[Bulaba Khan Jones]

@Victoribus Spolia The charts you used in your post here note rates of mortality for different diseases. This is different from reported incidences. With improved medical care and treatment, sometimes even simply supportive, can greatly reduce rates of mortality for different diseases. It should be noted that the quality of medical care will depend on how much money you have. Due to improved access to medical treatment and care in the US, people who are infected with measles have a roughly 0.1-0.2% chance of dying. However, in less developed countries, the mortality rate can be 25%.

What you don't seem to understand about the graphs and numbers you posted is that while mortality rates went down during the 20th century with a correlating rise in medical care and general hygiene, infection rates generally remained constant. In 1920, there were over 450,000 reported cases of measles. In 1941 almost 900,000 cases of measles were reported (it should be noted that measles was historically under-reported, so either 1941 was a year in which there were large outbreaks, or medical reporting for that year was more accurate). Up to the 1960s before the vaccine was released, the average number of cases of measles per year remained roughly 400,000. Following widespread vaccination, in 1968 the number dropped to about 150,000 and has continued to fall. Those numbers are not mortality rates, but incidence rates, which remained high before vaccination of measles, diphtheria, smallpox, etc.

The decline in mortality did not mean that the general rate of infection was also dropping dramatically. Measles, for example, was a commonly-contracted childhood illness until the introduction of the measles vaccine, with infection rates being fairly constant until 1968.

Simply put, it is safer and better for one's health to get vaccinated.

[Prosthetic Conscience]

It's fairly obvious, and this was all gone through before in this godforsaken thread (Pants, why the fuck did you encourage VS to resurrect it? It's like leading a dog to its own vomit), that vaccines have saved many lives. The death rates plunge when the vaccines are introduced. VS's "argument" is that we could have just let some of those children die then, and hoped for the previous trends of improvement thanks to sanitation, better care and so on to continue; and VS just knows that those improvements would have continued for the intervening decades and that therefore vaccines aren't really preventing deaths now. But you don't know if trends like that would continue; and the evidence from areas of the world where vaccine coverage is incomplete is that some deaths still happen.

VS just has a partisan point he wants to support. He objects philosophically to the state taking part in healthcare; and therefore objects to any organised health program - and, of course, vaccines have the best effect when organised, rather than paid for by individuals each time. So rather than swallow his pride and admit that the state can do something good for everyone, he tortures the data and then bullshits. It's a tedious ideological obsession.

[Sivad]

VS just has a partisan point he wants to support. He objects philosophically to the state taking part in healthcare

"the state taking part in healthcare" isn't the problem. The state violating informed consent by coercing people to accept vaccines against their will is a huge a fucking problem.

bullshits

You're one to talk, your response to my Wakefield post was pure unadulterated bullshit, just blatant ignorance and dishonesty.

[Bulaba Khan Jones]

"the state taking part in healthcare" isn't the problem. The state violating informed consent by coercing people to accept vaccines against their will is a huge a fucking problem.

It's a matter of public health. The number of people who contract/die from smallpox after near-universal application of the vaccine is 0. Many other diseases in much of the world, especially the West, are slowly disappearing because of widespread vaccination.

Our civilization is not predicated on the idea that people can do whatever they want, whenever they want. There are certain trade-offs for living in society among other human beings. This includes being subject to laws, the local system of justice, the potential for a military draft, and so on. Another includes the potential for certain vaccines being mandatory.

[Sivad]

Our civilization is not predicated on the idea that people can do whatever they want, whenever they want.

Exactly, you can't force vaccines on people just to eliminate a minuscule risk to public health. Especially when those vaccines haven't been adequately tested for safety or effectiveness.

There are certain trade-offs for living in society among other human beings.

Like living with acceptable risks.

certain vaccines being mandatory

Even if vaccines were as safe and effective as advertised, and even if the risks of not vaccinating were as serious as claimed, forced vaccinations still wouldn't be a simple matter. Giving the state the authority to violate informed consent is highly problematic in itself, but in this system where the pharma lobby owns the legislatures it could easily turn into a nightmare. It's just a really bad idea.

