Immunisation, right or wrong?

[sptrawler]

It seems to have become topical again, do you immunise your children, or not.
I had all our children immunised and all our children have taken it on board and immunised the grandchildren.

In todays world, where travel to countries that still have issues with deseases like polio, is common place.
I wonder, how many young adults are exposing themselves to deseases, that they are not immune to?
The really weird thing is, they might not even know they could become infected.

 

[johenmo]

Yes. Immunisation has eradicated smallpox and greatly reduced the incidence of many formerly debilitating or lethal diseases/conditions. Think polio, diptheria, whooping cough,Measles, rubella, mumps, tetanus, TB, meningococcal disease and now Hep B.T here is a risk with (some) vaccines, esp. if it is a live vaccine.

Our kids were immunised. Unless there is a medical reason (e.g. condition) that would render the person high risk then it should be compulsory. Anything else is negligence in this era of quick international travel.

 

[sptrawler]

Yes. Immunisation has eradicated smallpox and greatly reduced the incidence of many formerly debilitating or lethal diseases/conditions. Think polio, diptheria, whooping cough,Measles, rubella, mumps, tetanus, TB, meningococcal disease and now Hep B.T here is a risk with (some) vaccines, esp. if it is a live vaccine.

Our kids were immunised. Unless there is a medical reason (e.g. condition) that would render the person high risk then it should be compulsory. Anything else is negligence in this era of quick international travel.

I agree with you, I jut can't understand the basis for not immunising. They say 1 in 10,000 have a bad reaction, but they fail to say the probabilty of getting the desease without immunisation.
As per usual, getting balanced information is near on impossible.

 

[Some Dude]

As per usual, getting balanced information is near on impossible.

What would you characterise as balanced information in this context?

 

[sails]

What would you characterise as balanced information in this context?

That sounds like one of those boring schoolteacher questions they set out for assignments.

Anyway, why do you need to have it spelled out? I had no problem understanding what Sptrawler meant.

 

[sptrawler]

What would you characterise as balanced information in this context?

I suppose balanced information, would be not only telling parents the chances of a bad reaction.
But also telling parents the risk to their children, if later in life they visit countries that deseases are still widespread.
What would you think is balanced information?

 

[Some Dude]

That sounds like one of those boring schoolteacher questions they set out for assignments.

Anyway, why do you need to have it spelled out? I had no problem understanding what Sptrawler meant.

And that sounds like one of those "I can't be bothered putting any thought into it, can't you simply just agree with us and then we will let you hang out with the cool kids" type answers.

 

[Some Dude]

I suppose balanced information, would be not only telling parents the chances of a bad reaction.
But also telling parents the risk to their children, if later in life they visit countries that deseases are still widespread.
What would you think is balanced information?

I am not sure. Vaccination seems to be such an overwhelmingly positive thing that it made me wonder how one would be able to categorise information against it as balanced. I remember when my wife was getting pain relief for having one of our kids and the doctor was saying "blah blah blah 1 in 200 chance of something going wrong" (Warning: made that stat up) and I pondered the odds for a moment and wondered how many people said "Ahh no thanks" while their wife was screaming away in pain.

But your right in the sense that at least being given the actual statistical odds would be helpful but I also think that people would simply contest those numbers, leading to the question being shuffled down the information chain.

Still pondering, will add more once I have thought about it some more.

 

[Smurf1976]

What would you characterise as balanced information in this context?

I'd say it's information which states the benefits and risks of immunising whilst also stating the benefits and risks of not immunising.

All too often we see an argument against some practice pointing to risks but without mentioning what other risks are created by not doing it.

So far as I'm aware, there is a risk associated with immunisation but that is lower than the risks associated with not being immunised. Only presenting one side of the story would distort decision making.

 

[Some Dude]

I'd say it's information which states the benefits and risks of immunising whilst also stating the benefits and risks of not immunising.

All too often we see an argument against some practice pointing to risks but without mentioning what other risks are created by not doing it.

So far as I'm aware, there is a risk associated with immunisation but that is lower than the risks associated with not being immunised. Only presenting one side of the story would distort decision making.

Do you think there are things, statistical levels, etc. whereby it no longer becomes something that would, should, (something) be considered as balanced if it was being labelled as such? I'm thinking about if the principle was applied to everything, not just vaccinations. i.e. eveything you open a plastic bottle, drive a car, drink tap water, etc.

While I understand it is beneficial to know some of that information, having it spelled out like that can often ignite a fear or irrational reaction that wasn't there before. I'm not saying that is an argument for not doing it, just pondering the general principle involved and thresh-holds that we apply for other things.

