Because "Herd immunity" is a dirty word to stupid people.

[theweaselking]

“Given the increasing number of states allowing philosophical exemptions to vaccines, at some point we are going to be forced to decide whether it is our inalienable right to catch and transmit potentially fatal infections.”

Comments

[geminiknight.livejournal.com]

One of my old housemates decided to file an exception for their kid's vaccines, but then, they were dirty hippies that believed in all homeopathic whazzits and thought that the vaccines would just make you sick.

I really didn't even try to argue the point. My old housemates were...interesting.

[fearmeforiampink]

Heh. I'm suddenly reminded of homeopathic bioterrorism.

[pope-guilty.livejournal.com]

Ka-YOINK!

[ladyariadne.livejournal.com]

while i firmly do not believe that vaccines give people autism... I also believe some of them are rather inane.. such as chicken pox. The CP vaccine has taken it to a new level. Kids need to fight SOMETHING. and the CP illness is mostly a pain in the butt versus a deadly illness.

There has to a line in here somewhere so that parents have a choice. But then again I actually DO my research and dont fly off on the malady of th week handle.

[jerril]

Chicken Pox IS a deadly illness. It's just not typically fatal to children. It's EXTREMELY dangerous to my mother because she never caught it, or was until she got vaccinated. It also causes birth defects if a pregnant woman is exposed to it.

Chicken pox, being a herpes virus, can also live dormant in your nerve cells and turn into Shingles later, which really sucks and may also be linked to birth defects if a pregnant woman has an outbreak of shingles.

Necrotizing fasciitis is also a well recognized lethal complication of Chickenpox, especially in children.

[ladyariadne.livejournal.com]

the common cold can also be deadly as well in the rare cases.. but that does ot mean I would ascribe people get immunized against it..

Now your MOTHER shuld be vaccinated against it, that is true, but to the average regular run of the mill child, no, I do not feel it should be mandatory as it it is erely an inconveniance in the majority and brunt of cases.

[publius1.livejournal.com]

Chicken pox is INCREDIBLY contagious -- it spreads like wildfire -- and while it isn't necessarily fatal, it can be very dangerous for pregnant women (and the fetuses they carry) and the already infirm. Not to mention, Shingles just is NOT fun.

[ladyariadne.livejournal.com]

I never said it was not incredibly contagious nor that it was a big party. I just said it is more a pain in the butt.

And still it is truth that to the majority of people, it is NOT a big issue. To the ones that do have problems who did not get it, then yes the immunization would be good.

Chicken pox parties would be much more useful to kids then the shot.

[publius1.livejournal.com]

One other thing to understand is that sometimes, the vaccine is not about your kid. It's about preventing your child from being a carrier / disease vector of the disease, and spreading it to others.

[ladyariadne.livejournal.com]

The people who have the issues should be the ones getting the shot then.. not the kids.

Taking a vaccine which does carry risks, and in horrible diseases is a worthwhile risk, but in the case of CP, no... especially if its not, as you say, even for the child but everyone else. Let everyone else get THEIRS.

the body has to fight something and the common childhood illness should be one. It helps give you immunity against other diseases. Like cowpox in children allowed them to be immune to small pox.

[missysedai.livejournal.com]

But then again I actually DO my research

Not so much with the chicken pox research, you didn't.

[ladyariadne.livejournal.com]

why yes I have. You may say I haent, but in 39 years I have not only personal experience, expereince with my kids with it, but also a research paper... Now you may not AGREE with my views or research, and that is your choice.

[ladyariadne.livejournal.com]

heres one you can start with...

http://www.whale.to/a/ata.html


i would not base everything off that, but it gives food for thought, and you can look up other corresponding info on your own. it is out there.

[torrain.livejournal.com]

> Kids need to fight SOMETHING.

I believe that is the point of vaccines, yes.

[ladyariadne.livejournal.com]

that is exactly NOT the point of the vaccine. and to reiterate that i asked the doctor when I went in for the flu today.

the immunity protection they get from the vaccine is effective but does not have th same benefits as a naturally occuring case of CP. Bt then they are a doctor. What do they know?

[pope-guilty.livejournal.com]

I think the word here is "pwned".