[Bulaba Khan Jones]

Exactly, you can't force vaccines on people just to eliminate a minuscule risk to public health.

Not only can you do so, but it happens throughout the world. Threats to public health outweigh irrational demands to be potential carriers of diseases. Diseases like smallpox, measles, diphtheria, etc aren't miniscule risks. Before vaccination became near-universal in the West for diseases like those, mortality rates were dropping due to improved medical care among other things, but millions of people were infected every year, and people did, and still, die.

Especially when those vaccines haven't been adequately tested for safety or effectiveness.

This is either ignorant or dishonest. There's pages of posts here in this thread concerning the safety of vaccines. Unless someone's immune system is compromised, or they have a rare allergy to certain materials used in a vaccine, there's absolutely no risk.

Like living with acceptable risks.

Clearly, people in general don't believe living in a world where people can get sick and die from smallpox, measles, and other such diseases are acceptable risks.

Even if vaccines were as safe and effective as advertised, and even if the risks of not vaccinating were as serious as claimed, forced vaccinations still wouldn't be a simple matter. Giving the state the authority to violate informed consent is highly problematic in itself, but in this system where the pharma lobby owns the legislatures it could easily turn into a nightmare. It's just a really bad idea.

This thread is definitely one of the most repetitive I've seen in recent times. Vaccines are indeed as safe and effective as they are advertised. The science behind vaccines is understandable even to laymen. Forced vaccinations have been going on for decades.

[Suntzu]

They have a right to not be vaccinated.

We have a right to not be around them.

Societies have rules.

[Pants-of-dog]

Strawman, that was not my point.

My point was that we are discussing vaccines and parental rights in an anglo-sphere context, and the data being discussed is from that region; hence, circumstances in Romania are irrelevant.

I will examine data for Romania from when the vaccines were first introduced in conjunction with the rate of measles cases and mortalities once both of those are provided by you.

No, we are not discussing anything in an Anglosphere context. Beaides, you also ignored the article on US deaths caused by a lack of vaccinations.

Romania is an example of measles cases increasing due to a lack of vaccination. It disproves claims about vaccines not being useful n twrms of preventing deaths. Much like the Us case.

We are discussing parental rights, religious beliefs are part of the protected parental rights in the United States and are thus relevant to question of exemptions.

Then talk about that and not litigation.

Also, religion does not affect the science. You can pray and get faith healers to lay hands on you and yours, but that does not change the fact that you are risking the health and lives of your family and of people in your community.

Actually I was mocking your inconsistency and you didn't get it, but under your argument just made, that vaccines might need mandated in Romania would be irrelevant to the question of whether they should be in the United States, so which is it?

So we agree that Romania can be considered relevant.

And we agree that different countries have different requirements due to different contexts such as which diseases are more prevalent in that area, and that the supposed lack of consistency across the globe is not an argument against vaccination.

I did several times and you openly ignored it. Fact is, vaccines, statistically, did not significantly end the rates of mortality caused by those diseases, thus there is not argument for causation because there is no argument even for correlation regarding the introduction of vaccines and the end of those diseases being mass epidemics. Their decline to near current rates were projected to have occurred irrespective of the vaccine introduction just as was the case in several diseases that NEVER had a vaccine made for them that followed the same projection curves, thus indicating a distinct and universal cause was at work in the declines of these ailments which are independent of vaccination.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23692718

Abstract
Public vaccination policies in Japan for several viruses have achieved favorable results. To accurately evaluate their overall effectiveness, we conducted a 45- year epidemiological survey of measles, varicella and mumps cases at our clinic. The number of patients with measles was found to be significantly decreased with the single-dose vaccination provided at public expense. However, we also witnessed an increasing trend of infection at a later age. The vaccination rates for varicella and mumps were relatively low because of their optional availability in Japan, and thus they cannot be considered to confer public protection. Although localized to a particular region, our results show that it is important to increase the immunization rate of vaccines for large-scale protection against viral infections through public programs.

