try weighing your concerns against the very real possibility of a gnarly disease outbreak that only happens because parents are too ignorant to get their kids vaccinated. I'd rather not get polio, only because you believe you have a right not to properly vaccinate your kids.

As Spock would say, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

If you get polio because somebody else wasnt vaccinated. Doesnt that indicate you werent vaccinated as well? ;

Shut up! This is no place for logic!!!

Actually, there's no illogic there. Vaccines aren't 100% effective (though the polio vaccine is about as good as they come). A small percentage of those vaccinated for polio can still contract the disease if exposed to an infected person.

Well yeah, but the odds are against it.

Jeez...thanks for spoiling the fun Sammy Spoilerson!

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: shiner

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: shiner

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: daishi5
Just to be clear, you support a law that will require parents to submit their children to a medical procedure/injection of foreign material against the parent's wishes? I understand the benefits, but I thought parents were the guardians of their children, not the state. I thought the government did not have the right to control someone's body, or does that argument only apply for abortions, and now that it is not about abortions the right to the sanctity of one's body is no longer allowed?

Just to be clear, I am aware there are some agent issues because the parents are deciding for the children, but if we can force parents to have their children vaccinated, why can't we force women to carry babies to term? If the vaccine does harm the child, should the parents be forced to pay the extra support costs, monetary and otherwise?

Basically this comes down to whether or not the government should be able to control decisions about peoples bodies, for years the answer has been no, what is different about this?

Try weighing your concerns against the very real possibility of a gnarly disease outbreak that only happens because parents are too ignorant to get their kids vaccinated. I'd rather not get polio, only because you believe you have a right not to properly vaccinate your kids.

As Spock would say, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

If you get polio because somebody else wasnt vaccinated. Doesnt that indicate you werent vaccinated as well? ;

Shut up! This is no place for logic!!!

Actually, there's no illogic there. Vaccines aren't 100% effective (though the polio vaccine is about as good as they come). A small percentage of those vaccinated for polio can still contract the disease if exposed to an infected person.

Well yeah, but the odds are against it.

Jeez...thanks for spoiling the fun Sammy Spoilerson!

There hasn't been a case of naturally-occurring polio in the U.S. since 1979, so the risks are essentially non-existent for THAT disease. But for other infectious agents such as HPV, the odds are extremely good that a chain of non-vaccinated individuals will infect innocent victims, who will later contract the disease.

 

[piasabird]

There is no way that any of this health care reform is going to save any money or be any cheaper than before. One way or another you are going to pay for your health care. It may be higher taxes or the employers may have to pay fees to the feds. There is no way in hell the federal government beuracracy is going to save taxpayers money.

No Way!

No Hell!

Hell No!

Live in the real world!

 

[BarrySotero]

The gov wouldn't shut the borders/Mexico travel when other countries did (Cuba, Venezuela, China etc) - now they want people to take the situation more serious than they did.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: piasabird
There is no way that any of this health care reform is going to save any money or be any cheaper than before. One way or another you are going to pay for your health care. It may be higher taxes or the employers may have to pay fees to the feds. There is no way in hell the federal government beuracracy is going to save taxpayers money.

No Way!

No Hell!

Hell No!

Live in the real world!

And you believe that because you believe it, without a shred of evidence. Am I right?

 

[leingod86]

http://www.jennymccarthybodyco...y_Body_Count/Home.html

The reason vaccination should be required in the healthy is because there are a select few out there who cannot take vaccinations for one reason or another. They would be susceptible to diseases that unvaccinated children could catch and pass on. There is something called "herd immunity" which is the result of general population vaccination. The "herd immunity" protects those who are unable to be vaccinated. However, this anti-vaccination movement threatens that immunity and puts a lot of kids at risk.

 

[daishi5]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: daishi5
Just to be clear, you support a law that will require parents to submit their children to a medical procedure/injection of foreign material against the parent's wishes? I understand the benefits, but I thought parents were the guardians of their children, not the state. I thought the government did not have the right to control someone's body, or does that argument only apply for abortions, and now that it is not about abortions the right to the sanctity of one's body is no longer allowed?