[lafinjack.livejournal.com]

I'm in favor of vaccines in general, and I disagree.

[unnamed525.livejournal.com]

Obviously, if individuals have the right to life, then there is no "right to catch and transmit potentially fatal infections"; in fact, there's an obligation to do what you can to not catch said diseases.

[mirage358.livejournal.com]

Maybe I'm just a jerk, but... I can see lafinjack and ladyariadne's point. We don't have *massive* die-offs from chicken pox -- unlike with "smallpox, polio, rubella, mumps, and all that." It's a difference in scale. Smallpox is a threat to the species as a whole -- chicken pox, meanwhile, is a threat to a much smaller subset of the species. And if they die before transmitting their weak genetic structure, the species is improved.

That's not to say that shingles doesn't *suck*, hardcore. My uncle had it... not pleasant. Which means that there's a chance that later in life, I may also get it, which certainly scares me. But I still wouldn't vaccinate my children against chicken pox. From every conversation I've had with my physician, fighting a live virus without antibodies has *very* different effects on the body's immune system than fighting one with antibodies. As with many systems in the body, the immune system gets *stronger* when put under manageable stress that is outside it's comfort range and then allowed to recover... which, I submit, is what a chicken pox infection does.

As for the pregnant women? The risk is really only there if she catches chicken pox while she's pregnant. It's not just "exposure" but actually "infection." Big difference. Pregnant women who caught chicken pox early in life already *have* antibodies for it, which means -- surprise! -- she's immune, and the baby is not at risk (well, no more so than for anything else).

[pope-guilty.livejournal.com]

They don't have a point. They are ignorant. Ignorance is not a point of view.

As with many systems in the body, the immune system gets *stronger* when put under manageable stress that is outside it's comfort range and then allowed to recover... which, I submit, is what a chicken pox infection does.

It's exactly what a chicken pox vaccination does, without the inconvenience or the risk of later complications.

As for the pregnant women? The risk is really only there if she catches chicken pox while she's pregnant.

Which is an excellent argument for removing chicken pox from the society that she exists in. Which we can do with... doot-doo-doo-dee! vaccinations.

Seriously, do you people believe that vaccinations are some kind of magic chemical that does the fighting for you? A vaccination is a weakened virus of the kind being vaccinated against, permitting the body to fight it- and be able to fight it off later- without the risk of actually getting the disease. It strengthens your immune system the same way that getting sick does, except without the risk of, you know, dying.

What is with this Nietzchean shit? What doesn't kill you doesn't make you stronger- in many cases it debilitates you and makes you weaker and condemns you to a shorter and more miserable life?

And if they die before transmitting their weak genetic structure, the species is improved.

Kill yourself now before you reproduce, I don't want the stupid asshole gene propogating.

[ladyariadne.livejournal.com]

despite what the Neanderthal below has stated.. what you said is more or less how I feel as well.

vast amounts of people were not dying from CP. Cp vaccine was more or less ADMITTEDLY developed as a CONVENIENCE vaccine. in fact the first "ads" in parents magazines were pointedly about inconvenience.

another interesting thought about the recent upsurge in shingles is the widespread administering of the vaccine.. as it was pointed out in an articles i read..."The vaccine IS a live virus. Studies have documented that for a period of time after vaccination with a live virus vaccine, a person will "shed" some of that virus from their body, which may infect others. Most often, when a child comes down with chickenpox, that child stays home and is not out exposing the community for most of the time that they are infectious, but after a vaccination? Who keeps their children at home and away from older people for a couple of weeks while they may be shedding virus after being vaccinated? How is shingles provoked from shed vaccine different then shingles provoked from the wild chickenpox virus? We don't know. What about children who miss getting chickenpox in childhood because they were vaccinated...what happens when their immunity starts to wane..(which it always does with vaccines -- that's why you have to keep getting booster shots!) .will they be even more susceptible to provocation shingles?"

despite the claims certain posters are making that I am not informed, I am. i have read thoroughly on both sides of the issue... and the choice should be an individuals.. Not a herd mentality.

[torrain.livejournal.com]

> Smallpox is a threat to the species as a whole -- chicken pox, meanwhile,
> is a threat to a much smaller subset of the species. And if they die
> before transmitting their weak genetic structure, the species is improved.

