UK lost measles free status

[Stressedout10]

So due to all the anti Vaxers the WHO have stripped us of our measles free status.
What next ?

It’s not irrelevant though is it? Other places have implemented this without falling down that slippery slope you’re so concerned about 🙄

I didn’t mention a slippery slope. I mentioned a right, which I either have or I do not have. We don’t know what will happen in the future. All we know is the people in those countries no longer have the right to refuse healthcare interventions.

So in some cases that would mean never sending your child to school again.

Yes. I wouldn’t send my child to school if they were in grave danger of dying from a common illness.

Fucking leper colonies. Honestly.

Do you know how recently they existed? 1999.That's when the last one in the US closed.

And yes I do know what deliberately means, if you or your child has measles and you don't follow quarantine guidelines then you are deliberately exposing people to a disease they should not be exposed to.

BTW Mary Mallon did not think she was doing anything wrong, she could not understand how she could be a threat.

I don’t want them forcing even one drug on me or my children. But once they have done so, the argument is there for them to do it again.

You do realise that's how small pox was eliminated don't you? Compulsory vaccination. That could do easily happen with other diseases. It has almost happened with polio, but polio is on its way back due to lack of vaccination.

Do you think polio could never affect your child? Ask Ade Adepitan.

And yes I do know what deliberately means, if you or your child has measles and you don't follow quarantine guidelines then you are deliberately exposing people to a disease they should not be exposed to.

If your child has measles and you send them to school, yes, you are deliberately exposing them (which can happen even if they are vaccinated). But if you don’t have measles, you aren’t. Not being vaccinated isn’t exposing others to an illness. You are making a leap.

You do realise that's how small pox was eliminated don't you? Compulsory vaccination. That could do easily happen with other diseases. It has almost happened with polio, but polio is on its way back due to lack of vaccination.

I know. That doesn’t make it ethical.

BiffNChips, we had two we immune compromised children in our school. Their immune systems were out for about a year or more each if I remember. Would you have kept your child away for that long - after the cancer and treatment were over?

The school sent letters explaining that the parents were desperate for their children to get some kind of life back. We were asked to report any minor cold or illness and on some days those children were off school. They both recovered as all parents were very considerate. Luckily we did not have any morons with unvaccinated children who picked it up abroad and then brought it to our school.

@OtraCosaMariposa

I read a really interesting tactic to use on these conspiracy believers. You basically out consiparcy them and it blows their mind. So now when ever i encounter the 'omg you sheeple just follow big pharma' I respond with "Wait, how have you not heard?! All the anti vaccination sites and news stories all come out of Russia OF COURSE they want our kids unvaccinated and dying so they can destroy the West"

Just sit back and watch the internal conflict they go through as the two levels of crazy compete with each other!

But back to OP, no you are definitely not BU. Ant Vaxxers are a stain on society. Their kids shouldn't be allowed to mingle with the rest of society. They are outright selfish and put everyone t risk.

All we know is the people in those countries no longer have the right to refuse healthcare interventions.

Nope. Doesn’t mean that at all.

It means that (in most examples) in order to access some services, they need to have some very specific vaccinations. In such places, no one is being pinned down and forced to have the vaccinations. They can refuse but this has consequences for them, just as no vaccinating has consequences for them and for others.

They still have the right to refuse other healthcare interventions, despite your implication that this will inevitably be eroded, there’s no evidence of this happening.

Yes, let’s prevent all immune compromised people from accessing education, leaving the house, getting a job. Definitely.

One of DT2’s conditions mean that simple bugs can cause severe hypoglycaemia - I can’t just keep him indoors for the rest of his life!

It means that (in most examples) in order to access some services, they need to have some very specific vaccinations. In such places, no one is being pinned down and forced to have the vaccinations. They can refuse but this has consequences for them, just as no vaccinating has consequences for them and for others.

And as I explained above, a ‘right’ that, exercised as such, incurs denial of another right, isn’t a right. The description here is of a conditional right; people are ‘allowed’ by the State to choose some of their healthcare interventions, and not others, with coercive measures in place for making the ‘wrong’ choice. That isn’t liberty. It isn’t ethical. It violates bodily autonomy.

Let’s say freedom in matters of religion is a right (which it is, in this country). And the Government says, “It is absolutely is a right. It’s just this one thing we need you to do: creep to the cross on Good Friday. That’s it. The rest of the year you can do as you please. Now, if you choose not to creep, we can’t make you, of course - it’s your right, after all - but you won’t be able to drive a car from now on. Just as a consequence of your decision. But it’s still your right.”