And....

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lang ... 14-109X(14)70274-8/fulltext

Summary

Background

In 2008, the GAVI Alliance funded the introduction of new vaccines (including pentavalent diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis [DTP] plus hepatitis B and Haemophilus influenzae type b antigens) in Guinea-Bissau. The introduction was accompanied by increased vaccination outreach services and a more restrictive wastage policy, including only vaccinating children younger than 12 months. We assessed coverage of all vaccines in the Expanded Program on Immunizations before and after the new vaccines' introduction, and the implications on child survival.
Methods

This observational cohort study used data from the Bandim Health Project, which has monitored vaccination status and mortality in randomly selected village clusters in Guinea-Bissau since 1990. We assessed the change in vaccination coverage using cohort data from children born in 2007 and 2009; analysed the proportion of children who received measles vaccine after 12 months of age using data from 1999–2006; and compared child mortality after age 12 months in children who had received measles vaccine and those who had not using data from 1999 to 2006.
Findings

The proportion of children who were fully vaccinated by 12 months of age was 53% (468 of 878) in the 2007 cohort and 53% (467 of 879) in the 2009 cohort (relative risk [RR] 1·00, 95% CI 0·89–1·11). Coverage of DTP-3 and pentavalent-3 increased from 73% (644 of 878) in 2007 to 81% (712 of 879) in 2009 (RR 1·10, 95% CI 1·04 −1·17); by contrast, the coverage of measles vaccination declined from 71% (620 of 878) to 66% (577 of 879; RR 0·93, 0·85–1·01). The effect of the changes was significantly different for DTP-3 coverage compared with measles vaccine coverage (p=0·002). After 12 months of age, the adjusted mortality rate ratio was 0·71 (95% CI 0·56–0·90) for children who had received measles vaccine compared with those who had not (0·59 [0·43–0·80] for girls and 0·87 [0·62–1·23] for boys).
Interpretation

The introduction of the new vaccination programme in 2008 was associated with increased coverage of DTP, but decreased coverage of measles vaccine. In 1999–2006, child mortality was higher in children who had not received measles vaccine than in those who had.

The science is clear.

Finally, you keep ignoring how you are putting the health of other people’s children in jeopardy.

[Sivad]

Not only can you do so, but it happens throughout the world.

You can do fucked up shit, just be ready for the consequences.

This is either ignorant or dishonest.

It's neither.

There's pages of posts here in this thread concerning the safety of vaccines.

There's pages of obtuse denial and lame bluffs but until you address the findings of Cochrane, the IOM, and the director of NIH you haven't said shit.

Clearly, people in general don't believe living in a world where people can get sick and die from smallpox, measles, and other such diseases are acceptable risks.

People in general are fucking idiots. The fact is they live with much greater risks every day of their lives. Even with a 0% vaccination rate the chances of dying from measles [in the US] would be infinitesimal.

This thread is definitely one of the most repetitive I've seen in recent times.

Yeah, I repeatedly present the findings an opinions of highly qualified experts like the director of NIH and the IOM and you repeatedly ignore them. It's been extra stupid.

[Bulaba Khan Jones]

There's pages of obtuse denial and lame bluffs but until you address the findings of Cochrane, the IOM, and the director of NIH you haven't said shit.

Yeah, I repeatedly present the findings an opinions of highly qualified experts like the director of NIH and the IOM and you repeatedly ignore them. It's been extra stupid.

That sounds familiar, so I'm pretty sure we've already been over this, but feel free to repost whatever conspiracy theory involves him/her.

[Drlee]

An epidemiologist with a DPH. Gets vaccinated for just about everything appropriate for his age and recommends the whole load to parents of his friends and relatives.

