• 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!

Measles Hits Amish Communities, And U.S. Cases Reach 20-Year High

This just in:
Religious Objections To Vaccines Can't Threaten Public Health, Judge Kuntz Rules

Religious Objections To Vaccines Can't Threaten Public Health, Judge Kuntz Rules
The Huffington Post | By Yasmine Hafiz

Posted: 06/24/2014

Judge William F. Kuntz II has ruled to uphold a New York City policy that bars unvaccinated children from attending school when another student has a disease preventable by a vaccination, reports The New York Times.

In the ruling, Kuntz wrote that the Supreme Court, "strongly suggested that religious objectors are not constitutionally exempt from vaccinations."

Three families filing suit contended that the school policy preventing their unvaccinated children from attending school at risky times is a First Amendment violation of religious freedom. The Brooklyn Eagle reported that Nicole Phillips, Fabian Mendoza-Vaca and Dina Check had decided not to vaccinate their children on the grounds of "sincere religious belief."

From a public health standpoint, the small unvaccinated percentage of the population threatens efforts to eradicate preventable diseases from society. Depending on the contagiousness of the specific disease, a certain percentage of the population must be vaccinated in order to prevent an outbreak, due to a phenomenon known as "herd immunity," reports The Times. For highly contagious diseases like measles, that percentage is as high as 95%, which means that even a few unvaccinated children could pose a hazard to an entire school.
 
You are in denial about how serious measles is:

CDC - Measles: Vaccination

As far as the vaccine goes, any medicine carries with it the risk of death. You cannot argue that it is just measles vaccine because any foreign substance you put in your body can cause a deadly reaction.

Measles can be prevented by the combination MMR (measles, mumps, and rubella) vaccine. In the decade before the measles vaccination program began, an estimated 3–4 million people in the United States were infected each year, of whom 400–500 died, 48,000 were hospitalized, and another 1,000 developed chronic disability from measles encephalitis.

500 (choosing the higher number) died out of 3 million (choosing the lower number). That equals 0.0167% chance of death.
48,000 hospitalized out of 3 million. That equals 1.6% chance of developing severe complications.

No, I'm not scare. Try harder.
 
Yes, and the effects are also different between the two. My response is related to having the government forcing a course of action on people to prevent either one. Would HIV have spread as rapidly if people with HIV were isolated? I'm wasn't advocating for that, but you have to admit that it was discussed as a course of action.

Again, the communicability was quite different. If you are in a room with someone with measles (and you are not immunized) about 90% will end up with measles - with NO direct contact. In the same situation with a person with AIDS - sharing room, nothing else, no one will get AIDS.

I have absolutely no issue with the government taking appropriate reasonable action to prevent the spread of the disease. But you must understand that at the time, nobody knew they were infected until they showed some very drastic signs. The government intervention at the time was understanding of the disease and education to the population as things are known.

The lack of significant government intervention brought us a crossover into the blood supply as well - creating new risk groups and spread.

I am entirely for appropriate government intervention. Sometimes that would include quarantine. But way back when the AIDS crisis began - would not have helped at all. People didn't know they were sick until they were on the dying path.
 
You mean just like the risks the vaccine itself presents?

As I already wrote and you ignored....those are 'individual' risks (not contagious).

Non-vaccination carries societal risks as well as individual.
 
I could ask the same of you.

Moderate Problems
Seizure (jerking or staring) caused by fever (about 1 out of 3,000 doses) - Are you suggesting that someone having a seizure is not a serious problem?
Temporary pain and stiffness in the joints, mostly in teenage or adult women (up to 1 out of 4)
Temporary low platelet count, which can cause a bleeding disorder (about 1 out of 30,000 doses) - Are you suggesting that having a bleeding disorder is not a serious problem?

Severe Problems (Very Rare)
Serious allergic reaction (less than 1 out of a million doses)
Several other severe problems have been reported after a child gets MMR vaccine, including:
Deafness
Long-term seizures, coma, or lowered consciousness
Permanent brain damage

What exactly is a serious problem to you then? Does it square with the very rare complications that occur when someone contracts measles (which is also a rarity)?

