Parental opposition to childhood vaccination grows as Canadians worry about harms of anti-vax movement

[ExFlyer]

"As outbreaks of measles spread throughout the world, anti-vaccine activists aren’t just urging people not to get vaccinated — they’re taking a page from a well-worn playbook, falsely downplaying the dangers from the highly contagious respiratory disease. "   https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/measles-outbreaks-anti-vaccine-misinformation-rcna136994

"A rapidly growing measles outbreak in Columbus, Ohio — largely involving unvaccinated children — is fueling concerns among health officials that more parent resistance to routine childhood immunizations will intensify a resurgence of vaccine-preventable diseases."  https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2022/12/26/vaccine-hesitancy-measles-chickenpox-polio-flu/

 

"Anti-Vaccine Decision-Making and Measles Resurgence in the United States"  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6657116/

 

[Venandi]

 

23 hours ago, CdnFox said:

If 30 plus percent of parents don't want to be forced to vax their young kids, that's a powerful voting block.  And the more people like you call people like them stupid the more they're going to dig in their heels and convince others.

Thanks, that's how I see it too, this is not a statistically insignificant demographic. In addition, (and IMO of course), they are not the sort of folks easily pushed around or stampeded into ill-advised actions by ridicule or peer pressure either. That's simply the wrong approach.

Being retired from the military (32 years and 10 foreign deployments), I’ve had lots of vaccinations. This was the first one I balked at. It didn’t have to be that way either, I had a few simple high school biology questions, the sort you would ask your science teacher before class.

Basic queries about spike protein toxicity, lipid nanoparticles and the possible effects they might have on systemic distribution, the potential for passing the BBB, and what effect a full blown immune response might have on those people with inflammatory type conditions (arthritis, allergies, etc). The questions were easy and they were reasonable. The answers are a completely different thing, they require(d) a level of expertise way beyond grade 13.

And instead of getting those answers in a straight up manner, the people who asked them were ridiculed and attacked. For me, it was that frontal attack that set off the master warning light. Rights and freedoms aside, speaking strictly about vaccine efficacy, everything that’s happened subsequently suggests that my suspicions and concerns had merit. 

I’d suggest that people who’ve previously had (just about) every vaccine known to man don’t rise to the level of rabid anti vaxxers and suggesting that they do is to loose all credibility with them. So yes, of course people are hesitant now, and while that’s a shame and has potential consequences, I simply don’t see how any rational person is surprised by that hesitancy.

Maybe some of the hateful rhetoric previously directed at “anti vaxxers” (on social media) should be showcased here for those who might have forgotten, one things for sure, it didn’t age well.      

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

[eyeball]

I guess it won't be long now until we're hearing stories about measles parties and parents bringing sick kids to emergency rooms and wondering if it's too late to have them vaccinated.

[I am Groot]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

It just isnt. It;s opinion and cannot be made 'factual'  as a result.  If i give you the name and address of a 7 year old child in a specific town in canada can you tell me with precision whether he will catch measles without a vaccine?  Or even what his personal precise chances are?

This is like demanding proof that if I drive my car at 160 down the road and rip through every stop sign and red light I will definitely have an accident. Or proof that if I drink a lot of alcohol like I want to I will definitely hit someone on the way home in my car. What are my chances of that just from driving drunk? 

Nobody can know for a certainty who is going to get what disease. What we do know for a certainty is that if people stop taking vaccines a lot of them will get measles and mumps and then progress up from there into TB epidemics like the ones that used to kill so many people. 

What you're arguing is personal rights vs society's right to protect itself from being continually swept by diseases that kill thousands, if not tens or hundreds of thousands. Being a part of that society requires compromise and living under the laws society has dictated. Society has long decided that personal freedoms can be compromised for the good of the state. You can't beat your children. You can't rape your wife. You can't even paint your garage door the wrong colour in some cities, or put a fence in that goes to high. There's a myriad of laws society has imposed on its members by the general agreement of the elected members of that society.

If you don't want to take vaccines then you have to remove yourself from that society, just like society removes other people who refuse to abide by its laws - into places called prisons.