You're assuming that the ability to fight off smallpox is tied to a weak genetic structure, rather than something aquired through exposure to the disease. Reference? (Or are you simply saying that it's better for anyone with a genetic cause for an immunocompromised system--for example, leukemia sufferers--to die off? Or simply be sterilized? Just so I understand where you're coming from.)

> From every conversation I've had with my physician, fighting a live virus
> without antibodies has *very* different effects on the body's immune
> system than fighting one with antibodies.

Absolutely it does! Less R&D, faster and more effective deployment.

> As with many systems in the body, the immune system gets *stronger* when
> put under manageable stress that is outside it's comfort range and then
> allowed to recover... which, I submit, is what a chicken pox infection
> does.

Like a chicken pox vaccine given to someone who has no antibodies yet. Exactly.

(I mean, unless you're suggesting that the body develops antibodies because something is *inside* its comfort range and it's just looking for something to do.)

[divinevirus.livejournal.com]

Look, about 4 years ago it was time for me to get my regular booster shots and, having had a bad reaction to my previous shots, I decided to do a bit of research and chat with my doctor about the whole thing. Now, when making an important descision, I do my research. And I decided not my get my boosters. I don't remember all the details, but here are, but having done considerable research, I can tell you a few things. Vaccines are not 100% effective. If you get vaccinated, it does not mean that you will never get the disease. Most vaccines sit around a 60-70% success rate. Some vaccines are as low as 50%, while other will actually increase your chance of getting other diseases. For example, I think the diphtheria and polio shots are always administered at the same time because one greatly increases the chance of getting the other (It's been four years, so my memory is a bit fuzy, so I can't remember which increases the chance of which). This means that vaccines will never wipe out a disease, since some people will come down with the sickness regardless of being vaccinated. Oh, and there are always the fraction of a percent of people who get the disease from the vaccination- that also keeps the disease in existence. And if you feel like citing the success of the polio vaccine during the epidemic, you might want to look at the numbers by year. You will find that polio was already on the decline before the shot was put into use. Also, some vaccines, in this day in age I am sorry to say, still uses a preservative that contains mercury. That is just stupid if you ask me. Now, if you go to your doctor, there is a document for each vaccines. I can't remember what it is called, but it contains a lot of useful facts. Such as success rate, noteworthy substances (such as the preservative that contains mercury),side effects and the percentage of people in which they manifest, and any information on known long term side effects. In most vaccines, nothing is known about possible long term side effects, because studies have not been done.
Now, I recognize that vaccines have probably done wonders for keeping our population up, and cut back some on some really horrible diseases. I won't say they are all bad, but they are certainly not all good. as pope_quilty said, vaccines are not magic. As such, they have both good and bad, and personally, I don't feel like risking unknown long term side effects (as well as some nasty potential immediate ones which, by the documentation put out by the companies which make the vaccines, happen more frequently then you would want to think) for a reduced risk of diseases I probably won't catch anyways due to herd immunity. I personally, won't vaccinate any future kids I might have against chicken pox. My final thoughts on the matter is that, like most things in modern medicine, a shit ton of more research is needed before we can truely understand whether they are beneficial and worth the risks or not.

[the-siobhan.livejournal.com]

Vaccines are not 100% effective.

People have differing immune responses. Some people their titres drop off almost immediately after exposure. Mine stay high long after most people need multiple boosters.

That's exactly why herd immunity is so important. Every individual member of the community is protected by the combined immunity of the group. The virus can't gain a foothold because those for whom the vaccine does work prevent transmission to those who are still at risk.

[ladyariadne.livejournal.com]

exactly...

and the problem with herd immunity, as they are finding out in the meat industry, is that herd immunity can have its severe drawbacks.. including making the "stock" sicker and weaker in the long run. one of the reasons people are going back to organic, for not only the over use of antibiotics but vaccines as well.

or that what they are herd immmunitying against, like tricky mother nature knows how to do, evolves into something worse that we we wont have ANY chance of having immunity over.

but hey... we dont know anything...and your research is probably just as invalid as mine because we can not remember details from years ago or keep it all these years just for the sake of them.... so good luck.