Yes of course it squares. The side-effects are so rare that they are virtually unheard of while the benefit of vaccination greatly outweighs that minuscule risk. In order to ensure uniform application of vaccines and therefore to retain herd immunity there should not be exceptions save for medical cause. Picking and choosing which vaccines people are and aren't allowed to opt out of is a bad path to tread. Nor are these harmless diseases. For example the rubella epidemics of the early 1960's were brutal resulting in a little over 2,000 deaths in the space of a year.

Maintain herd immunity. Vaccinate or don't go to school. Even then I'm in favor of suspending welfare and other benefits to people who choose not to vaccinate.
 
If you want HIV then screw anyone bareback as often and as frequently as possible. If don't want the virus, wear a condom and not sleep with every John (or Jane) you encounter. HIV is completely preventable. Measles on the other hand is not except through vaccination.

Maybe nowadays that is true, but back in the day with blood donations, etc. It was a serious risk back then and many people that caught HIV, weren't choosing to go "bareback" as you claim.
 
As I already wrote and you ignored....those are 'individual' risks (not contagious).

Non-vaccination carries societal risks as well as individual.

Your point is only valid if everyone that's not vaccinated contracts measles. That doesn't happen as contracting measles is rare in today's time.

So basically some want to force a risk of a higher magnitude on the vast majority of people for the sake of a few.

The numbers don't pan out in favor of forcing vaccines on the extreme few that don't want it.
 
Yes of course it squares. The side-effects are so rare that they are virtually unheard of while the benefit of vaccination greatly outweighs that minuscule risk. In order to ensure uniform application of vaccines and therefore to retain herd immunity there should not be exceptions save for medical cause. Picking and choosing which vaccines people are and aren't allowed to opt out of is a bad path to tread. Nor are these harmless diseases. For example the rubella epidemics of the early 1960's were brutal resulting in a little over 2,000 deaths in the space of a year.

Maintain herd immunity. Vaccinate or don't go to school. Even then I'm in favor of suspending welfare and other benefits to people who choose not to vaccinate.

You keep saying it's unheard of, but what numbers can you provide to support that stance? I posted numbers, frequency of both complications (which is many) of vaccines and the likelihood of contracting measles in the first place.

How about you support your stance with some hard data instead of repeating the same meme so we can actually review why you have that viewpoint.
 
Maybe nowadays that is true, but back in the day with blood donations, etc. It was a serious risk back then and many people that caught HIV, weren't choosing to go "bareback" as you claim.

Just ask Ryan White or Paul Michael Glaser's wife Elizabeth or those 3 brothers in Florida, all of whom contracted AIDS because of blood tranfusions and hemophilia treatments.
 
500 (choosing the higher number) died out of 3 million (choosing the lower number). That equals 0.0167% chance of death.
48,000 hospitalized out of 3 million. That equals 1.6% chance of developing severe complications.

No, I'm not scare. Try harder.

As I said, any medicine be it vaccine or something given episodically carries the risk of severe complications and death. That would mean that you prefer to have no treatment for any deadly disease. Groovy. Are you brave or just stupid?
 
Again, the communicability was quite different. If you are in a room with someone with measles (and you are not immunized) about 90% will end up with measles - with NO direct contact. In the same situation with a person with AIDS - sharing room, nothing else, no one will get AIDS.

I have absolutely no issue with the government taking appropriate reasonable action to prevent the spread of the disease. But you must understand that at the time, nobody knew they were infected until they showed some very drastic signs. The government intervention at the time was understanding of the disease and education to the population as things are known.

The lack of significant government intervention brought us a crossover into the blood supply as well - creating new risk groups and spread.

I am entirely for appropriate government intervention. Sometimes that would include quarantine. But way back when the AIDS crisis began - would not have helped at all. People didn't know they were sick until they were on the dying path.

