To suggest immunisations should be a legal requirement?

[rednailsredheart]

Look at it like this:

Wearing seatbelts it purely a safety issue. It's also a legal requirement in the UK to protect car passengers.

So why is immunisation not a legal requirement?

Likewise, drinking and driving is a criminal offence, due to the danger to the passengers and other drivers/people around you.

But deliberately choosing to let your child become a carrier of a totally preventable disease, infecting people around them (including those too young for immunisations), is totally fine? If someone doesn't vaccinate their child, then the child subsequently becomes gravely ill, why aren't the parents charged with neglect?

Makes me think of this article

ONION

Non vaccinating children does not make them carriers of diseases. Just as vaccinating does not make them immune to them.

special, are you actually trying to argue that sanitation, improvement in healthcare and access to clean water has not led to a reduction in deaths from victorian diseases? You may want to check your facts before you accuse others of ignorance.

Polio kind of is a disease of poverty in that it's most commonly spread through contact with the faeces of an infected person. Dirty water, polio. Clean water, not polio.

Simplistic, but good enough for argument's sake.

The interesting thing about polio is that upwards of 95% of cases are subclinical. So if you contract polio the odds are heavily weighted towards you never knowing you've had it. Yet it's touted as a horror disease.

Please understand I'm not trying to dismiss the experience of anyone who has suffered as a result of a disease. I just wish the same courtesy was extended to the vaccine-injured. And I wish their stories & numbers were tracked without prejudice or dismissal.

Perhaps then informed consent could be just that. Informed.

And I still don't think any procedure should be enforced. Not even one I believe in.

"There are about 40 vaccines a US child has by age 2"

Forty? My! Land of the free. Or maybe not.

To the posters who are seriously suggesting that exclusion from state school should be the way to deal with the non-vaccinated, can you answer this:-

What do you do about the other interaction your child will have with CalicoBlue s? The music lessons, the swings in the park, football practice, Kumon maths, birthday parties, the library, soft play?

What do you do about the adults who choose not to be vaccinated?

Or the ones whose vaccine immunity has waned...

Indeed, bumbleymummy. How do you identify these people? A red cross on their forehead? Make them wear a conspicuous badge? Wait. That sounds like another breach of human rights. Let's not go there.

When you've identified the unidentifiable what do you do with them to continue to isolate them from your children and yourselves?

"Yet it's touted as a horror disease."

Ok, we have now reached "polio - it's not so bad!". I have truly entered bizarro world.

(FWIW, yes, most polio infections are subclinical. The small number of infections that do lead to paralysis, though, can do fun things like kill you by paralyzing your breathing muscles, leave you with lifelong injuries like my FIL who can't move his hip, or give you post-polio syndrome decades later. I'm sure the message that "most people who get polio will barely notice it! it's not very dangerous at all! you've a good chance of not ending up in an iron lung!" was very reassuring in the 1950s here in Ireland during the last big epidemics.)

Just looked it up and 1 in 200 polio infections lead to irreversible paralysis, 5-10% of those whose paralysis extends into the trunk will die. That's actually pretty horrible.

There are different serotypes of wild polio leedy.

Hmmm, I'm very pro vaccination personally. People have to have autonomy when taking decisions about medical matters like this, even if we don't like the result. That's what having mental capacity to make decisions is all about.
How would you identify people who haven't undergone their state mandated social duty and been vaccinated? Tattoo their NI numbers on their arm or something? At the risk of invoking Godwin's Law, I've kind of heard of the sort of regimes that have done that.

Let's not go there Random.

I asked the same; Nobody yet has an answer.

Apparently 1 in every 100,000 people will be killed by actually wearing a seat belt in an accident (helpful)
Still wouldn't stop me strapping myself and kids into the car.

Wonder how many die from receiving a vaccination?

Maybe the seatbelt caused death in those cases LucyBabs but you've got to wonder if they weren't wearing the seatbelt, would they have survived? Probably not. If a seatbelt has stopped someone with such force it has cause internal injury and killed someone, them not wearing it would have resulted in them flying through the car, hitting something bodily with just as much force. It's the crash that killed them! the seatbelt gives them a fighting chance at survival.

Unless you're talking about strangulation deaths etc in a stationary vehicle, I suppose!

RandomNPC and DebateDiscuss

The How is easy: a national electronic health record

But just because it could be done, doesn't mean it should be.

Come & spend a day at my house OP. It might show you why mandatory vaccination would be a very bad idea, especially while it's so difficult to get neurological damage accepted as a vaccine injury.

Neither of my vaccine 'injuries/reactions' were ever officially recorded. I imagine I'm not alone.

It's not really surprising Jackie. Other drug reactions are poorly recorded and under reported so why would people think that vaccine reactions are any different.

bumbley you are so grossly misunderstanding what I am saying you must be doing it on purpose to derail the thread. The second category are clearly vaccinated otherwise they would not have had a reaction to the vaccine. And I didn't say the people themselves don't matter, I said identifying them doesn't matter for the purposes of deciding to vaccinate a population. So suppose a disease has the potential to kill 10% of the population and the vaccine will kill 0,1% of the population, clearly we should vaccinate. We don't need to know who the 0,1% will be to decide in favour of vaccination (which is fortune as we can't identify them in advance anyway).

YABVU. My DD ended up in hospital after her first MMR jab. So, obviously, I didn't take her for the follow up. She will not be having the HPV jab when she is a teenager either.

"YABVU. My DD ended up in hospital after her first MMR jab. So, obviously, I didn't take her for the follow up. She will not be having the HPV jab when she is a teenager either."

Yep. Just the sort of logic that got us where we are today.

Hakluyt, what logic related issue do you have with windchime's post? Your comment doesn't make much sense.

Hakluyt, that is prefectly logical. windchime's DD had a bad reaction to a vaccine, so she does not want to give her any more.

I have not given my DD the HPV jab. There are at least 5 cases in Spain and 11 in France where the manufacturers are being sued for vaccine damages from the HPV vaccine.

It's like saying "my child had an allergic reaction to strawberries when she was 4 so I'm not going to let her eat prawns at 13"

Hakluyt It is pretty ludicrous to question the logic behind another poster's vaccination decision, when you know nothing of the medical detail behind the adverse event.

There is absolutely no link between MMR and the HPV vaccine. So not ludicrous at all.