Rejecting vaccination - "growing public health time bomb", NHS Chief warns

[Sasaferrato]

Knowledge of the pharmacodynamics of racemic isomers increased greatly after that. Drug is still in use, for leprosy and other auto immune disorders.

It is indeed. It did pass the requisite safety tests first time round of course, and as you say knowledge is ongoing.

It is also used in the treatment of multiple myeloma.

 

[Teaboy]

Which is basically compulsory vaccination for the vast majority of parents.

I see no different between a court ordering the vaccination of a child against the wishes of some anti-vaxer nutjob parent, and a court ordering a blood transfusion against the wishes of some Jehovah's Witness nutjob parent.

A tiny percentage of parents are happy to risk the lives of their children, the children's right to life trumps those nutjob's beliefs.

This seems fair enough to me.

The state already intervenes when it comes to parents wishes in cases like Charlie Gard and the poor kid in Liverpool. With these its about taking the role as advocate for the child.

 

[LDC]

Fiona O’Leary has been doing a lot of work exposing/campaigning against quackery and the far-right in Ireland.

Fiona O'Leary

F-U-C-K-I-N-G H-E-L-L. I thought I'd seen a fair bit of woo in my time but the stuff on that website is child abuse.

 

[8ball]

Which is basically compulsory vaccination for the vast majority of parents.

Yes, France was brought up as a case of compulsory vaccination earlier, when this is basically how things work there.

 

[Sasaferrato]

Which is basically compulsory vaccination for the vast majority of parents.

I see no different between a court ordering the vaccination of a child against the wishes of some anti-vaxer nutjob parent, and a court ordering a blood transfusion against the wishes of some Jehovah's Witness nutjob parent.

A tiny percentage of parents are happy to risk the lives of their children, the children's right to life trumps those nutjob's beliefs.

I quote 8ball:

Vaccinating against the parents' wishes will involve taking the kid away from the parents, which opens several cans of worms. If you're going to ditch ideas about consent and responsibilities to other people in favour of the use of force, you're also going to have interesting times the first time one of these kids has a strong adverse reaction to a vaccination.

There is a profound difference between using financial penalties, or withholding school admission and using force.

JW blood transfusion cases are so rare that they make the national news bulletins. There is a bit of a difference though between a child that is about to die, and a child that may contract an infectious disease.

 

[andysays]

Which is basically compulsory vaccination for the vast majority of parents.

I see no different between a court ordering the vaccination of a child against the wishes of some anti-vaxxer nutjob parent, and a court ordering a blood transfusion against the wishes of some Jehovah's Witness nutjob parent.

A tiny percentage of parents are happy to risk the lives of their children, the children's right to life trumps those nutjob's beliefs.

I think there's a difference between refusing a blood transfusion and refusing to have your child vaccinated. In the first case it's 'only' the life of the individual child at risk, which is serious enough, but in refusing to have your child vaccinated, you're potentially putting at risk the lives of others who have genuine medical reasons why they can't be vaccinated.

Still not entirely happy about state imposed vaccination, but I can see that there are strong general public health arguments for it, it's not just an individual issue.

 

[Sasaferrato]

Yes, France was brought up as a case of compulsory vaccination earlier, when this is basically how things work there.

'"I do not like to impose obligations, it goes against my character but with vaccinations it is justified" Buzyn pointed out adding that no repressive measures had been taken out against non-complying parents apart from warning them they won't be able to enroll their children at any creches, nurseries, schools or Summer camps, both private or public.'

 

[RainbowTown]

The rights of the child v the rights of the parents will always be a mighty contentious issue, especially when it comes to state intervention. It really can be such a tricky balancing act, fraught with all kinds of nuances and complications and consequences. There's no one answer, I think; just hopefully a common sense approach by all parties, involving education, consultation and a consensus reached which will, in the end, benefit the welfare of that child. And if all that fails? Then - rightly or wrongly - the state does have an obligation to step in, in order to protect the well being of that child.

 

[SpookyFrank]

Like thalidomide you mean?

Are you comparing vaccines to thalidomide? Because it's exactly that sort of emotive, wooly thinking bollocks that is getting people killed by preventable diseases.

 

[8ball]

F-U-C-K-I-N-G H-E-L-L. I thought I'd seen a fair bit of woo in my time but the stuff on that website is child abuse.