I started in nursing in the early days of HIV. My first job was on an oncology/hematology unit, so I saw a lot of it. You would be amazed that nurses would not wear gloves until OSHA started fining hospitals for it. I was drawing blood from a Hickman catheter of an AIDS patient sans gloves one day and he jumped all over me for it. He told me that I was taking a risk that was simply not worth it. And he was right. But in those days there were people who were offended if the nurse wore gloves. I explained to them it was for their protection as well as my own. Now we would NEVER take those risks. In all my years of work, I only had one needle stick, and it was from a lancet I was using to check blood sugar. I noticed that the hole in the glove had blood all around it. They tested me and the patient and there was no infection in either. HIV requires a high enough viral load to cause an infection. Taking the precautions may not completely prevent exposure, but it can decrease the viral load and increase your chance of not getting HIV.
 
Yes of course it squares. The side-effects are so rare that they are virtually unheard of while the benefit of vaccination greatly outweighs that minuscule risk. In order to ensure uniform application of vaccines and therefore to retain herd immunity there should not be exceptions save for medical cause. Picking and choosing which vaccines people are and aren't allowed to opt out of is a bad path to tread. Nor are these harmless diseases. For example the rubella epidemics of the early 1960's were brutal resulting in a little over 2,000 deaths in the space of a year.

Maintain herd immunity. Vaccinate or don't go to school. Even then I'm in favor of suspending welfare and other benefits to people who choose not to vaccinate.

You would be doubly so if you had ever seen a case of pertussis (whooping cough). The person suffocates because they cough so vehemently that they cannot get a breath.
 
Maybe nowadays that is true, but back in the day with blood donations, etc. It was a serious risk back then and many people that caught HIV, weren't choosing to go "bareback" as you claim.

Most of my HIV patients were hemophiliacs hwo caught HIV through blood donations. I did have a few 'queens.' But most were hemophiliacs.
 
You keep saying it's unheard of, but what numbers can you provide to support that stance? I posted numbers, frequency of both complications (which is many) of vaccines and the likelihood of contracting measles in the first place.

How about you support your stance with some hard data instead of repeating the same meme so we can actually review why you have that viewpoint.

Are you serious? Your own link.

"Serious allergic reaction (less than 1 out of a million doses)" Which means if I vaccinate 10,000,000 people next year less than 10 individuals will have a serious allergic reaction and quite possibly none will. End of story.
 
Your point is only valid if everyone that's not vaccinated contracts measles. That doesn't happen as contracting measles is rare in today's time.

So basically some want to force a risk of a higher magnitude on the vast majority of people for the sake of a few.

The numbers don't pan out in favor of forcing vaccines on the extreme few that don't want it.

I didnt say anything about force.

I was giving you the facts on how vaccination and epidemics work.

Since the more that dont get vaccinated open up lots more protected people to get infected, your first sentence doesnt really make sense. That grows exponentially. These days we usually catch and control the outbreaks thru the media....people then go out and do get vaccinated or take precautions...close daycares, dont go to playdays, etc.

But like I said, the more people a disease goes thru, the more chances it will change and become more dangerous.

Also, vaccination is not a miracle cure. None are 100% effective. The vaccinated can get sick.
 
I didnt say anything about force.

I was giving you the facts on how vaccination and epidemics work.

Since the more that dont get vaccinated open up lots more protected people to get infected, your first sentence doesnt really make sense. That grows exponentially. These days we usually catch and control the outbreaks thru the media....people then go out and do get vaccinated or take precautions...close daycares, dont go to playdays, etc.

But like I said, the more people a disease goes thru, the more chances it will change and become more dangerous.

Also, vaccination is not a miracle cure. None are 100% effective. The vaccinated can get sick.

I think we are entering a new dark age. I was around before there was polio vaccine. My mother wouldn't let me go to the swimming pool in the summer because it was believed that you could catch polio in the swimming pool. The son of one of her friends contracted polio and they thought it was because he used to sit in front of the air conditioner. They were one of the few families that had one.
 
Back
Top Bottom