If you don't have your children vaccinated it has nothing to do with the concept of "informed consent" that Sivad does not understand anyway. If you don't vaccinate you are a fucking idiot who would kill your own children and those of others because you are besotted with Austrian economists.

Plain enough for you?


As for the government mandating it? They mandate speed limits too in the interest of protecting us. Not just from others but ourselves. Get over yourself.

[Bulaba Khan Jones]

As for the government mandating it? They mandate speed limits too in the interest of protecting us. Not just from others but ourselves.

That is a huge crime as well! The government has no right to compel us to do anything! I should be able to do whatever I want, whenever I want, because I'm an adult and adults get to do whatever they want!!

I'm going to yell and scream and kick around on the floor until things go my way and people start treating me like an adult!! I won't be coerced into doing anything! I'M AN ADULT!!

[Drlee]

I'm going to yell and scream and kick around on the floor until things go my way and people start treating me like an adult!! I won't be coerced into doing anything! I'M AN ADULT!!

Yes! And they do it to me by FORCE! I get HARM!! They are infringing on my SOVEREIGNTY? I am a VICTIM of my illegal GOVERNMENT!!!!!!

[Victoribus Spolia]

@Victoribus Spolia The charts you used in your post here note rates of mortality for different diseases. This is different from reported incidences. With improved medical care and treatment, sometimes even simply supportive, can greatly reduce rates of mortality for different diseases. It should be noted that the quality of medical care will depend on how much money you have. Due to improved access to medical treatment and care in the US, people who are infected with measles have a roughly 0.1-0.2% chance of dying. However, in less developed countries, the mortality rate can be 25%.

This is correct, no disagreement.

What you don't seem to understand about the graphs and numbers you posted is that while mortality rates went down during the 20th century with a correlating rise in medical care and general hygiene, infection rates generally remained constant.

What makes you think I don't understand this? Its as if you presume my argument against vaccines is that they prevented infection, but I never claimed that (though your point isn't entirely true as Scarlet Fever's infection rate and mortality rate both dropped and it was never vaccinated against).

Rather, I argued against the claim that vaccines saved the west from mass mortality at the hands of these diseases as that is a major reason WHY people demand they be mandated without exception, for if vaccines are what prevent mass mortalities for society then it makes more sense to mandate them for everyone for anyone not getting vaccines would be a definite threat to the lives of others and potentially even the lives of millions; however, that is simply NOT true in the instances we are discussing.

That is what the graphs were intended to demonstrate, that an unvaccinated person is not a threat to society because even if their presence put others at risk to infection they are not putting them at risk of death, statistically speaking.

That is, not being vaccinated does not make you a public threat to the lives of others, thus you cannot argue that parental rights ought to be stripped away on the basis of such a claim. Which is EXACTLY the argument that has been made on the Pro-Vaxx side of this debate on this thread.

If you want to argue that parental rights should be stripped away because of the risk of non-life-threatening contamination, then I would argue you have entered into a slippery slope which could allow the state the power to confiscate children from parents who choose to treat the common cold by letting it "runs it course" instead of using antibiotics, et al.

The fact is, my Ancap views aside, parental rights are presumed in the west and especially in the United States; thus the burden of proof is on those who wish to eliminate them to demonstrate why such should be stripped away when they are presumed by default under our Constitution.

I have argued that the exemptions permitted in my state ( a historically blue state I might add), are reasonable. I didn't argue for vaccines causing autism, I did not argue that all vaccines should be abolished, I only argue that certain exemptions are reasonable and that the claim that they should NOT be permitted on the basis that the unvaccinated are a threat to the lives of millions of Americans is hogwash and that was only on the philosophical objection, no one has even touched the other exemptions I mentioned and argued.

