Is there a better way to immunize other than current vaccination paradigm?

[deleted103644]

It's always interesting to hear the excuses when outbreaks of measles or chicken pox occur in fully vaccinated daycare centers.

It's a shame that we have to label everyone either pro or anti vax. It's an advertising/marketers dream. It seems our societies BS meters have been removed. Our capitalist society is geared to sell us items we don't need.

Explanation is very simple.

Measles is very infectious.

Vaccines are not 100% effective (but don’t have to be to eradicate a disease).

Some people have legitimate reasons they cannot be vaccinated (actual allergies) or are immunocompromised (including very young, very old, and pregnant women as well as HIV, transplant recipients, various genetic disorders, etc).

The problem with vaccines is that they are a bit like voting. Most vaccines do not benefit the individual that much (and yes, even small possibility of harm), but if enough people vaccinate it benefits everyone (including those who don’t). It’s a bit of a population wide prisoner’s dilemma for diseases that are uncommon.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[deleted103644]

It's always interesting to hear the excuses when outbreaks of measles or chicken pox occur in fully vaccinated daycare centers.

It's a shame that we have to label everyone either pro or anti vax. It's an advertising/marketers dream. It seems our societies BS meters have been removed. Our capitalist society is geared to sell us items we don't need.

Most vaccines are not money makers.

If someone came out with a Hepatitis C vaccine that worked right now, drug companies might actually hire a hit squad to stop it (wouldn’t put it past them).

 

[dmd20000]

The human body is susceptible to viral and bacterial infections. It is obvious that you must have any vaccine that is made. I have problems with the MMR vaccine so I believe it should be split and given separately. I don't recommend this to my patients I just recommend this to my family and friends.

 

[CetiAlphaFive]

Now you're just entertaining me. Victim of white privilege? I'd love to hear the explanation of that one. Some kind of liberal drivel programmed into you by the left wing dominant media of the last 10 years. Try unplugging for a minute and get a reset.

You'd better go to Africa and stop them from administering those Ebola vaccines.

Wouldn't want anyone to make money while stopping people from spraying blood out of their eyes, right+

 

[Unchained]

You'd better go to Africa and stop them from administering those Ebola vaccines.

Wouldn't want anyone to make money while stopping people from spraying blood out of their eyes, right+

Please reference the article "Questionable efficacy of the rVSV-ZEBOV Ebola Vaccine", in The Lancet, Volume 391, No. 10125, 17 March 2018.

The rVSV-ZEBOV vaccine is widely being reported as 100% effective, and only the duration of the protective efficacy is disputed. This perfect vaccine efficacy could be true if the two groups had been comparable in all variables but the vaccination. The medical team did not stay in the communities of the delayed vaccination (control) clusters. By contrast, for the immediately vaccinated clusters, the medical study teams stayed in the communities to follow up the vaccinated participants with active and passive detection of side-effects. The presence or absence of a medical team attending study participants in an African community will have an effect on outcomes. Continuous interaction with the doctors and nurses of the study team would have affected the knowledge and behavior of the participants, which in turn would have affected disease transmission. All possible cases of Ebola virus disease might have been averted by behavioural change: in such case, the vaccine efficacy would have been zero.

I think the jury is still out on the Ebola vaccine CetiAlphaFive. This is the problem with most health care professionals today. They don't take the time to research. They just read the newspaper headlines. I'm certain that if your district manager told you to start administering the vaccine in the United States you would do as you are told. You would just be another beta-male following orders.

 

[johnpharm01]

I wish this thread would have gone a different route. I believe that vaccines, antibiotics, and sanitation have saved many lives. I know this is a traditional view, but its what I believe. I also believe in individual choice. If you don't want to get a flu shot, don't get it. The biggest issue with vaccination with retail pharmacy is workload. Vaccinating someone is more complex than filling your average script. With all the other responsibilities are retail pharmacies the appropriate venue? I believe pharmacies who offer vaccines should also increase their staff accordingly.

By the way, I have received many vaccines after being in the military including Japanese encephalitis before it was ever approved by the FDA. We had the choice to receive the vaccine or wear a mosquito net on our head along with other protective measures for the duration of our stay.

 

[CetiAlphaFive]

Please reference the article "Questionable efficacy of the rVSV-ZEBOV Ebola Vaccine", in The Lancet, Volume 391, No. 10125, 17 March 2018.

The rVSV-ZEBOV vaccine is widely being reported as 100% effective, and only the duration of the protective efficacy is disputed. This perfect vaccine efficacy could be true if the two groups had been comparable in all variables but the vaccination. The medical team did not stay in the communities of the delayed vaccination (control) clusters. By contrast, for the immediately vaccinated clusters, the medical study teams stayed in the communities to follow up the vaccinated participants with active and passive detection of side-effects. The presence or absence of a medical team attending study participants in an African community will have an effect on outcomes. Continuous interaction with the doctors and nurses of the study team would have affected the knowledge and behavior of the participants, which in turn would have affected disease transmission. All possible cases of Ebola virus disease might have been averted by behavioural change: in such case, the vaccine efficacy would have been zero.

I think the jury is still out on the Ebola vaccine CetiAlphaFive. This is the problem with most health care professionals today. They don't take the time to research. They just read the newspaper headlines. I'm certain that if your district manager told you to start administering the vaccine in the United States you would do as you are told. You would just be another beta-male following orders.

Hahahah, are you kidding?

