Ontario Stricter on Vaccine Requirements

[Accountability Now]

Me too, just so long as they stay well away from me or anyone who will ever come into contact with me.

Their religious rights, or paranoid rights, do not trump my right to being healthy.

How many years ago did you have your last measles shot?

[WestCoastRunner]

How many years ago did you have your last measles shot?

As an adult, do I need this vaccine? You do NOT need the measles, mumps, rubella vaccine (MMR) if:

• You had blood tests that show you are immune to measles, mumps, and rubella.
• You are a man born before 1957.
• You are a woman born before 1957 who is sure she is not having more children, has already had rubella vaccine, or has had a positive rubella test.
• You already had two doses of MMR or one dose of MMR plus a second dose of measles vaccine.
• You already had one dose of MMR and are not at high risk of measles exposure.

You SHOULD get the measles vaccine if you are not among the categories listed above, and:

• You are a college student, trade school student, or other student beyond high school.
• You work in a hospital or other medical facility*.
• You travel internationally, or are a passenger on a cruise ship.
• You are a woman of childbearing age.

[Wilber]

Had measles, mumps and chicken pox. Wouldn't wish them on any kid. Brother in law had polio. Didn't kill him but affected his legs for years. Mumps can cause deafness or male sterility in a few cases and measles leaves one at risk for shingles later in life, which is often more serious than the original disease and can affect things like vision. Buddy of mine lost his medical and flying career because of the way shingles affected his eyes.

There might be a reason I wouldn't get a child vaccinated but it would have to be a damn good one.

[Bryan]

There might be a reason I wouldn't get a child vaccinated but it would have to be a damn good one.

Concerns over safety, testing, side-effects, and efficacy are all very good reasons.

[bush_cheney2004]

Likewise...had measles, mumps, and chicken pox...no big deal....but that was me. Back in those days (late 50's...early '60's), parents would want to get their kids exposed and get it over with. Most kids today have no idea what calamine lotion is.

[Bryan]

Likewise...had measles, mumps, and chicken pox...no big deal....but that was me. Back in those days (late 50's...early '60's), parents would want to get their kids exposed and get it over with. Most kids today have no idea what calamine lotion is.

No mumps here, but measles and chicken pox, for sure. Definitely not a big deal at all.

[bush_cheney2004]

No mumps here, but measles and chicken pox, for sure. Definitely not a big deal at all.

Not to us...polio was a bigger deal. We had kids in "iron lungs". That will get your attention and make you gladly swallow the sugar cube.

[Wilber]

Likewise...had measles, mumps, and chicken pox...no big deal....but that was me. Back in those days (late 50's...early '60's), parents would want to get their kids exposed and get it over with. Most kids today have no idea what calamine lotion is.

It's true they were regarded as normal childhood diseases but is that a good reason to not immunize against them and the potential future complications they present? These diseases can be very serious in some cases with severe complications and sometimes lethal. Measles has a .3% fatality rate in developed countries and up to 28% in very poor ones, 30% in persons with compromised immune systems like AIDS.

So that begs the question, what presents the greater risk to a person with a compromised immune system, the disease or the vaccine? It's a crap shoot either way and if you don't go with the vaccine, you are counting on others to be immunized so you don't get exposed.

They still use calamine for poison ivy don't they? No vaccine for that yet.

[bush_cheney2004]

It's true they were regarded as normal childhood diseases but is that a good reason to not immunize against them and the potential future complications they present?

But that is part of the challenge for public health programs....many older parents and now grandparents had our experience with these "childhood" diseases and it wasn't any big deal. Intellectually I understand the public health math, but it is difficult to accept that a small number of kids will be permanently disabled by the very vaccine used to immunize for diseases we "suffered" through as a right of passage.

Edited April 18, 2014 by bush_cheney2004

[Wilber]

But that is part of the challenge for public health programs....many older parents and now grandparents had our experience with these "childhood" diseases and it wasn't any big deal. Intellectually I understand the public health math, but it is difficult to accept that a small number of kids will be permanently disabled by the very vaccine used to immunize for diseases we "suffered" through as a right of passage.

Most of us suffered through them, others weren't so lucky. I suspect that more weren't so lucky suffering through the disease than are disabled by vaccines, even if that connection can be made.

[bush_cheney2004]

Most of us suffered through them, others weren't so lucky. I suspect that more weren't so lucky suffering through the disease than are disabled by vaccines, even if that connection can be made.

I don't know what the numbers for that are. Compensation programs for kids permanently harmed by vaccines in Canada seem to be lacking as well. All they get is more 'free" health care.

[Accountability Now]

<p>

As an adult, do I need this vaccine?]

Most government sites say you have lifelong immunity, however I have seen other sites suggest you need a booster after 10 years. This study in particular showed that after 15-25 years, a little less than half of their sample size lost immunity.

"In this study we measured anti-measles IgG antibody titres 15 to 25 years after 1 or 2 doses of measles vaccination to determine the proportion of seropositivity. Of the studied population 44.6% were seronegative, and there was no difference between those who had had 1 dose of vaccine and those who had had 2 doses (P = 0.16)."

http://www.emro.who.int/emhj-volume-12-2006/volume-12-issue-5/measles-seroepidemiology-among-adolescents-and-young-adults-response-to-revaccination.html

[Bryan]

Me too, just so long as they stay well away from me or anyone who will ever come into contact with me.