Yeah, it's pretty scary. Borax ffs.

 

[Shechemite]

the state does have an obligation to step in, in order to protect the well being of that child.

Which it already does.

Vaccinating children against the wishes of the parent(s) really wouldn’t be that radical, and would be based on far better grounds than many ‘coercive’ state interventions

 

[8ball]

And if all that fails? Then - rightly or wrongly - the state does have an obligation to step in, in order to protect the well being of that child.

I think at the very least you need a general consensus on how far the State goes in terms of protecting the well being of a child. Especially when the chief concern isn't the wellbeing of that particular child but the wellbeing of children that cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons and have to rely on herd immunity.

Your choices are basically informed consent or compulsion, and compelling the exposure of one child to a risk in order to assure the health of other children puts you on a very sticky wicket.

At least with the current setup of our medical ethics in this country and our culture at this time.

 

[Shechemite]

Yeah, it's pretty scary. Borax ffs.

Quite. This stuff needs to be combatted politically. Combatting quacks, cults and conspiracists ought to be seen as part of anti-fascist politics.

 

[8ball]

Quite. This stuff needs to be combatted politically. Combatting quacks, cults and conspiracists ought to be seen as part of anti-fascist politics.

I don't personally see why it should go in the anti-fascist bucket, but it certainly needs to be fought.

 

[Shechemite]

compulsion of exposing a child to a risk in order to assure the health of other children puts you a very sticky wicket.

Vaccinations are safe for you. Not being vaccinated isn’t safe for you. The ‘risk to the child’ argument is erroneous

 

[8ball]

Vaccinations are safe for you. Not being vaccinated isn’t safe for you. The ‘risk to the child’ argument is erroneous

Vaccinations carry risks. Safety is relative.

 

[Serge Forward]

Don't agree with forced vaccination by the state... do agree with those parents who refuse to get their kids vaccinated being named, shamed and fucking shunned.

 

[Sasaferrato]

Are you comparing vaccines to thalidomide? Because it's exactly that sort of emotive, wooly thinking bollocks that is getting people killed by preventable diseases.

Thalidomide met all the required standards, yet turned out to be horrific if used in pregnancy.

In my time, I have seen a number of medications removed from sale, sometimes after a prolonged period. Terfenadine was a case in point.

I was not; and no unbiased reading could have made the assumption; equating vaccines to thalidomide, I was pointing out that complete acceptance of evidence based healthcare practices is not always right.

 

[Sasaferrato]

Quite. This stuff needs to be combatted politically. Combatting quacks, cults and conspiracists ought to be seen as part of anti-fascist politics.

Regulation to force them out of business seems reasonable.

 

[8ball]

I was not; and no unbiased reading could have made the assumption; equating vaccines to thalidomide, I was pointing out that complete acceptance of evidence based healthcare practices is not always right.

It's not absolute, but where solidly evidence based I'd say its pretty much always the best strategy.

 

[SpookyFrank]

Vaccinations carry risks. Safety is relative.

Yes and the flu vaccine is a good illustration of this. Because it's always based on the best guess at what strains will affect people in 18 months time, there are years where its effectiveness is low. There may even be years where it does more harm than good. But add up the effects over time and it unambiguously saves many lives, and because we can't tell the bad years from the good until they've happened the sensible course is to vaccinate people every year.

 

[Shechemite]

I don't personally see why it should go in the anti-fascist bucket, but it certainly needs to be fought.

Anti-Vaxxers Are Cozying Up to the Far Right Online

Far-Right Italian Anti-Vaxxer Politician is Hospitalized with Chickenpox

Rightwing populists ride wave of mistrust of vaccine science

Growing anti-vaccination movement linked to rise of populism

“In France, where more than 20% of the population does not support vaccines, Marine Le Pen, of the far-right National Rally party (previously the National Front), opposes mandatory immunisations and has questioned their safety, reports The Economist.”

 

[8ball]

Yes and the flu vaccine is a good illustration of this. Because it's always based on the best guess at what strains will affect people in 18 months time, there are years where its effectiveness is low. There may even be years where it does more harm than good. But add up the effects over time and it unambiguously saves many lives, and because we can't tell the bad years from the good until they've happened the sensible course is to vaccinate people every year.

