Why the sudden hostility to anti-vaxxers? (Not here, I mean in the culture at large...)

[Rocaille]

Sorry, this will be garbled: I'm thinking aloud. First of all, I'm not an anti-vaxxer. I don't think I've ever refused a vaccination, either for myself or DD. But in the last year or so, I've noticed a sudden ramping up of hostility towards people who choose not to vaccinate their children, not necessarily on Mumsnet, but certainly in the culture at large. Even the term 'anti-vaxxer' is a new coinage, I think.

I'm posting to find out, has anyone else noticed this, and if so, what do you make of it?

For me, it's reminiscent of the way that, some years back, the trans agenda appeared suddenly at the forefront of public discourse. In my tinfoil-hat-donning moments, I wonder who decides what issues we debate, when we debate them and to what end. Why now for anti-vax? I suppose there have been some serious measles epidemics in recent years, but that doesn't seem to account for the heat and urgency of debate, or the way anti-vaxxers are being characterised as a certain type of person.

Another thing that makes me associate pro-vax with the trans agenda is that it's potentially about the compulsory medical treatment of children, and removing the parent (mother) as the final arbiter of what can and cannot be done to her child's body. That's where I see pro-vax going.

Could this be another dimension of the same agenda, or have I completely lost the plot?

“On the birth group I am on (different platform) there is a baby who contracted pertussis (whooping cough) at 4 weeks old, he nearly died - he is still in intensive care 4 months later, was on echo and 100% oxygen and has had to have a permanent tracheotomy. He has suffered severe brain damage from hypoxia. This is the reality of other people not vaccinating.”

@twins2019 isn’t that the reality of the babies mother not vaccinating against whooping cough? She provides the immunity at 4 weeks.

*AlwaysComingHome
*
*
HIV jumped the species barrier from apes to humans multiple times, and SARS originated in civets.

Unless there was widespread vaccination of these species circa 1910 (the last common ancestor of HIV strains) vaccination seems an unlikely cause.*

Thank you , For putting it in a way I can understand.

You see it's this belittling of people asking questions that clouds the debate.

If you're so sure you're right why use complicated science speak to try to make out you must be right. I don't think you're right, I just think you're a knob

My last paragraph was to Igneococcus , not AlwaysComingHome

Along with @Gingerkittykat my understanding was that vaccinated people can still spread diseases without showing sysmptoms themselves

The vitriol given to people who have decided not to give certain vaccinations because they think that puts others at risk seems hypocritical at best

Just because I'm not a microbiologist myself doesn't mean I didn't understand what he said, when he said that it appeared to him that AIDS was man made, or perhaps as a result of some intervention.

Yes, but WHEN did he say it? Pps have been asking that and explaining that knowledge has evolved.
If he asked that question in the 80s, it was legitimate, but surely you can understand that knowledge has moved on and his questioning is likely not relevant.

You may not know a lot about science, but then you're not asking questions, are you? You're telling us things based on "I heard", or "X told me".

What are your actual questions?

Oh, and if he was asking that question now, then he's ignorant.

Handsoffmysweets

You’re taking one comment and banging on and on and insulting me. Why would anyone engage with you when you’re being so OTT?

@Passthecherrycoke she's in the states I don't think they offer it during pregnancy there. I

Also I didn't get the injections as I had my babies before it was scheduled. So that's my reality. These are preventable diseases with serious consequences especially for more at risk groups such as premature babies.

I’ve reported you. I didn’t insult you, I said the story was BS. That’s what I thought. You’ve dragged it out and called me all sorts of things. Against the rules and totally unnecessary. Move on.

Here in Mexico, the Hep B vaccine is given to two-day-old babies. Why?
I suggest you look at the literature and reasoning for such licensing and present it here for discussion, rather than a generic question

@Lweji, I have looked. and a lot, but still have not found a convincing answer.

@orangeshoebox

You are talking about Hepatitis A. Hepatitis B is contracted through dirty needles and sexual intercourse.

@Lweji, I have looked. and a lot, but still have not found a convincing answer.

What answers have you found, though?

Hepatitis B is also transmitted from mother to child.
www.emedicinehealth.com/hepatitis_b/article_em.htm#how_is_hepatitis_b_transmitted_how_do_you_get_hepatitis_b

This is what the WHO says about it:

"WHO recommends that all infants should receive their first dose of vaccine as soon as possible after birth, preferably within 24 hours. Delivery of hepatitis B vaccine within 24 hours of birth should be a performance indicator for all immunization programmes. The birth dose should be followed by 2 or 3 doses to complete the primary series."

"There is no evidence to support the need for a booster dose of hepatitis B vaccine. Protection lasts at least 20 years, and is possibly life-long."

"The virus is highly contagious and is transmitted through contact with the blood or other body fluids of an infected person. Hepatitis B virus can survive outside the body for at least 7 days"

www.who.int/immunization/diseases/hepatitisB/en/

Not sure what the problem is supposed to be.

twins2019

“@Passthecherrycoke she's in the states I don't think they offer it during pregnancy there.”

@twins2019 so I guess if pregnant women don’t get vaccinated against whooping cough no one does as standard, so that example isn’t really related to the vaccine debate? The sad situation with the baby wasn’t caused by anti vaxxers, just bad luck

Handsoffmysweets you are tedious- and I’ve has one removed, you’ve had two. Just chill and move on fgs

@Passthecherrycoke the baby caught whooping cough they think from church. The point is the diseases vaccinations are intended to prevent can be deadly in the most vulnerable. Many of these diseases had been nearly eradicated in the developed world but are coming back owing to the time lag of the antivax movement. The situation in the states with multiple episodes of serious measles outbreaks is evidence of this.

My principle point (that you are choosing to ignore I note) is I have two medically fragile premature babies - vaccination is essential to protect my children until their immune system can catch up and the refusal by some to vaccinate in the population at large potentially puts my children and other medically fragile children (such as those undergoing chemotherapy) at risk.

Many nicu parents refer to leaving hospital as going home to preemie prison - we don't go to crowded spaces or anywhere with indoor crowds part of the reason for this is because of some of the attitudes expressed on this thread.

Twins2019 my point is simply that you are using an example of an illness serious in babies that IS NOT vaccinated against. Which doesn’t really prove any sort of point about vaccination protecting the vulnerable

In the UK where I live it is vaccinated against so I honestly have no idea what point you are trying to make. The reason it is vaccinated against in the uk is it can be deadly as highlighted by the baby that I flagged who has contracted it. That clear enough?