I'm just vibrating with disgust at the notion that anyone would punish a child (or an adult who was raised by anti-vaxxers and hasn't yet caught up on vaccinations) for their parents' poor decision-making (or...for growing up some place where vaccines weren't available) by creating life-saving medicines that only worked if you'd toed the then-current vaccination line.
I mean, I never received the chicken pox vaccine as a kid because it didn't exist then, or, if it did, it wasn't available from my local pediatrician in 1980. I'd hate for that to make me "unworthy" of freedom from death by ebola.
Well, speaking of the chicken pox vaccine - if you recieved it, you can't get shingles. Whereas if you haven't, and even if you've had it, you still can.
As of today, children and those over the age of 60 (something, can't remember the exact age) get the chicken pox vax covered by insurance - they are considered the high risk category.
Everyone else? Pay out of pocket. What if you can't pay out of pocket? Well, you risk getting shingles. Which for some, can make them very very sick.
This tandem highlight brought to you by the conversation I had a few weeks ago with my girlfriends, one of which was battling shingles and one of which is a doctor. So it should also make you vibrate that the anti-vax parents are not only putting their kids health at risk (arguably), but setting them up to take a financial hit when they are of age to make their own decisions.
Well, speaking of the chicken pox vaccine - if you recieved it, you can't get shingles. Whereas if you haven't, and even if you've had it, you still can.
As of today, children and those over the age of 60 (something, can't remember the exact age) get the chicken pox vax covered by insurance - they are considered the high risk category.
Everyone else? Pay out of pocket. What if you can't pay out of pocket? Well, you risk getting shingles. Which for some, can make them very very sick.
This tandem highlight brought to you by the conversation I had a few weeks ago with my girlfriends, one of which was battling shingles and one of which is a doctor. So it should also make you vibrate that the anti-vax parents are not only putting their kids health at risk (arguably), but setting them up to take a financial hit when they are of age to make their own decisions.
/random aside
I am aware of all of this.
So the child is already punished, in this case financially.
Going back to the original subject, most of the vax's we have today were created to avoid serious injury or death. By rule, the anti-vax's rely on heard immunity, which is why more non-vax'd kids don't get sick...so why wouldn't this principle hold true for Ebola? This is my more developed line of thinking as I read this thread and continue to think about it. In summary, anti-vax's believe that the vax is either worse than the disease itself and feel "protected" by virtue of heard immunity. So why wouldn't we hold their beliefs to the same level of standard for Ebola?
I'm not fully understanding this. Tell me if this is correct. Antivaxers are assholes because they endanger their own children as well as other children by preventing herd immunity.
It is OK for "pro-vaxers" to deny access to certain vaccines if it is found that a person previously refused vaccination for a different disease.
How are the "pro-vaxers" encouraging herd immunity with this type of behavior? Wouldn't the "pro-vaxers" now be the ones encouraging the spread of preventable disease? It makes no sense even as a hypothetical argument.
So the child is already punished, in this case financially. Â
Going back to the original subject, most of the vax's we have today were created to avoid serious injury or death. Â By rule, the anti-vax's rely on heard immunity, which is why more non-vax'd kids don't get sick...so why wouldn't this principle hold true for Ebola? Â This is my more developed line of thinking as I read this thread and continue to think about it. Â In summary, anti-vax's believe that the vax is either worse than the disease itself and feel "protected" by virtue of heard immunity. Â So why wouldn't we hold their beliefs to the same level of standard for Ebola?Â
I'm not fully understanding this. Tell me if this is correct. Antivaxers are assholes because they endanger their own children as well as other children by preventing herd immunity.
It is OK for "pro-vaxers" to deny access to certain vaccines if it is found that a person previously refused vaccination for a different disease.
How are the "pro-vaxers" encouraging herd immunity with this type of behavior? Wouldn't the "pro-vaxers" now be the ones encouraging the spread of preventable disease? It makes no sense even as a hypothetical argument.
Well, my original supposition was based on a limited number of vaccines available.
So the child is already punished, in this case financially.
Going back to the original subject, most of the vax's we have today were created to avoid serious injury or death. By rule, the anti-vax's rely on heard immunity, which is why more non-vax'd kids don't get sick...so why wouldn't this principle hold true for Ebola? This is my more developed line of thinking as I read this thread and continue to think about it. In summary, anti-vax's believe that the vax is either worse than the disease itself and feel "protected" by virtue of heard immunity. So why wouldn't we hold their beliefs to the same level of standard for Ebola?
Thoughts?
You've lost me now.
I'm probably death spiraling at this point. My brain is going in 15 directions around this and none of it is probably translating from my noggin to my fingers typing these posts.
I'm not fully understanding this. Tell me if this is correct. Antivaxers are assholes because they endanger their own children as well as other children by preventing herd immunity.
It is OK for "pro-vaxers" to deny access to certain vaccines if it is found that a person previously refused vaccination for a different disease.
How are the "pro-vaxers" encouraging herd immunity with this type of behavior? Wouldn't the "pro-vaxers" now be the ones encouraging the spread of preventable disease? It makes no sense even as a hypothetical argument.
Well, my original supposition was based on a limited number of vaccines available.Â
Do you mean that if the vaccine is limited the distribution will based on past vax history? Yeah I would hope not. As much as I rage over antivaxxers, I hope it doesn't not come to that. I think they are entitled to change their minds about vaccines, and I hope they do, not just for Ebola.
(Please lol along with me for the bold red enraged. While it is accurate in depicting how I feel about it, I'm actually a pretty calm rageful person here, sipping my Dunkin. Promise.)
I get you. Promise.
