• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Vaccine Critics Turn Defensive Over Measles [W:1210]

BM, if you don't care to read the research and the reporting on the virulence of the diseases and how many people died from it - even if YOU didn't know anyone - that's your problem. Most of us prefer to do the research.

As I have mentioned before, I lived during that era and remember what happened. The only "research" you have is what you have read out of a book or on the Internet, research, tainted at best, all to push someone's plan for how they want society to march in lockstep.
 
Of course it is, by definition it is.

The conscious decision to fail to take proper care in doing something.

It is no more negligent than going out with the flu and some old person getting it and dying. Stop being dramatic.
 
As I have mentioned before, I lived during that era and remember what happened. The only "research" you have is what you have read out of a book or on the Internet, research, tainted at best, all to push someone's plan for how they want society to march in lockstep.
This is stupid, we have examples from just last year in Ohio with the Amish breakout, many had to be hospitalized.
 
It is no more negligent than going out with the flu and some old person getting it and dying. Stop being dramatic.
We're not talking about JUST measles immunization, my argument is that NOT having a child immunized is intentional neglect, it is consciously not taking proper care.

I fail to see how causing a death by spreading a flu virus is viewed so flippantly....but then we must have very different views on life and responsibility.
 
Got any stats on that? 65 infant deaths/yr to measles 50 yrs ago?
It's an estimate. CDC data shows around 400 cases per year leading up to the vaccine. Estimated about 16-17% of those being infant deaths based on data from 1990, when 89 people died.
 
There is almost no risk of side effects. They almost never happen.

Almost never is not never, and it would be greater than the risk to me as being around someone who was never vaccinated as have been vaccinated more than once for MMR.
 
No, but you can protect them better if everyone else is vaccinated and the disease pretty much disappears from the country.

Which is what had happened.
Yes, I think everybody knows that.
 
Inaccurate view of history? I lived during the era. I don't have to read science fiction on the Internet.

So did I. My mother was an RN...ob/gyn...at the time and had to take off work when her daughter...me...had measles. Then mumps, then German measles, then chicken pox....no vaccines. Her grasp of the realities...and her memory...are just fine. As is mine.

Now....where's a source for your claim about 65 infants/yr?
 
Last edited:
It's an estimate. CDC data shows around 400 cases per year leading up to the vaccine. Estimated about 16-17% of those being infant deaths based on data from 1990, when 89 people died.

You could have linked to it.

400 cases per year? Measles? That was in my community alone! Now...link?
 
Actually, you can. An infant in my family was born 3 months premature and before he left the hospital, he was given a raft of vaccinations, including one for the flu and RSV. It was also strongly suggested his parents and all immediate family members who would be around him with any regularity get their flu shots as well and to severely limit his exposure to public spaces and strangers for a year. Further he received an RSV shot every 28 days for his first year.

I don't believe the MMR was part of that infant's immunizations when he left the hospital, based on the CDC recommendation to give the first MMR vaccination at 12 months. That left him and leaves any infant under a year old at risk of contracting measles, which is highly contagious.


CDC - Vaccines - Child and Adolescent Immunization Schedules Shell
Yes, of course you're right, babies receive numerous vaccinations in the first year, starting at birth. I was referring to the measles (MMR) vaccine, though it appears that can even be given at six months for infants that will be traveling outside the US. Typically, however, it occurs after their first birthday.
 
It is no more negligent than going out with the flu and some old person getting it and dying. Stop being dramatic.

Sick people at work infuriate me.

Yet of course I understand if they dont get sick time.

Just one more reason to expand working from home opportunities for people.

(Which I do these days, go in one day a week. I only hope parents dont pass their kids' crud on to me)
 
We're not talking about JUST measles immunization, my argument is that NOT having a child immunized is intentional neglect, it is consciously not taking proper care.

I fail to see how causing a death by spreading a flu virus is viewed so flippantly....but then we must have very different views on life and responsibility.

Oh my... I can see that your failed argument is protected by a moral superiority complex. Cute but pathetic. I was not flippant. You just failed to comprehend my meaning, apparently.

Not vaccinating is not, not taking proper care because a disease is not an assured thing. The chances of getting it, even pre-vaccines, was not large. Injury and death due to not wearing a seat belt was a large chance of occurring though. Many people will never get the measles.

Some people don't like playing Russian Roulette with their kids lives... stick that in your moral pipe, twist it and cast another insult. Please...
 
No. It would be simply nice if they made them free.

Look, I know people are on me about this but my kids are not vaccinated because of my ex-wife. Well, one has some vaccinations but since she almost died we stopped. My ex is paranoid about them now even though I know that she had an adverse reaction and it might not have even been the vaccine. I am in the process of taking her to Court led mediations and one of my agenda items is to get our girls vaccinated. There is no way in hell she will agree though. When I take them back to the states I am always a bit nervous...

I dont think that about the way you have handled your daughter's situations.
 
bobbed and weaved to get out of your original statements.

sure.
Lol, it's irrelevant to the point that was made that you responded to, as I explained earlier.
 
Almost never is not never, and it would be greater than the risk to me as being around someone who was never vaccinated as have been vaccinated more than once for MMR.

Sorry, but never is impossible, the risk of serious side effects is close to nothing and the risk to someone getting the disease is a much more of a risk.
 
Sick people at work infuriate me.

Yet of course I understand if they dont get sick time.

Just one more reason to expand working from home opportunities for people.

(Which I do these days, go in one day a week. I only hope parents dont pass their kids' crud on to me)

Jeez... me too. It is really rude, in my opinion.
 
Alright. Time to head off. Just enough time to get in a 9 holes.

Night all!

:2wave:
 
Yes, of course you're right, babies receive numerous vaccinations in the first year, starting at birth. I was referring to the measles (MMR) vaccine, though it appears that can even be given at six months for infants that will be traveling outside the US. Typically, however, it occurs after their first birthday.

This is one reason why it's important that the public at large be immunized against measles. The youngest members of any community are unprotected.
 
You could have linked to it.

400 cases per year? Measles? That was in my community alone! Now...link?
Around 400 cases per year that resulted in death.
 
Even that seems low but higher than your original 65.
You're not following... the total number of deaths was in the 400s, the subset of those that occurred in infants under age 1 was estimated at ~65.
 
Last edited:
Right. And the smallest government is no government at all.

If you shrink government, is this not the logical conclusion?

Lol! If you're for small government you're for controlling the size of government. An anarchist on the other hand is for no government at all and is interested in making sure government no longer exists at all.
 
Then I don't agree with you. I don't agree that your argument doesn't lead to anarchy.

An argument that leads to anarchy would have to be one that leads to the disbandment of the state. Calling for the control of the size of government is not an argument that leads to the disbandment of the state.
 
Back
Top Bottom