In theory, if their were not fetal cells in vaccines and if I had the right to litigate against the manufacturer for damages if they were to happen I would not nearly have as much of a problem with the mandate (my ancap views aside); likewise, I am far more tolerant of vaccines if they can definitely be shown to be the only way to save a population from a real crisis, like Ebola etc.; however, the diseases I mentioned are not a such a threat and wouldn't be even right now even if no vaccines were EVER made for them. Hence, I should have the right to exemption if I so choose and for the specific reasons I outlined.

The decline in mortality did not mean that the general rate of infection was also dropping dramatically. Measles, for example, was a commonly-contracted childhood illness until the introduction of the measles vaccine, with infection rates being fairly constant until 1968.

So what? if unvaccinated children are the ones "getting measles" they assume the risk and consequences of those actions, since its not a life threatening decision on the part of the parents, their choice should be their presumed right.

As an aside, Did you ever watch Arthur on PBS kids? There was a funny episode where Arthur gets chicken pox and DW is jealous because of his special treatment and gets excited when its her turn after catching it. In a non-vaccinated modern United States, this would be the overwhelmingly ordinary experience regarding the bulk of these diseases by American children and people on here act like I am advocating for the bubonic plague 2.0....its a bit absurd.

Simply put, it is safer and better for one's health to get vaccinated.

Its also safer and better for a child's health not to climb trees or ride bikes without helmets, but I still think those matters are up to parental discretion in spite of the fact that those activities are probably even more dangerous for the child than not getting them vaccinated for chicken pox or measles, statistically speaking.

Once again, the burden of proof (in the United States) is on the one opposing parental rights (the point of this thread) and if vaccines did not prevent mass mortality and only rates of non-life-threatening infections for what have been known as common child hood illnesses, I don't see a sufficient grounds to overrule those rights.

Its really that simple.

[Bulaba Khan Jones]

Even in developed countries, illnesses that were once common such as measles carry life-threatening consequences. I don't think your analogy with climbing trees being equally dangerous is quite apt because the threat of measles is eliminated with a simple vaccination. Diseases like the flu or the common cold resist eradication efforts because they either mutate very fast or they're a complex assortment of different vectors, but other diseases like the mumps, measles, rubella, typhoid, scarlet fever, and so on can be eliminated with vaccinations.

I don't deny that it requires convincing to justify mandatory vaccinations. But the burden of proof as to the effectiveness or safety of vaccinations is not on doctors and people across the globe who understand the simple science involved. Without disease eradication programs, those diseases, persistent in the world population, would still maim and kill far more people than they do today. Smallpox would still exist outside two laboratory locations on the planet.

If you want to drive a car, you need a license. If you want to travel to the People's Republic of China to see the Great Wall, Tienanmen Square, the Forbidden Palace, the Terracotta Army at Xi'an, the Huangshan mountains in central China, and so on, you have to submit proof of certain vaccinations/prove you have not contracted certain illnesses. Our societies have already long-established traditions on such matters. It's entirely reasonable for communities to demand the same and require people act like adults and get their vaccinations.

[Victoribus Spolia]

@Bulaba Jones

My analogy about climbing trees had to do with the mandate, the mention of comparative health risk between the two was periphery and needs not discussed in depth, for the point was that if we cannot trust parents to make decisions about vaccines in places like the United States where the consequences fro non-vaccination are nearly entirely non-life-threatening, then how can we trust parents to let their kids climb trees or rides bikes without helmets etc?

Its a simple analogy aimed at the parental rights aspect of this question and it does need addressed.

But the burden of proof as to the effectiveness or safety of vaccinations is not on doctors and people across the globe

I never said it was, but that is not really what I am arguing, I am arguing that vaccines are unnecessary in the west in general (and the United States in particular) to prevent mass deaths from said diseases and to prevent the death of one's own child. If this is true, then why should a mandate be made that does not allow for the exemptions I outlined which are currently in force in my great state of Pennsylvania in the United States? I assume the risk that my child may get chicken pox (well, at least my younger children as my first born was fully vaccinated and my second partially vaccinated, FYI), but since there is not serious statistical risk of their death, I should be permitted to make that decision for my child. Does it include some risk? Perhaps, but so do a plethora of other things involving my children, like picking wild blueberries in the woods, or wrestling on the living room floor.

but other diseases like the mumps, measles, rubella, typhoid, scarlet fever, and so on can be eliminated with vaccinations.