Do anti-vax parents get vax's, or if they just don't want their children to have them? I mean, there's not many vax's for adults to get (unless travelling to certain countries, etc...but I'm curious what the percentage is that do vs. don't)
I wonder if an ebola epidemic hits the US, and a vaccine is made available, should the government force parents to have their kids get the vax, even if they are anti-vax (and I know it's far fetched to think ANY parent, anti-vax or not, would refuse this for their child...but pertussis is also very deadly for infants, yet parents don't give the tdap to their babies or older kids to prevent exposure to infants...)
Clearly my brain is still churning on this. The ethics behind medicine and vax's and insurance, etc is such an interesting and fascinating topic to me.
(Please lol along with me for the bold red enraged. While it is accurate in depicting how I feel about it, I'm actually a pretty calm rageful person here, sipping my Dunkin. Promise.)
I wonder if an ebola epidemic hits the US, and a vaccine is made available, should the government force parents to have their kids get the vax, even if they are anti-vax (and I know it's far fetched to think ANY parent, anti-vax or not, would refuse this for their child...but pertussis is also very deadly for infants, yet parents don't give the tdap to their babies or older kids to prevent exposure to infants...
*popping in*
my theory has always been that the reason there are so many anti-vax people is because they didn't live through/don't remember seeing people around them dying and paralyzed because of epidemics. They act all cavalier about it because they have no context and no appreciation for what vaccines have done. The 1918 flu killed up to 5% of the world's population! They don't remember seeing babies in iron lungs (edit: talking about polio here). The only thing that will change their minds is seeing their friends and family members die. It's really sad, but I can't think of how else anything will get through to them.
my theory has always been that the reason there are so many anti-vax people is because they didn't live through/don't remember seeing people around them dying and paralyzed because of epidemics. They act all cavalier about it because they have no context and no appreciation for what vaccines have done. The 1918 flu killed up to 5% of the world's population! They don't remember seeing babies in iron lungs. The only thing that will change their minds is seeing their friends and family members die. It's really sad, but I can't think of how else anything will get through to them.
Not getting a flu shot =/= being an anti-vaxxer.
Lots of people who are fully vaccinated and vaccinate their kids don't get flu shots for whatever reason, and the flu shot does not prevent catching the flu anyway.
LOL um I'm not talking about the flu shot only... I'm just saying in general that vaccines have done a lot of good, I gave the flu as an example of a pandemic. I also mentioned polio.
ETA: my point overall is that living through those types of pandemics would give you a greater appreciation for medicine as a whole.
at least in research, ethics = informed consent. consent, consent, consent. informed, informed, informed. there are high risk populations- children, pregnant women, those who can't read/understand English (if the material is in English), prisoners. I can't remember who else off the top of my head. If I were involved in the ethics behind this hypothetical situation, I'd say that the majority of people who didn't receive vaccines didn't give informed consent to opt out of vaccination, so it would not be ethical to exclude them from the theoretical vaccine that requires previous vaccines.
also, from the sciencey point of view, making a vaccine that requires a previous immune response from another vaccine is a bad plan. Because let's say the Ebola vaccine requires immunity to the chicken pox vaccine to work. In any population, there are going to be people who get the chicken pox vaccine and don't acquire immunity. So when they get the Ebola vaccine, they won't become immune to that either. Making a vaccine dependent on another vaccine shrinks the pool of people who will become immune, and that's not good.
also, from the sciencey point of view, making a vaccine that requires a previous immune response from another vaccine is a bad plan. Because let's say the Ebola vaccine requires immunity to the chicken pox vaccine to work. In any population, there are going to be people who get the chicken pox vaccine and don't acquire immunity. So when they get the Ebola vaccine, they won't become immune to that either. Making a vaccine dependent on another vaccine shrinks the pool of people who will become immune, and that's not good.
It's also a big waste of money and resources, which sadly is the more likely reason it would never happen.
also, from the sciencey point of view, making a vaccine that requires a previous immune response from another vaccine is a bad plan. Because let's say the Ebola vaccine requires immunity to the chicken pox vaccine to work. In any population, there are going to be people who get the chicken pox vaccine and don't acquire immunity. So when they get the Ebola vaccine, they won't become immune to that either. Making a vaccine dependent on another vaccine shrinks the pool of people who will become immune, and that's not good.
However, with limited resources (the vaccine), if you determined that the person was incapable of eliciting an immune responses to chicken pox vaccine, vaccinating those people to Ebola would be a waste of resources and it would make more sense to vaccinate someone who COULD mount an immune response.
also, from the sciencey point of view, making a vaccine that requires a previous immune response from another vaccine is a bad plan. Because let's say the Ebola vaccine requires immunity to the chicken pox vaccine to work. In any population, there are going to be people who get the chicken pox vaccine and don't acquire immunity. So when they get the Ebola vaccine, they won't become immune to that either. Making a vaccine dependent on another vaccine shrinks the pool of people who will become immune, and that's not good.
I'm happy you and your brain are here to contribute to this conversation
also, from the sciencey point of view, making a vaccine that requires a previous immune response from another vaccine is a bad plan. Because let's say the Ebola vaccine requires immunity to the chicken pox vaccine to work. In any population, there are going to be people who get the chicken pox vaccine and don't acquire immunity. So when they get the Ebola vaccine, they won't become immune to that either. Making a vaccine dependent on another vaccine shrinks the pool of people who will become immune, and that's not good.
I'm happy you and your brain are here to contribute to this conversation
Ok. This is exactly what I said last night! Am I missing something here?
Post by MrsPotatohead on Sept 17, 2014 13:10:40 GMT -5
I also can't really think of a situation where this would even work. In some situations having a response to a previous infection has actually been detrimental to mounting a proper response to a vaccine (one of the recent HIV vaccine trials).