You might want to "research" the mortality rate of Ebola.
Even if the Ebola had a low "efficacy" I'd still take it.
I don't have a district manager.
I wrote our vaccine protocol


I don't think you actually have access to the full text of that article.

I think you read the abstract and are posturing as a Supreme Gentleman intellectual.

You need to re-read that article.

It has nothing to do with the vaccine itself.
They're criticizing the study.

 

[CetiAlphaFive]

Literally nobody is surprised that Unchained can't even interpret the *abstract* of a study correctly

 

[ldiot]

You are confusing conservatives with libertarians (there is overlap, but libertarians also overlap with liberals.) Libertarians would say that the age of emancipation is whenever an individual feels it is, so a 10 year old should be able to make their own medical decisions (if they want to), where it gets muddy is when you have very young infants/children who don't even have a rudimentary understanding of the decision and couldn't vocalize their wishes even if they did. On the other hand, conservatives would say the family should be making the decisions in the family at least until the child is 18, regardless of what the child wants (some would say 21 or until the child is married.)

With Alfie Evans, libertarians would absolutely say no, the government doesn't have to pay for his care (but yes, they would disagree that the government should be able to hold someone hostage and prevent them from obtaining care elsewhere at their own expense-or at some volunteer payor's expense.)

And no, libertarians absolutely do NOT want to withdraw from the world, they just want us to quit meddling in the affairs of other countries, and to quit bombing other countries, that do not want our "help". (They don't have any problem with our country helping other countries who request our help, although obviously they think such help should be from charitable contributions, not from taxes.) Libertarians strongly support open borders and trade across borders, which is the opposite of "withdrawing from the world."

I strongly lean libertarian, although I realize that like ever other political viewpoint, regardless of how well it works theoretically, it's not going to work that well in the real world.

Ron Paul, the most prominent libertarian that I can think of, has said that we should close every foreign military base that we have in order to save money, and instead use diplomacy. The logic is greatly flawed, however, as diplomacy (soft power) is totally useless unless you can back it up with military force (hard power). You must use the threat of hard power in order to force adversaries into negotiating. North Korea is a great example of this. Our military bases across the world enable us to project power. Without the ability to project power, nobody will listen to you. You will be irrelevant.

You also have the illegal occupation of Ukraine. Ukraine is begging us for help. Russia is perhaps our biggest adversary. Russian troops are killing Ukrainians on Ukrainian soil right now. What is Ron Paul's response? "Ukraine is non of our business". How can you say "libertarians absolutely do NOT want to withdraw from the world" WTF??? This is literally withdrawal from the world. This kind of idiocy will get a lot more people killed in the long-term. After we hand the world over to our enemies, who is going to fight to take it back? Your kids?

When I said "withdrawing from the world", I was referring to military presence, I'm pretty sure you realized this lol. Both libertarians and conservatives are for free and fair trade.

 

[CetiAlphaFive]

Ron Paul, the most prominent libertarian that I can think of, has said that we should close every foreign military base that we have in order to save money, and instead use diplomacy. The logic is greatly flawed, however, as diplomacy (soft power) is totally useless unless you can back it up with military force (hard power). You must use the threat of hard power in order to force adversaries into negotiating. North Korea is a great example of this. Our military bases across the world enable us to project power. Without the ability to project power, nobody will listen to you. You will be irrelevant.

You also have the illegal occupation of Ukraine. Ukraine is begging us for help. Russia is perhaps our biggest adversary. Russian troops are killing Ukrainians on Ukrainian soil right now. What is Ron Paul's response? "Ukraine is non of our business". How can you say "libertarians absolutely do NOT want to withdraw from the world" WTF??? This is literally withdrawal from the world. This kind of idiocy will get a lot more people killed in the long-term. After we hand the world over to our enemies, who is going to fight to take it back? Your kids?

When I said "withdrawing from the world", I was referring to military presence, I'm pretty sure you realized this lol. Both libertarians and conservatives are for free and fair trade.

Nice post from the 60s.

 

[Mad Jack]

I always encourage people who are "anti-vax"

We, as a society, have been undoing natural selection, or at least perverting it.

If the dumbest, most disease ridden dinguses reproduce at the highest rate due to modern politics, we might as well encourage them to bring back the plague

The trouble is, beyond a certain point, allowing the weak to do stupid things puts everyone else at risk, as well as those that are smart enough to vaccinate but immunocompromised.

 

[CetiAlphaFive]

The trouble is, beyond a certain point, allowing the weak to do stupid things puts everyone else at risk, as well as those that are smart enough to vaccinate but immunocompromised.

 

[BidingMyTime]

Without the ability to project power, nobody will listen to you. You will be irrelevant.

From what I gather of your definition of "relevant", I don't believe it is a good thing. Do you, as an individual, like other people telling you want to do in matters that have no effect on them? Would you feel better about the situation if the person telling you what to do was holding a gun to your head? I doubt it. Well guess what, other countries don't like the US telling them what to do either. And they especially don't like the US pointing military weapons at them, while telling them what to do. There are many countries which are under no threat from any other country, precisely because they don't use military force to try to tell other countries what they should do (Switzerland, Australia, etc.) As for other countries "begging" for our help, it seems to be pure luck if the US actually picks the correct side in a civil war. There is a long history of the US propping up ruthless dictators and causing internal strife in countries, when most assuredly, these countries populace have not asked for our "help."

Bottom line, if you wouldn't want Russia or any other country, sending in foreign troops to the US, then you shouldn't support the US doing the same to other countries.