 

[sptrawler]

Do you think there are things, statistical levels, etc. whereby it no longer becomes something that would, should, (something) be considered as balanced if it was being labelled as such? I'm thinking about if the principle was applied to everything, not just vaccinations. i.e. eveything you open a plastic bottle, drive a car, drink tap water, etc.

While I understand it is beneficial to know some of that information, having it spelled out like that can often ignite a fear or irrational reaction that wasn't there before. I'm not saying that is an argument for not doing it, just pondering the general principle involved and thresh-holds that we apply for other things.

I suppose a young person who comes back from a backpacking holiday around the world, then finds out he/she has contracted one of the nasty diseases, will ask the question.
I suppose the parent defering the decission is leaving the child with the consequences, not intentionally but unintentionally.

 

[Some Dude]

I suppose a young person who comes back from a backpacking holiday around the world, then finds out he/she has contracted one of the nasty diseases, will ask the question.

It would be interesting if people travelling also got the statistical information indicating how many people who went overseas contracted something.

I heard (completely disconnected story source so no idea about whether it happened) about some parents who decided not to get their children immunised because they believed in herd immunity and developing immunity naturally from the community. They then went over to India and the children contracted Polio.

In those types of cases I can see what you mean. All of the pertinent odds would make for a better choice instead of simply ignoring what people don't usually think about.

 

[sptrawler]

It would be interesting if people travelling also got the statistical information indicating how many people who went overseas contracted something.

I heard (completely disconnected story source so no idea about whether it happened) about some parents who decided not to get their children immunised because they believed in herd immunity and developing immunity naturally from the community. They then went over to India and the children contracted Polio.

In those types of cases I can see what you mean. All of the pertinent odds would make for a better choice instead of simply ignoring what people don't usually think about.

They say polio is making a comeback.
http://globalbiodefense.com/2012/05/23/who-to-declare-polio-resurgence-a-global-health-emergency/

Hope the parents concerned about vacine reaction, can cope with the real deal.

What worries me more, is young people who take it for granted they are immunised and travel thinking they are immune. Unless of course the parents fully informed them, which one would think they would.

 

[johenmo]

They say polio is making a comeback.

What worries me more, is young people who take it for granted they are immunised and travel thinking they are immune. Unless of course the parents fully informed them, which one would think they would.

SBS last night. Measles making a comeback in UK (Liverpool was mentioned). 600 cases in one year - 12 deaths in that year (about 10 years ago?). Showed a young adult in hospital with breathing difficulties. So it's not just overseas travel. Death rate dropped from 30% to 2% with smallpox in one example.

I am for immunity because of the terrible deaths and death rates that result from diseases. But I wonder about this & development of allergies/asthma etc especially when the vaccination has viruses from non-human sources (e.g. monkeys). I wonder of there is a statistically significant link?

 

[bellenuit]

This is how far the anti-vaccination movement will go.

http://www.mamamia.com.au/health-wellbeing/australian-vaccination-network-bullying-tactics/

 

[matty77]

I would encourage anyone who is thinking to not immunize your child to go to a hospital and watch what a 6 month old baby has to go through with whooping cough, then just think if your child gets it you only have yourself to blame.

 

[sails]

I would encourage anyone who is thinking to not immunize your child to go to a hospital and watch what a 6 month old baby has to go through with whooping cough, then just think if your child gets it you only have yourself to blame.

I agree Matty. My son got whooping cough a few days after his vaccination - it was going around at the time and obviously he contracted it before the vaccination could give him immunity.

It was terrible to see a little six month old heaving his lungs out, blue in the face and vomiting during these frequent coughing spasms with the awful whooping sound as he was desperately trying to get oxygen. He somehow made it through. We were living in England at the time out in the country and doctor's didn't want him in their surgery.

It is a sight I will never forget - and it went on for weeks.

 

[sptrawler]

I read today, they are talking about banning children that haven't been immunised, from attending child care facilities.
That puts a whole new bent on it.

 

[Julia]

I read today, they are talking about banning children that haven't been immunised, from attending child care facilities.

They should have every right to do this.

 

[jbocker]

I would encourage anyone who is thinking to not immunize your child to go to a hospital and watch what a 6 month old baby has to go through with whooping cough, then just think if your child gets it you only have yourself to blame.

Had whooping cough myself in my late 30s. Felt like someone was sitting on my chest and couldnt get a real lungful of air and would 'whoop' to breath after a coughing fit. So debilitating and remember being thankful that i could at least gag and slag some of it out (sometimes vomitting). I felt incredibly sad knowing a baby couldnt do that. Went on for weeks.
Shortly after I recovered there was an advertising campaign on TV/radio - could hear a baby 'whoop'. It took some effort to stop getting very tearful whenever i heard it.

I would recommend immunizing. Highly.