Here in CA, some doctors are complicit with this ■■■■ and should have their licenses removed.
Richard Pan doesn’t mince his words when he talks about the doctors “selling” exemptions: “The thing we need to recognize is that many of the physicians who have broken their oath, they’re doing it for their own pocketbook. It’s not based on their expertise. They’re monetizing their license,” he told NBC News.
Serious question.
If a person without a vaccination brings a disease to say LA, aren’t the only people at risk of catching it others that have not had the vaccine?
No vaccine is 100% effective. There is also the reality that many people, due to weakened immune systems, simply can’t be given vaccines. That is why the entire system is based on as many people as possible being covered in order to prevent outbreaks.
I can see soon that we will need immunization records to travel abroad.
I’m pretty sure that was done in the 1960’s.
As Excast said, vaccines aren’t 100% effective. For example, the measles vaccine is like 93% effective on the first dose and 97 or 98% effective after the second dose. Measles is one of the most communicable diseases with something like a 90% transfer rate. I need to find the site, but there’s this app that shows how herd immunity becomes so important to protect the community. It demonstrates how even just a slight reduction in immunization rates vastly increases the chance of outbreaks. The argument that some anti-vaxxers use of “you can still catch X when vaccinated!” (not applying this to you) is such an ignorant and dangerous argument.
Ahh ok. Yeah that was a simple thing for me to overlook and I’ve overlooked that data point for quite a while.
For a long time I figured what was the big deal, only other anti vax people would catch the bugs.
Not sure how I overlooked effectiveness rates for so long, but that shifts my opinion a great deal.
Madagascar.
In a basic sense, yes, but age and other factors preclude being vaccinated beyond simply “choice”, and they are also in danger.
^^^^^^^
This. Folks need to give this post more likes.
Several of the people infected in the PNW measles outbreak have been vaccinated.
The first folks to decide not to vaccinate were definitely riding the coattails of the rest of society. As more and more do, they are individually and collectively putting the rest of us at risk, even those of us who are vaccinated.
As a kid if someone in the neighborhood got the measles, every one got it. That was our vaccination. Later they came up with the shot version.
My generation was one of the first to get measles’ vaccinations.
I still got the measles…the nine day kind.
In the summer…with the extreme light sensitivity that often comes with the disease.
And with the bumps in my throat so it felt like I was eating grass when I would swallow, eat or drink.
Nearly two weeks in a darkened house without even being able to watch TV to keep from getting bored…and no reading because lights had to be dimmed where I was.
It is a ■■■■■■ annoying disease to live through…and can be deadly to kids.
Everyone around me got the measles before and after Easter Vacation (that was a thing). I had mine during the vacation.
In fact, I got hit 3 years running over Easter Vacation, measles, mumps and chicken pox. I got to spend those weeks listening to everyone outside playing.
What exactly is your point?
That we used to have Easter Vacations.
Reducing the “anti-vaxxer” argument to a discussion of… measles… and how that one relatively harmless disease was handled before and after the availability of a vaccination is insanely stupid. There is far more to the discussion than simply measles…
Using measles outbreaks as an indicator of our general “herd immunity” is not though.
Taking a light hearted anecdote dote seriously is also insanely stupid.
But then, that’s why I come here.
Your post disappeared as I was responding.
That’s insanely weird.
Shame that we can’t limit the negative consequences of not vaccinating to those who voluntarily opt out. The innocent shouldn’t have to suffer this stupidity.
Measles is ‘relatively harmless’?
I don’t think so.
