Important -- how to in 10 sec shut up a ProVaccine person

a reply to: rickymouse

Actually efficacy studies done on a vaccine are done before the vaccine is released and have nothing to do with doctors reporting on who does or does not get measles after the fact.

Also, given the rapid rate of spread of this one outbreak, and the number of years we have gone without a substantial outbreak, I'd say the vaccine has been either doing its job or we have effectively managed to keep every measles infected person out of the country.

originally posted by: PizzaAnyday505
a reply to: Elton

You make it sound like homeschooling is a bad idea

At home my kid would learn right from wrong and would finally have the answer to question

Why does everyone hate the US

As far as vaccinations. If people think the US govt is purposely trying to vegetate their kids with vaccinations, then they have a serious handicap in mental capacity which may be hereditary, so this is just another form of nature excluding them from the gene pool over the long run.

a reply to: SonOfThor

Here's what I see happening if this continues to be an issue. I see people who refuse to vaccinate themselves or their children being kept away from the herd. In other words, I see employers refusing to hire someone unless they have a valid vaccination record. I see certain business not allowing customers inside without a valid vaccination record. Is that the right way to handle it? I don't know, but I can certainly see that happening in the future.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: TheNameOfTheGame

If it spreads because of people that are unvaccinated the only people that would be endangered(in the vaccinated group) are the 5% in whom the vaccine was ineffective. You make it sound like everyone is suddenly at risk.

Everyone is at risk because there is no way of telling who the vaccine was ineffective for.

Now this is some NLBS.

Wether one can establish wether one is protected or not, the risk is still 5% or less.

Everyone is clearly not at risk. Less than 5% percent of those vacccinated is.

You can try to twist this info all you want but it doesn't make the 5% chance a 100% chance.


Also there is a way to check for antibodies with a blood test, so you are wrong about that too.

And,

More than 95% of the people who receive a single dose of MMR will develop immunity to all 3 viruses. A second vaccine dose gives immunity to almost all of those who did not respond to the first dose.

www.cdc.gov...

If vaccinated people are worried then they should get two doses. I mean judging by this info the effectiveness after two doses is nearly 100%.

So what are you guys worried about?

Make sure you had two doses yourself instead of forcing others to get vaccinated based on a ridiculous argument.

it is potentially dangerous.

Dangerous to whom?

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969
Im guessing the same people paroting the measles deadly outbreak where scared because of ebola was going to kill millions of americans. Yea for more un educated replies from the doom porn fans of ats.

Oh dear. I don't think you can compare people who warn about the dangers of losing herd immunity to measles with the people who were spreading rumors that ebola was going to kill everyone on Earth.

Why not? It is the same level of unfounded hysteria. Much ado about nothing. A hundred or so measely measles cases in a population of 600 million.

No reason for this artificial outrage against people that chose not to vaccinate.

originally posted by: boymonkey74
Oh and just to point out we have 10 people with autism in my unit and I checked records and only two had the MRR vaccine when children.

I don't believe you

Prove it, this is Internet and people with agendas exist. That's why proof is needed for claims you made

originally posted by: boymonkey74 Oh and just to point out we have 10 people with autism in my unit and I checked records and only two had the MRR vaccine when children.

How do you explain the low 20% vaccination rate in your group?

originally posted by: cmdrkeenkid
Uhh... Nowhere in that link does it mention any correlation between autism and vaccinations. In fact, it actually refutes your claims. Here is an excerpt from the article you didn't read:

What kind of game are you playing

Person asked for the link showing how many kids get it as in ratio

That is the link I provided, but feel free to use technicalities to try and win argument

a reply to: alexkelsey92

Have it your way

I hope you are lucky and your kid doesn't get disabled for life living like a rat

Good luck

originally posted by: Gryphon66
No, you don't have any right to use your children as disease vectors against the rest of us, least of all our children.

Before throwing insults maybe you should read my opening post

In any case let me shut you up

So vaccinate your kids if you are afraid of my kids.... Logic much

originally posted by: boymonkey74
Oh and just to point out we have 10 people with autism in my unit and I checked records and only two had the MRR vaccine when children.