 

[I am Groot]

3 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

You psudeo-scientific propeller heads are so sure of what you don't know, you're almost ready to attack anyone who might dare question the party line.

"Lock them up! Lock them up!"

It's not a party line. It's an agreement that vaccines protect children and protect society and a recognition of the reality that they've been doing so for generations now. The evidence is crystal clear and absolutely undeniable... by anyone sane.

We know what society was like before vaccines. We know about the deadly epidemics that swept through the population for as long as recorded history, from Rome to London to New York to Toronto and Montreal. We are not returning to the "Bring out yer dead!" days because of some flat-earthers who read something on the internet and now think they're molecular biologists. 

[I am Groot]

20 hours ago, CdnFox said:

It just isnt. It;s opinion and cannot be made 'factual'  as a result.  If i give you the name and address of a 7 year old child in a specific town in canada can you tell me with precision whether he will catch measles without a vaccine?  Or even what his personal precise chances are? If i were to say they were zero would you be able to prove otherwise? Meanwhile given his specific physiology what will be his reaction to a vaccine? or his chances - we know those are non zero.

I can also not tell you what their reactions will be to aspirin or Tylenol, or any other drug they might wind up being required to take in their lives. I also can't say for a certainty they will not die during a necessary operation. So what do you want, everyone to be like the Christian scientists and reject all modern medicine in favor of prayer?

20 hours ago, CdnFox said:

But you caim it's 'fact' that the vaccine rewards outweigh the risk? 

I can absolutely say for a fact that the reward for having everyone, or nearly everyone vaccinated massively outweighs the risks for a society or community.

20 hours ago, CdnFox said:

You don't seem to understand how 'facts' work. It is not a demonstrable fact that it's better. 

It is absolutely a demonstrated fact that it is better for the community as a whole. And that is why the community requires them. If people don't like that they're free to find a community elsewhere that is willing to put up with repeated epidemics for the sake of individual freedom.

 

Edited March 2 by I am Groot

[OftenWrong]

5 hours ago, eyeball said:

No, we just want to protect ourselves from diseased vermin like normal people normally have done for centuries.

We all want that, so let's put that part aside.

I appreciate you looking into it. Does Fauci's paper say those things in the summary?

I'm no expert either, but I am a bit familiar with it.

Actually those things mentioned aren't terribly controversial at all. The problems listed as 1,2,3. At least Fauci et al are being honest.

We all want progress. You know how progressive I am.

But there's progress and regress. As in, stumbling. Like going down the stairs too fast, when you've had a few. Ultimately this results in anti-progress.

Edited March 2 by OftenWrong

[OftenWrong]

1 hour ago, I am Groot said:

It's not a party line. It's an agreement that vaccines protect children and protect society and a recognition of the reality that they've been doing so for generations now. The evidence is crystal clear and absolutely undeniable... by anyone sane.

We know what society was like before vaccines. We know about the deadly epidemics that swept through the population for as long as recorded history, from Rome to London to New York to Toronto and Montreal. We are not returning to the "Bring out yer dead!" days because of some flat-earthers who read something on the internet and now think they're molecular biologists. 

Nobody in their right mind wants a pandemic. That is not even the question. You don't understand the actual issue, but who cares.

At no time should government be able to give such an edict under those circumstances.

The experimental vaccine helped, but it also presented its own risks, some of which are just coming out now. See #3 to get a glimpse of one of those.

This became a political issue, IE poison.

Those on the left cheered for more authoritatian control, holding the opinion that the individual is too stupid to make an informed decision.

 

 

Edited March 2 by OftenWrong

[eyeball]

14 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

I appreciate you looking into it. Does Fauci's paper say those things in the summary?

You mean you didn't take the time to read what you posted yourself after saying Hopefully you government-affirming bobbleheads will have the time and mental prowess to read it?

🤔 Hmmmm.

And before that you said You psudeo-scientific propeller heads are so sure of what you don't know, you're almost ready to attack anyone who might dare question the party line.

Were you trying to be ironic? LMAO!

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, I am Groot said:

This is like demanding proof that if I drive my car at 160 down the road and rip through every stop sign and red light I will definitely have an accident.

