Death toll rises

[stargirl1701]

The number of babies under 3 months who have died from whooping cough this year has risen to 13. Just so awful. My thoughts are with their families today.

But that's why it doesn't make sense! If you've assumed exposure, then, yes, you have over assumed the risk. Which means you're saying:

danger from disease < danger from vaccine

Which is totally wrong by anyone's calculation other than, say, extreme cases of allergy

Rather than

Probability of exposure*danger from disease < vaccine

Which I'd also say would generally not be right although if the probability is very small and you think, for whatever reason, that risk of vaccine is high then it possibly could work.

And it's not just measles, right? What about diptheria for example? What's your assumption regarding exposure? Did you assume they'd be exposed?

Elaine I have never said I don't believe in herd immunity. Why wouldn't i believe in it. Do read what I said. I said I do not take into account that my children are likely to be protected by herd immunity when I make my decision. When I make my decision I assume that whether herd immunity is high or not they are still able to catch the disease. I make decisions based on the fact that by not vaccinating then they are at risk of catching the disease.

That does NOT mean I don't 'believe' in herd immunity. If it protects them, great, but I don't assume it will and I'm in some sort of win win situation. Rather, I assume we have a lot to lose.

:waits to be purposefully misunderstood again:

Yes I do believe the risk from the vaccination for them is very high.

Bingo.

Otherwise they'd be vaccinated wouldn't they. Like ds1.

I appreciate that you believe the risk of vaccination to be high. I also appreciate that by ignoring herd immunity, you've assumed 100% probability of exposure to the disease.

However, this is the bit which doesn't make sense: the risk of the disease is also very high (or at least that's what you've assumed since you've assumed that the likelihood of exposure is the same as without herd immunity)! This is especially true for some of the diseases we vaccinate against like diptheria. So I don't see how you can say 'I've assumed my child will be exposed to diptheria - since I ignore herd immunity - but I still believe it safer to be exposed to diptheria than to be vaccinated'.

I mean, for measles, it's a fair assumption given the high rates of vaccination needed for herd immunity to assume that at some your kids will be exposed to it.

But that's not the case for diptheria.

So I don't see how you can say that you've ignored herd immunity unless you've assumed pre-vaccination incidence rates for all the diseases you haven't vaccinated against. It doesn't make sense.

Ditto Welovecouscous.
Saintly Would you like me to lend you my wall that I often bang my ahead against? Come to think of it, I expect you have one of your own already.

Well, perhaps the enlightened ones can explain it to me then

Ignoring herd immunity means that you assume your exposure to infectious diseases (say measles, mumps, diptheria, polio, hib etc) will be the same as pre-vaccination, ie very high.

On what evidence is being exposed to diseases according to pre-vaccination incidence higher than being vaccinated?

Other than a rare and very severe allergic response, the vast majority of the rare severe vaccine reactions are due to the immune response and would also occur even worse if exposed to the live pathogen.

Oh, can I borrow that wall tabitha? I often feel the same on these threads.

On what evidence is being exposed to diseases according to pre-vaccination incidence higher than being vaccinated?

Oh ask something sensible - no-one has suggested that.

I need that wall as well.
We shouldnt have to constantly ask for the research to back up claims, that doesnt come from Natural News, Whale or quacks who have cashed in on scaremongering about vaccine.

Elaine is spot on with this

"Other than a rare and very severe allergic response, the vast majority of the rare severe vaccine reactions are due to the immune response and would also occur even worse if exposed to the live pathogen. "

Did you read any of my links bruffin? They were all from science journals or articles.

WTF does Elaine know about risks to my children. Has she seen my son's medical notes? No. Has she conversed with his paediatrician? No. Has she spoken with his neurologist? Not that I'm aware of.

Wild claims aren't coming from this side of the fence.

BTW I seem to be the only person to have posted links on this thread (from a quick scan) so your concern about Natural News et al appears to be imaginary.

No, it's not good to start talking about individual cases. I don't want to go down that route. You have your own doctors and of course they're the ones to advise you.

I'm just basing things on what you yourself have said. But you're right that it's not and it shouldn't be a discussion of your own child's medical file and issues!

That said, I still find it hard to believe that you think that being exposed to diseases is according to a pre-vaccination incidence rate (ie without herd immunity) is less risky than being immunized.

But if you say that you've assumed no herd immunity at all (so pre-vaccination levels of diptheria, measles, mumps, hib) and that is still less of a risk than being exposed to disease, well, OK. Go for it.

OH Elaine do stop twisting what I am saying. OBVIOUSLY I DON'T THINK THAT THE INCIDENCE OF DISEASE IS THE SAME POST VACCINATION. I'm not stupid.

Is that clear enough for you?

This is about decision making when you are stuck between the risk from the disease (rock) and the risk of regression (BTDT) following a vaccination (hard place). You don't say 'nah I won't bother with all that, herd immunity will protect my child so I don't need to worry'. (As you rather suggested up thread). Rather you assume that in leaving them unprotected you risk the disease, and you have to decide how you would feel about an exposure. If you can't live with the idea of that risk then you have no choice but to vaccinate.