Their religious rights, or paranoid rights, do not trump my right to being healthy.

I've been wondering about this. If the vaccines work as advertised, and you and your kids are vaccinated, why are you concerned about being around people who are not vaccinated?

[WestCoastRunner]

I've been wondering about this. If the vaccines work as advertised, and you and your kids are vaccinated, why are you concerned about being around people who are not vaccinated?

Exactly. My concern is with infants being around these children who have not been vaccinated. Infants don't get vaccinated against measles until they are at least a year old.

Edited April 25, 2014 by WestCoastRunner

[segnosaur]

I've been wondering about this. If the vaccines work as advertised, and you and your kids are vaccinated, why are you concerned about being around people who are not vaccinated?

This has already been explained in this thread.

While vaccines are very effective, nobody claims they are perfect. There are some individuals who (through no fault of their own) get vaccinated but for some reason their body does not build up an immunity to the disease. Or, given the fact that a vaccination takes time to become effective, there is a short time period after getting immunized that you are still vulnerable to a disease.

(I could also point out that there are individuals who cannot get vaccinated for real reasons... too young for some vaccines, compromised immune systems, allergies to some products in the vaccine, etc.)

That's why we rely on a certain extent on "herd immunity"... get everyone vaccinated, so that there is a lower probability of the virus transmitted between people who do not have immunity.

Let me give you an example... the Smallpox vaccine was "only" 95% effective. (Meaning 5% of those vaccinated could still get the disease). Yet governments around the world decided to engage in wide-spread vaccination programs. As a result, the disease was wiped out... eliminated... people no longer get sick and die from it. Why did that happen if the vaccine didn't work 5% of the time? Because if you eliminate the chance of disease in ONE person (one of the 95% where vaccines worked) then you eliminate the chance that person will cause it to be transmitted to anyone else (including one of the 5% where the vaccine didn't work.) That happens enough times, and a disease can be eliminated.

Edited April 30, 2014 by segnosaur

[segnosaur]

Technically, they do. You do not have a right to "being healthy"....

Perhaps not... but, we do have legal protection against being assaulted, or against people unlawfully risking our lives.

If I hit someone in the knee with a baseball bat, legally and morally I am to blame for inflicting harm on another. And if I decide to drive drunk, I am likewise legally and morally at fault, not because I'm actually harming someone, but because my actions are risking the lives of others.

Not getting vaccinated is much like driving drunk... You might "get away" with it multiple times, but you are still risking those around you.

[segnosaur]

Their religious rights, or paranoid rights, do not trump my right to being healthy.

Most of them would use almost the same wording regarding their right not to vaccinate.

The difference is, those wanting people to get vaccinated actually have science on their side. They can point to multiple scientific studies that show that vaccination reduces the risk of disease, and the benefits FAR outweigh any potential side effects.

Those who are claiming vaccines are unhealthy are relying on either:

- Bad science (e.g. the Wakefield study)

- A lack of understanding of things like statistics, or of cause and effect relationships

Take for example the earlier posting here where someone claimed "OMG! Vaccines contain Formaldehyde!" Sounds eeeevilllll.. But it is also scientifically ignorant. The fact is that the quantities of formaldehyde are tiny, much smaller than the amount known to cause harm. (And, I should point out, the body actually produces its own formaldehyde... if it were really so dangerous we'd ALL be dead by now.)

Concerns over safety, testing, side-effects, and efficacy are all very good reasons.

The question is whether those "concerns" are actually based in reality or not. When you get right down to it, most of those concerns seem to be based on bad science.

If I said "I must drive drunk, because I have a concern that if I don't evil space aliens will steal my brain!", people will consider that a false concern. Likewise, if people claim "vaccines cause autism!" (they don't) or "they have dangerous chemicals" (they don't have such chemicals in a quantity that is harmful) then those are false concerns.

An anti-vaxers ignorance does not a valid concern make.

Edited April 30, 2014 by segnosaur

[Accountability Now]

If I said "I must drive drunk, because I have a concern that if I don't evil space aliens will steal my brain!", people will consider that a false concern. Likewise, if people claim "vaccines cause autism!" (they don't) or "they have dangerous chemicals" (they don't have such chemicals in a quantity that is harmful) then those are false concerns.

Vaccines don't cause autism but that doesn't mean they are good for people with it. Just like sugar doesn't cause diabetes but it sure has an effect on it. Stress doesn't cause MS but it sure has an effect.

I think you and I have discussed this before but I'll say it again. For the vast majority of children, the ability to eliminate small toxins as what you describe above is good. Other children (like most with autism) have a reduced capability to detox and therefore these smaller amounts of toxins affect them much different than normal children. The bottom line is that more research needs to be done to figure out which kids are succeptable and might require a different vaccination approach.

There have already been proven cases of vaccines 'causing' autims (Hannah Poling) and I purposely put quotes around causing as the antivax side uses this one all the time. However, if you ever read in depth was the rulings stated that the vaccines 'aggrevated' the autism condition.....not caused it. There are very few cases where we see proof of adverse reactions on an acute level however I believe the chronic conditions are starting to show themsleves and more research is showing up to prove it.