How many of those unvaccinated ended up with measles's though?

a reply to: ketsuko

As another person who doesn't get it let me be blunt

I don't care what you do with your kids

Go ahead and vaccinate those poor souls 20 times a year

But you won't play lottery with my kids

Have a nice day

4500 deaths a year from the common cold. You expose your children to an unvaccinated potentially fatal disease with a higher death rate than measels every single day......They are probably playing with some snot nosed friend as we speak. How many of you send your child to school with a cold? You animals they should throw you in a camp and pass laws making it compulsory for your child to stay home with a cold. You are putting our precious muffins at risk with your refusal to stay home and lose your job when your child has a cold.

Interesting that the lack of profit motive seems to coincide with the lack of compulsory edicts....

originally posted by: PizzaAnyday505
a reply to: ketsuko

As another person who doesn't get it let me be blunt

I don't care what you do with your kids

Go ahead and vaccinate those poor souls 20 times a year

But you won't play lottery with my kids

Have a nice day

And when you don't vaccinate you play lottery with everyone's kids because infectious disease doesn't care that what you do with your body is supposed to stay with you. It will jump where it can. Without exposing a child to constant titer tests, there is no way to know what your effective immunity is.

Of and when you kids get the measles ... you have no way of knowing if the immunity they develop has remained effective either. Not without actually testing to see. So you are then in the boat with all the rest of us who would prefer that people not just open their doors to infectious disease because they can.

That is what you simply don't get.

PS, The standard vaccination schedule is not 20 times per year. Hyperbole gives away your excess of emotion on this topic. Emotion clouds reason.

originally posted by: PizzaAnyday505
I was reading one of those heated vaccine threads and wanted to post this but a guy on page 2 beat me to it.

***************************************
Something has been done... its called vaccination. If you don't want the disease, get vaccinated. What do you care if someone else would rather risk it than take the shot... you're protected.

If you trust the modern vaccines made in US that they won't make your kid 1 in 80 that get autism then vaccinate yourself and that poor kid and shut up about me and my kid

Case closed

If only ATS NLBS thought of such logic

How does heard immunity thing bother you if you and your kids are already vaccinated with your mighty vaccines

I don't think you're going to silence the pro-vaccine crowd with any sort of rational argument. You need to frame the argument in terms more familiar to them.

First, you need to come up with a catchy, insulting nickname. Ideally, something that will invoke fear and hate. "Anti-vaxx idiot" came out of nowhere (MSM) and seemed to stick. If possible, the nickname should incorporate an already popular insult like "anti", "denier" or "hater". Combine that with something positive like "freedom", then tack on an attack on the person's intelligence like "nutjob" or "idiot". The final combination should be short, so it rolls off the tongue and doesn't tax the attention span of people too busy to think things through.

"Anti-freedom nazi" gets the point across, but it's just too generic and could apply to many different groups.

"Freedom hating drug pusher" is a bit more precise, but I think it's too long to catch on. Maybe someone more experienced than I can come up with a better catchy, insulting nickname.

When you have the nickname, use it early and often. When someone starts making a rational argument, use the nickname freely. You need to drum it into people's heads that the ones that disagree with you are not mentally competent to make their own decisions, and your fears trump their rights.

Rational discussion isn't going to cut it. You need to play on people's emotions, mostly fear and hate.

originally posted by: NihilistSanta
4500 deaths a year from the common cold.

The "common cold" cannot be vaccinated against. The RSV virus has about a 1 in 500,000 mortality rate (almost exclusively in the very vulnerable due to complications). Measles kill 1 in 1,000, FAR more than the common cold and is FAR more infectious. It's also vaccine-preventable. Comparing measles to the common cold is ridiculous.

originally posted by: PizzaAnyday505
I was reading one of those heated vaccine threads and wanted to post this but a guy on page 2 beat me to it.

***************************************
Something has been done... its called vaccination. If you don't want the disease, get vaccinated. What do you care if someone else would rather risk it than take the shot... you're protected.