Interestingly enough, a couple of these diseases you mentioned were eradicated in the west without vaccination; namely Scarlet Fever and to a lesser degree Typhoid.

Without disease eradication programs, those diseases, persistent in the world population, would still maim and kill far more people than they do today. Smallpox would still exist outside two laboratory locations on the planet.

I think it should be noted that many of diseases corrected by vaccinations, especially in the third world, are due to a quick-fix western benevolence that cannot be reversed applied to the the first world context. The reason these diseases would still be a cause of mass mortality in places like the Congo right now had we not exported vaccines would be because the living conditions there (including santitation and medical sterilization etc) are what we would aptly describe as "medieval." Hell, the bubonic plague even kicked back up in Madagascar for crying out loud!! However, those same diseases are not a threat of mass mortality in the UK or US, not because of the vaccinations, but because of our first world conditions.

Since this is the case, and death is not immanent risk to an unvaccinated child in the US, I should be permitted to make whatever decision I feel is appropriate for my child. Parental rights, once again, are assumed under the American consitution and similar western governements, and unless the vaccine is shown as necessary for saving the life of my child and the children of others, I should be permitted to take the exemptions I mentioned as already made in state.

If you want to drive a car, you need a license. If you want to travel to the People's Republic of China to see the Great Wall, Tienanmen Square, the Forbidden Palace, the Terracotta Army at Xi'an, the Huangshan mountains in central China, and so on, you have to submit proof of certain vaccinations/prove you have not contracted certain illnesses. Our societies have already long-established traditions on such matters. It's entirely reasonable for communities to demand the same and require people act like adults and get their vaccinations.

I am sympathetic to requiring vaccines for traveling, but once again, that is different than the specific issue I am discussing, which is parental rights in a western context (and specifically American) context.

That being said, you mention that it is a matter of convention (almost to the point of tradition) to require vaccines in developed countries; however, this can also be said of the exemptions to said vaccines as well, as many nations, and many states within nations, exempt for certain vaccines and many nations follow far more limited vaccine schedules than the United States.

Are the people in those countries inferior for not having as extensive of a vaccination program as the United States? Are they risking their population to mass death from tetnis?

Not likely. Fact is, in developed countries, non-vaccinated people are not a real threat. Hell, you could make a good argument that many people in the U.S. who claim to be pro-vaxx have never gotten their boosters and for many ailments would be medically considered as functionally non-vaxxed. This is probably true of a hefty share of the U.S. population and little to no major public safety risks from mass mortality have occurred.

My point remains, the exemptions I am arguing for are reasonable and justified and the burden of proof, especially in the U.S., is on those who argue that parental rights should be removed to demonstrate a sufficient necessity in such, I see no such necessity as being demonstrated.

[Pants-of-dog]

I have already provided ecidence of deaths in the US from lack of vaccinations.

To claim that vaccinations are not needed to prevent deaths is therefore wrong.

[Victoribus Spolia]

No you did not address the charts I provided.

[Pants-of-dog]

No you did not address the charts I provided.

That is true. Unless you show me the methodology of those charts, they are not worth addressing.

Instead, I provided evidence showing that people have died in the USA because of a lack of vaccination.

[Victoribus Spolia]

I provided evidence showing that people have died in the USA because of a lack of vaccination.

The risk is negligible, people have also died from adverse reactions to vaccines, but that risk is likewise negligible, neither of which are arguments for either mandating or banning vaccines.

So we agree then that there is no statistical basis for the belief that vaccines prevent mass mortality in the U.S.?