Yeah, a couple of years ago I got the flu when they guessed the strain wrong.

Overall, the risk/benefit/cost profile of the flu vaccine is relatively low compared to most vaccines (largely down to only being about 50% effective in optimal conditions), but it's still a good idea to get it imo.

 

[8ball]

Anti-Vaxxers Are Cozying Up to the Far Right Online

Far-Right Italian Anti-Vaxxer Politician is Hospitalized with Chickenpox

Rightwing populists ride wave of mistrust of vaccine science

Growing anti-vaccination movement linked to rise of populism

“In France, where more than 20% of the population does not support vaccines, Marine Le Pen, of the far-right National Rally party (previously the National Front), opposes mandatory immunisations and has questioned their safety, reports The Economist.”

Thanks - the far-right have always been lacking in rationality* but the unholy alliance between them and these kinds of quackery (which I usually associate with flaky hippie types) is something which had passed me by.

Will chase this up...

* - cue sound of jaws dropping at this revelation

 

[RainbowTown]

I think at the very least you need a general consensus on how far the State goes in terms of protecting the well being of a child. Especially when the chief concern isn't the wellbeing of that particular child but the wellbeing of children that cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons and have to rely on herd immunity.

Your choices are basically informed consent or compulsion, and compelling the exposure of one child to a risk in order to assure the health of other children puts you on a very sticky wicket.

This is why the likes of social media scaremongering stories are so very damaging with issues of this nature. Parents can easily come across this type of agenda-driven garbage while browsing online, which then only adds fuel to the fire. Rational reasoning and balance becomes usurped by fear and emotion, and in the end no one benefits -especially the child who may be at risk.

 

[SpookyFrank]

Overall, the risk/benefit/cost profile of the flu vaccine is relatively low compared to most vaccines (largely down to only being about 50% effective in optimal conditions), but it's still a good idea to get it imo.

Flu is a uniquely tricky beast because it changes so rapidly. It's not really fair to judge the flu vaccine against other vaccines as a result. On its own terms, the flu vaccine is better than no flu vaccine provided you look at it on a big enough scale and a long enough time scale.

 

[Sasaferrato]

Yes and the flu vaccine is a good illustration of this. Because it's always based on the best guess at what strains will affect people in 18 months time, there are years where its effectiveness is low. There may even be years where it does more harm than good. But add up the effects over time and it unambiguously saves many lives, and because we can't tell the bad years from the good until they've happened the sensible course is to vaccinate people every year.

They get it right more often than wrong. We have it every year.

 

[8ball]

Flu is a uniquely tricky beast because it changes so rapidly. It's not really fair to judge the flu vaccine against other vaccines as a result. On its own terms, the flu vaccine is better than no flu vaccine provided you look at it on a big enough scale and a long enough time scale.

Yes, I agree that its not representative (it was you that brought it up as an example of relative risk ).

 

[MickiQ]

Really? You will not find a nurse in the country that would vaccinate a child against the wishes of the parents.

Mrs Q and I count one retired, five active and one student nurse amongst our relatives, One of them (the same Miss Q No 2 who was vaccinated if not against her will then at least without enthusiasm 10 years ago) has come round to raid my fridge though she insists it is to wish her brother a happy birthday.
I asked her if she would be willing to vaccinate a child against its parents wishes if it was compulsory and her answer was "Hell Yes", I shall poll the others as and when I see them but you've got at least one volunteer there.
I can't imagine that the number of cases where a child is physically taken from its parents, vaccinated and then returned to them is going to be more than a tiny handful, indeed any kid that needs taking off its parents for that reason probably shouldn't be returned to them anyway.
I am willing to believe that restricting benefits, school and nursery access (which is compulsion however you try to spin it) and even just the threat of such will be more than enough to ensure pretty much total compliance. It will no doubt generate a lot of whinging about parental rights being trampled but that's an acceptable price to pay.

 

[farmerbarleymow]

If you're going to ditch ideas about consent and responsibilities to other people in favour of the use of force, you're also going to have interesting times the first time one of these kids has a strong adverse reaction to a vaccination.

If the government brought in compulsory vaccination the vaccine damage tribunal would presumably cover such outcomes.