Just to be clear, I am aware there are some agent issues because the parents are deciding for the children, but if we can force parents to have their children vaccinated, why can't we force women to carry babies to term? If the vaccine does harm the child, should the parents be forced to pay the extra support costs, monetary and otherwise?

Basically this comes down to whether or not the government should be able to control decisions about peoples bodies, for years the answer has been no, what is different about this?

Try weighing your concerns against the very real possibility of a gnarly disease outbreak that only happens because parents are too ignorant to get their kids vaccinated. I'd rather not get polio, only because you believe you have a right not to properly vaccinate your kids.

As Spock would say, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

Ok, again playing devils advocate. You believe it is ok to trample on the rights of the few to protect the many? Just for example, lets pretend we can save 1,000 lives every year by preventatively jailing a small % of the minority population that incite the rest around them to violent crimes. Would you support trampling that small number of peoples rights? Just for arguments sake, the number of people whose rights are trampled are half the number of people who refuse to get their children vaccinated, and I think 1,000 lives is more lives saved than you would save with forced vaccinations vs the programs we have in place now.

If you don't support this, can I ask which rights you believe are inviolate even in the face of the greater good, and which can be thrown aside when the greater good can be proven?

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: daishi5

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: daishi5
Just to be clear, you support a law that will require parents to submit their children to a medical procedure/injection of foreign material against the parent's wishes? I understand the benefits, but I thought parents were the guardians of their children, not the state. I thought the government did not have the right to control someone's body, or does that argument only apply for abortions, and now that it is not about abortions the right to the sanctity of one's body is no longer allowed?

Just to be clear, I am aware there are some agent issues because the parents are deciding for the children, but if we can force parents to have their children vaccinated, why can't we force women to carry babies to term? If the vaccine does harm the child, should the parents be forced to pay the extra support costs, monetary and otherwise?

Basically this comes down to whether or not the government should be able to control decisions about peoples bodies, for years the answer has been no, what is different about this?

Try weighing your concerns against the very real possibility of a gnarly disease outbreak that only happens because parents are too ignorant to get their kids vaccinated. I'd rather not get polio, only because you believe you have a right not to properly vaccinate your kids.

As Spock would say, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

Ok, again playing devils advocate. You believe it is ok to trample on the rights of the few to protect the many? Just for example, lets pretend we can save 1,000 lives every year by preventatively jailing a small % of the minority population that incite the rest around them to violent crimes. Would you support trampling that small number of peoples rights? Just for arguments sake, the number of people whose rights are trampled are half the number of people who refuse to get their children vaccinated, and I think 1,000 lives is more lives saved than you would save with forced vaccinations vs the programs we have in place now.

If you don't support this, can I ask which rights you believe are inviolate even in the face of the greater good, and which can be thrown aside when the greater good can be proven?

I'm not going to get bogged down with hypothetical situations that do not relate to vaccination compliance, since this is the narrow focus of this thread. Arresting minorities or whatever is hardly what this thread is about.

Basically, I feel this is a policy question best left up to the CDC to determine. If an epidemic is imminent because ignorant parents are refusing to vaccinate their kids, then perhaps moving to a stricter policy is warranted and I would indeed support this action. You have to understand, I'm more perturbed and bothered by the extreme levels of ignorance behind this movement than I am concerned about a specific outbreak, although it remains a very real possibility if this continues.

 

[woodie1]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: piasabird
There is no way that any of this health care reform is going to save any money or be any cheaper than before. One way or another you are going to pay for your health care. It may be higher taxes or the employers may have to pay fees to the feds. There is no way in hell the federal government beuracracy is going to save taxpayers money.

No Way!

No Hell!

Hell No!

Live in the real world!

And you believe that because you believe it, without a shred of evidence. Am I right?

Do you really believe that providing UHC to most of the uninsured is going to happen and we taxpayers are not going to pay for it in any way shape or form?

Good luck with that!