Clearly you have never seen a regression, and do not quite understand what a child loses when they regress into severe autism. Or your would understand why we're not all skipping merrily into the sunset safe in the knowledge that herd immunity will protect them, or merrily jabbing away, whichever. Oh how I'd love that certainty of believing i had a child capable of making it to an independent adulthood whatever life threw at their immune system. I did once. It was short lived.

But carry on twisting away. If you must.

I don't like the idea of any child becoming ill or disabled or dead, whether through brain damage, stroke or whatever. I'm sure a child brain damaged by measles isn't nice to see. Oh, actually I know they're not because I know such a child who is indeed not capable of independent living (she can't hear either btw).

I didn't say you think that the incidence of disease is the same as pre-vaccination. But you said that you ASSUME it to be the same since you ASSUME no herd immunity. I often assume things I know not to be true or likely for various reasons. Nowt wrong with that. But if you assume no herd immunity, then clearly you assume a risk of exposure with no herd immunity?

Although, as you say, you're clearly inflating the risk of exposure to disease (whereas many people who don't vaccinate seem to downplay the risk of disease) in this way which makes it even harder for me to understand your decisions. I mean, you're effectively saying that for your children being exposed to the disease is safer than being vaccinated. Well, if your doctors agree with you, I'm certainly going to argue but I'd guess that your doctors do assume herd immunity when they advise you (why wouldn't they!?)

You don't seem to think that children damaged by vaccine are quite a worthy of the same support as children damaged by disease though. Which is kind of odd. Knowing kids who belong to both categories it's not always easy to tell the difference.

Umm, no I never said that. Can you please point out where I allegedly said such a horrible thing?

Disabled children and their families are entitled to full support regardless of the provenance of their condition. Should I say that again?

Really, you make things up to find offence! I think because you know what you said about herd immunity makes no sense so you make something offensive up instead. Won't be the first time, hey ho.

You can have your biscuit back.

What you said I said about herd immunity makes no sense but I am going to have to give up on that.

I have never even seen you accept that children ( other than theoretical ones that don't actually exist) are ever damaged by vaccination. But we've done that before at great length. You've had ample opportunity on this and other threads to ask those with vaccine damaged children why they don't vaccinate, but you never do. You just tell them they're wrong. Even in the cases where the doctors have clearly supported the parents decision. You've done it here, a little 'well of your doctors say so but i don't understand your decidion making', without access to family history or notes, how breathtakingly arrogant.

This whole conversation started because of your suggestion that once herd immunity stops protecting their children (which please note, was your suggestion of something that will happen, not mine) parents will all be rushing out to vaccinate and I said that won't happen because it doesn't reflect WHY people choose not to vaccinate (ime of you know, of actually talking anf listening to people about why they don't vaccinate).

I posted about regression - because given that my unvaccinated children share 50% of their genetic material with their brother the trigger to his regression is kind of important. I used that to explain (again) why people in this position take decisions not to vaccinate (Nothing to do with herd immunity). And you come out with damaged child top trumps. Yes, given the school my son goes to we know children damaged in all sorts of ways. Other people's tragedies are not relevant to decision making for my children in the same way as ds1i's regression is as he's the one we share genetic material with.

I don't find the decision not to vaccinate in those circumstances difficult to understand. I can't imagine people do really. This debate could be less polarised and it would be an improvement. People get stuck in a pro- or anti- camp - often simply labelled by their "debaters" - and then they seem to think it's impossible to "cave" a point one way or the other. It wouldn't be caving, it would just be a sensitive conversation on a sensitive subject.

Are you talking to me? I said I don't find it hard to understand.

Yes, I immediately realized I misunderstood your post and asked for mine to be deleted but MNHQ isn't up yet, it seems.

Ok no problem. I think it's important to listen to individual experiences, myself. What's right for my child might not be right for other people's and I don't see the danger in accepting that.

It's one of life's uncomfortable and unforgiving realities that individual experiences tell you very little about risk. I don't think anyone would disagree that different children respond differently to vaccines. With the benefit of hindsight, you can say a vaccination was right for one child and wrong for another. The question is to what extent you can know this in advance.

Here we go with the dramatics. Saying you don't understand something is generally not considered breath taking arrogance. You must have a very low bar for having your breath taken and live with extremely humble people.

I've always said I don't judge individual decisions. If I had a child I believed to be vaccine damaged, I'm not sure what I'd do. What i do criticise is the evidence on which these decisions are based when people present it.

I certainly didn't do any 'damaged child trumps', what a rather perverted way of thinking. But then again you also accused me of not caring about disabked children because of how they may have acquired their disability with nary a shred of evidence. You're shooting off perceived offences which exist only in your mind.

You've explained your reasoning many times. Assuming there is no herd immunity still seems bonkers and irrational to me. If you're avoiding all triggers whether vaccines or live pathogens then herd immunity is a very good thing for you. I don't see what it's so difficult for you to recognise.