 

No, here's what it's like:  Imagine you're doing that because you've got a major wound and will likely bleed out and die shortly so you're rushing to the hospital.

Now - nobody can say for SURE if you'll bleed to death. And nobody can say for sure if you're going to be in an accident.

So a decision has to be made - there's going to be risk either way, which risk do YOU think is the one you should take?

Some will say that the risk to their own life is the biggest issue and they should risk hitting someone else in an accident.

Some will say we have a duty of care for our fellow citzens and you should be expected to risk death by bleeding rather than put other people at risk,

There is no 'factual" answer to that.

Do you see the issue now?  It is not reasonable to claim there is, this is an OPINION of the facts, not the facts.

Quote

Nobody can know for a certainty who is going to get what disease.

exactly.  Nobody can say for certain what the side effects will be either.  So - it's not fact, it's opinion and choice

2 hours ago, I am Groot said:

What you're arguing is personal rights vs society's right to protect itself

Society doesnt have 'rights'.  Where is 'society' mentioned in the constitution as having rights. Or the charter.

All rights are individual rights - so what we're really talking about is the right of one person to something vs the rights of other peole to something.

And that is a choice society makes. That is not  a 'factual' thing - that's where we sit down and say who's rights are being offended and what is fair.

Do you see the issue now?  

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, I am Groot said:

I can also not tell you what their reactions will be to aspirin or Tylenol, or any other drunk they might wind up being required to take in their lives.

 

Nobody anywhere has ever been 'Required" to take asprin.  Name one person who got fired from their job because thy didn't take asprin.  IT's a choice people make.
 

Quote

I also can't say for a certainty they will not die during a necessary operation.

Which is why we always get consent before performing operations whenever humanly possible. People can refuse an operation.

You seeing a pattern yet?

Quote

So what do you want, everyone to be like the Christian scientists and reject all modern medicine in favor of prayer?

Well for starters it'd be great if you could stop acting like a brainless loser.  That'd help

And once we've got that taken care of - what I would like is people to have a right to decide what happens to their body without being PUNISHED. And what happened with covid was punishment.  People should have a right to choice and every accommodation should be made to support their choice.

 

[eyeball]

15 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Society doesnt have 'rights'.  Where is 'society' mentioned in the constitution as having rights. Or the charter.

All rights are individual rights - so what we're really talking about is the right of one person to something vs the rights of other peole to something.

Where is personal responsibility mentioned in the Charter?

[OftenWrong]

59 minutes ago, eyeball said:

You mean you didn't take the time to read what you posted yourself after saying Hopefully you government-affirming bobbleheads will have the time and mental prowess to read it?

🤔 Hmmmm.

And before that you said You psudeo-scientific propeller heads are so sure of what you don't know, you're almost ready to attack anyone who might dare question the party line.

Were you trying to be ironic? LMAO!

Of course I read it. I was asking you. Then I said that none of those three points are actually controversial. It's been common knowledge that respiratory viruses evolve too quickly for vaccines to work. Faste than the flu. The war on viruses has been a race to try and pre-empt the next virus, before it mutates again. Antibiotics is the same problem, and we are losing the war. The protozoans will win.

Which is what the paper says, but it's not new knowledge. It simply appeals for a new approach to vaccines.

As to #3, can the vaccine make it worse, the paper states: 

it seems likely that respiratory vaccines that fail to elicit robust cell-mediated immunity may be suboptimal for the elderly—but also that vaccines that elicit stronger cell-mediated responses could also increase the risk of immunopathogenic effects. 

I bolded the relevant part. Immunopathogenic means,

an inappropriate immune response to an infection, can cause harm to the host in different ways. If the response is weak, immunopathology could take the form of pathogen proliferation.

 

In other words, the vaccine made you weak. You gonna die.

[WestCanMan]

On 2/28/2024 at 12:09 PM, herbie said:

No it made those already opposed yell so damn loud they've influenced too many otherwise sane people.
Thank you Facebook, Twitter, etc

What actually happened is that the word vaccine was simultaneously cheapened and villainized during covid.

"Vaccine" used to mean "Serum that protects you from a lethal pathogen". Now it means "Ineffective, potentially lethal serum that's inflicted on people who don't need it."