@herculepoirot2 does not give a shiny shit about immunocompromised people. Her absolutism doesn't allow it. Don't waste your time.

does not give a shiny shit about immunocompromised people. Her absolutism doesn't allow it. Don't waste your time.

You are every bit as absolutist, only with less logic. HerculePoirot doesn’t care more about immunocompromised people than everything else, therefore she doesn’t give a shiny shit about them.”

Non sequitur. I care. Just not more than about my freedom.

Offering the single jabs on the NHS is an unnecessary expense that would take funds away from something else.

It would play into the hands of the anti-vaxers because it would look like a tacit admission that there was something wrong with the triple jab.

Single vaccines take three times as many appointments to administer as the triple jab so this leaves children exposed for longer and in more danger of missing one or more jabs so not being fully covered. In short it would do little to help our measles free status.

Why should the NHS have to pander to anti-science activists who can't even articulate why they think single jabs are superior?

I must say, after experiencing your views on “rights” elsewhere, I’m absolutely shocked to see false equivalencies like this...

Let’s say freedom in matters of religion is a right (which it is, in this country). And the Government says, “It is absolutely is a right. It’s just this one thing we need you to do: creep to the cross on Good Friday. That’s it. The rest of the year you can do as you please. Now, if you choose not to creep, we can’t make you, of course - it’s your right, after all - but you won’t be able to drive a car from now on. Just as a consequence of your decision. But it’s still your right.”

Shocked, I tell you.

SinkGirl

Why is the analogy wrong?

When all the people on this thread who talk about my ‘rights’ and how my ‘libertarian ideology’ is obviously and wrongly more important to me than everything else wake up in twenty years in front of their two way TV screens, pop their Government-issued meds and start the daily exercises, please don’t say I didn’t warn you.

My child has started chemotherapy this summer holiday.
Advice from both her consultant and her Macmillan nurse is that she should be going to school whenever possible and should not be kept off school due to her immunosuppression. However unvaccinated children will increase the risk to her. It wouldn’t be the right thing for her for a number of reasons to keep her off school - we need to think about her development and also supporting her through some fairly horrible times - she needs her friends and a bit of normality for that.
So it’s easy to say that immunosuppressed children shouldn’t go to school. But is it really fair to give them more disadvantage than they already have?
FWIW I can’t see why we shouldn’t make vaccination where medically indicated a condition of using state education.

If the NHS was willing to offer the single jabs they might increase uptake amongst those anti vaxers who are opposed to the MMR and make the world safer for immunocompromised people.
I think that would be worth the extra time and resources. It's not perfect but surely it's better than having some children not being vaccinated at all or coercing people.

FWIW I can’t see why we shouldn’t make vaccination where medically indicated a condition of using state education.

But there might be other people who can’t see why we shouldn’t make being fit and well a condition of the same. I am not one of them. But why does your child have more rights than the rights of someone who chooses - like you, probably, because of ‘ number of reasons’ - to do something other than what you think best for your child? Why does your child get to act in accordance with your judgement, but theirs doesn’t get to act in accordance with theirs?

To China:

To be clearer, some people might argue that sending your child to school when a common and easily transmissible illness might kill her is seriously misguided. But you get to make that choice. Why can’t you extend the same rights that you claim for yourself to other people?

Simple:
Because I am following evidence based medical advice for my child. Just saying that if others would do the same she (and they) would be safer.
Hope that helps.

And I will only be sending her to school when medical advice is that she’s fit and well enough to be there.

So perhaps what I’m saying is that a condition of accessing state funded education should be that children are following evidence based health advice. Like following the 48 hour rule on D+V. Or do you not think they should do that either?

That would mean that I would be extending exactly the same rights to everyone.

That would mean that I would be extending exactly the same rights to everyone.

So health advice never differs? Never changes? No doctor ever disagrees with any other? No treatment is ever disputed in terms of efficacy?

That’s a practical nonsense.

But I don’t really care about that. What you are essentially saying is that it is okay for the Government to penalise you unless you are happy to give up healthcare autonomy.

No more refusing inductions. No more waiting to see whether you want chemotherapy. No more saying you disagree with the doctor and, actually, you would prefer to go on X than Y medication. No more needing to be committed before people can make you take substances you don’t want to take.

That is how slaves are made.