Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
Why Vaccinations Shouldn't be Optional
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Zoii" data-source="post: 72452225" data-attributes="member: 391745"><p>Well they are not mandatory for certain cohorts eg neonates and the immunodeficient. But I really wish they were for the general community. Aside from the fact that adverse reactions are no different in rates to food allergies, there is still no study showing any long-term pathology - this despite concerns you raised. An unproven suspicion and then disbanding vaccines is a massive and dangerous over-reaction.</p><p></p><p>I say all this because one person getting an avoidable infection, places the life at risk of those who are not eligible to be immunised. It is why many schools and child minding centres wont accept your child unless they are immunised. Its why you cant cross the border in some countries unless you can demonstrate immunity. Not just humans either - try to get your dog into a dog-care centre un-immunised and see what happens.</p><p></p><p>Now vaccines are not a panacea. And this is where the infection triad comes in - Host - Agent - Environment. Control one and you break the cycle of infection. So we cant immunise for a good ol bout of gastro, so we control by reducing the reservoir of the Agent (eg control the amount of enterococcus in water), we lower transmission (wash your hands) we control the environment (use a fridge to store foods) and so even though the host may be vulnerable, they dont get infected.</p><p></p><p>But sanitation alone isnt enough. some organisms are transmitted by droplet infection or air. Some countries simply dont have provisions for high standards of sanitation. So we can try two things - ensure the host has immunity (and this is where vaccines come in) and try to eradicate the agent - If an agent has no host, then eradication occurs. This is precisely the tactic for polio and small-pox. But as soon as you allow one person to contract the infection, the agent continues to be propagated. Which is why so many of us in the community are frustrated with those who knowingly allow themselves to propagate avoidable communicable diseases, thus allowing the most vulnerable to be infected and develop severe morbidity.</p><p></p><p>I am pretty sure I cant change an Anti-Vaxers mind, but at least I can inform those sitting on the fence, and the least an anti-vaxer can do is make sure they isolate themselves when they are infected and not go spreading it to the vulnerable.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Zoii, post: 72452225, member: 391745"] Well they are not mandatory for certain cohorts eg neonates and the immunodeficient. But I really wish they were for the general community. Aside from the fact that adverse reactions are no different in rates to food allergies, there is still no study showing any long-term pathology - this despite concerns you raised. An unproven suspicion and then disbanding vaccines is a massive and dangerous over-reaction. I say all this because one person getting an avoidable infection, places the life at risk of those who are not eligible to be immunised. It is why many schools and child minding centres wont accept your child unless they are immunised. Its why you cant cross the border in some countries unless you can demonstrate immunity. Not just humans either - try to get your dog into a dog-care centre un-immunised and see what happens. Now vaccines are not a panacea. And this is where the infection triad comes in - Host - Agent - Environment. Control one and you break the cycle of infection. So we cant immunise for a good ol bout of gastro, so we control by reducing the reservoir of the Agent (eg control the amount of enterococcus in water), we lower transmission (wash your hands) we control the environment (use a fridge to store foods) and so even though the host may be vulnerable, they dont get infected. But sanitation alone isnt enough. some organisms are transmitted by droplet infection or air. Some countries simply dont have provisions for high standards of sanitation. So we can try two things - ensure the host has immunity (and this is where vaccines come in) and try to eradicate the agent - If an agent has no host, then eradication occurs. This is precisely the tactic for polio and small-pox. But as soon as you allow one person to contract the infection, the agent continues to be propagated. Which is why so many of us in the community are frustrated with those who knowingly allow themselves to propagate avoidable communicable diseases, thus allowing the most vulnerable to be infected and develop severe morbidity. I am pretty sure I cant change an Anti-Vaxers mind, but at least I can inform those sitting on the fence, and the least an anti-vaxer can do is make sure they isolate themselves when they are infected and not go spreading it to the vulnerable. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
Why Vaccinations Shouldn't be Optional
Top
Bottom