If you trust the modern vaccines made in US that they won't make your kid 1 in 80 that get autism then vaccinate yourself and that poor kid and shut up about me and my kid

Case closed

If only ATS NLBS thought of such logic

How does heard immunity thing bother you if you and your kids are already vaccinated with your mighty vaccines

You've not thought this topic through properly have you?

a reply to: GetHyped

From the CDC's own site which I posted in another thread measles deaths were in the hundreds annually. Ranging between 400 and 600. Who cares if there is no vaccine for the common cold that is irrelevant the idea is that your reasoning for vaccinating is to protect the child yet you allow them to be exposed to the common cold every single day...Knowing there is no vaccine for it just means you are as irresponsible as those you point fingers at for not "vaxxing" . Like I said do you keep your child home from school every time they have the cold? If not you are just allowing your child to become some Typhoid Mary every single time but there is no media hype or gov regulations to bicker about in this instance.

I should add I am talking US figures here. Also no one ever credits increases in sanitary practices or diet when considering the decline in mortality rates from disease.

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom

originally posted by: PizzaAnyday505
I was reading one of those heated vaccine threads and wanted to post this but a guy on page 2 beat me to it.

***************************************
Something has been done... its called vaccination. If you don't want the disease, get vaccinated. What do you care if someone else would rather risk it than take the shot... you're protected.

If you trust the modern vaccines made in US that they won't make your kid 1 in 80 that get autism then vaccinate yourself and that poor kid and shut up about me and my kid

Case closed

If only ATS NLBS thought of such logic

How does heard immunity thing bother you if you and your kids are already vaccinated with your mighty vaccines

I don't think you're going to silence the pro-vaccine crowd with any sort of rational argument. You need to frame the argument in terms more familiar to them.

First, you need to come up with a catchy, insulting nickname. Ideally, something that will invoke fear and hate. "Anti-vaxx idiot" came out of nowhere (MSM) and seemed to stick. If possible, the nickname should incorporate an already popular insult like "anti", "denier" or "hater". Combine that with something positive like "freedom", then tack on an attack on the person's intelligence like "nutjob" or "idiot". The final combination should be short, so it rolls off the tongue and doesn't tax the attention span of people too busy to think things through.

"Anti-freedom nazi" gets the point across, but it's just too generic and could apply to many different groups.

"Freedom hating drug pusher" is a bit more precise, but I think it's too long to catch on. Maybe someone more experienced than I can come up with a better catchy, insulting nickname.

When you have the nickname, use it early and often. When someone starts making a rational argument, use the nickname freely. You need to drum it into people's heads that the ones that disagree with you are not mentally competent to make their own decisions, and your fears trump their rights.

Rational discussion isn't going to cut it. You need to play on people's emotions, mostly fear and hate.

I prefer anti anti-vaxxer myself.
Or anti anti-science.
Either's fine with me and perfectly descriptive.

originally posted by: NihilistSanta
a reply to: GetHyped

From the CDC's own site which I posted in another thread measles deaths were in the hundreds annually. Ranging between 400 and 600. Who cares if there is no vaccine for the common cold that is irrelevant the idea is that your reasoning for vaccinating is to protect the child yet you allow them to be exposed to the common cold every single day...Knowing there is no vaccine for it just means you are as irresponsible as those you point fingers at for not "vaxxing" . Like I said do you keep your child home from school every time they have the cold? If not you are just allowing your child to become some Typhoid Mary every single time but there is no media hype or gov regulations to bicker about in this instance.

I should add I am talking US figures here. Also no one ever credits increases in sanitary practices or diet when considering the decline in mortality rates from disease.

A normal common cold causes no problems at all unless the person who gets it is already very ill.
RSV however, which presents as the common cold and as such is lumped into the data for it can cause major problems such as pneumonia & death.
Unfortunately there isn't a vaccine for this yet but it's being worked on.
The reason there are vaccines is to prevent against potentially dangerous and sometimes deadly diseases of which the common cold ISN'T one.

As for sanitation and nutrition, no-one doubts the role they've played in reducing mortality (a huge part is the medical advancement of treating these illnesses too) however, they had very little impact upon incidence or morbidity.
If the incidence of a disease increases then mortality will increase.
It always will.
Here's what happened in France fairly recently, a country with excellent sanitation, good nutrition and first class medical facilities.
wwwnc.cdc.gov...

If the incidence keeps increasing in the US, the same thing will happen there.