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

Where is personal responsibility mentioned in the Charter?

Who said personal responsibility was mentioned in the charter?

[eyeball]

22 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

In other words, the vaccine made you weak. You gonna die.

Only in a very very small handful of cases, compared to the vast numbers of death and disease vaccine prevented - as is the case with every vaccine. That's another reason they never stop working on improving them.

[OftenWrong]

24 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Only in a very very small handful of cases, compared to the vast numbers of death and disease vaccine prevented - as is the case with every vaccine. That's another reason they never stop working on improving them.

These vaccine technologies if you will are a dead end. Their efficacy is limited, always was and still is, for these classes of viruses. Hence the paper concludes a new approach is urgently needed.

At one point alludes to developing innate immunity, by inhaling a vapour of low amounts of the pathogen.

You get it?

Like Gramma said, go outside you ldiot and eat a peck of dirt.

Or like my pappy used to say, every night you need a little of what kills ya.

 

[eyeball]

10 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

Like Gramma said, go outside you ldiot and eat a peck of dirt.

Or like my pappy used to say, every night you need a little of what kills ya.

Or a little pric k of vaccine like my doctor said.

Quote

 

At one point alludes to developing innate immunity, by inhaling a vapour of low amounts of the pathogen.

You get it?

 

Sure, in fact I mentioned developing aerosol vaccines that can be delivered by dusting the population.   

[OftenWrong]

4 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Or a little pric k of vaccine like my doctor said.

Sure, in fact I mentioned developing aerosol vaccines that can be delivered by dusting the population.   

Technically the constant daily exposure to low levels of virus in the environment gives sustained immunity, better than the vaccines that wear out. The immune system reacts within 5 days.

We can't develop new vaccines that quickly.

Therefore, natural health is best.

As wvidences now in my workplace, the younger lads are all bleating and sneezing. Old pappy oftenwrong was there every day. Now Instand resolute.

My blood is like serum. - Charleton Heston

[eyeball]

6 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

Technically the constant daily exposure to low levels of virus in the environment gives sustained immunity, better than the vaccines that wear out. The immune system reacts within 5 days.

We can't develop new vaccines that quickly.

Therefore, natural health is best.

Well sure that's fine for healthy people exposed to mild diseases that human immune systems have been exposed to and evolved around for very a long time but COVID was novel - something our immune systems had never before encountered.

COVID parties will remain an insane idea for some time to come.

[OftenWrong]

13 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Well sure that's fine for healthy people exposed to mild diseases that human immune systems have been exposed to and evolved around for very a long time but COVID was novel - something our immune systems had never before encountered.

COVID parties will remain an insane idea for some time to come.

Well covids still out there, so you are in the party now in a way. The trick is to get just a little bit, but every day. 

Anyway whether you agree or not, it is these issues and the associated politicing that make people distrust government-appointed health advisors.

[eyeball]

9 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

Anyway whether you agree or not, it is these issues and the associated politicing that make people distrust government-appointed health advisors.

Notwithstanding partisan hacks most rational people had a distrust of governments long before COVID came and inflamed the politicking that goes with that distrust.

I think in our case we were effing lucky we had a PM with enough sense to realize the pandemic was way over his head.  Trudeau maintained a clear obvious deference to experts that most people in Canada appear to have picked up and acted on.  In places where public officials displayed disdain for the disease or cultivated the sense they knew better than experts, way more people got sick and died.

[I am Groot]

15 hours ago, CdnFox said:

No, here's what it's like:  Imagine you're doing that because you've got a major wound and will likely bleed out and die shortly so you're rushing to the hospital.

Uhm, except that the odds of bleeding out if you're bleeding heavily are pretty high; certain if you don't stop it quickly. The odds of being harmed by measles, mumps and rubella vaccines are negligible. We've been using them for many decades. Adverse reactions almost never happen, and when they do they're with people who are immunocompromised or suffering some other disease. And even then deaths are extraordinarily rare. The odds of a child dying from these vaccines is lower than being hit by lightning. 

 

15 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Some will say we have a duty of care for our fellow citzens and you should be expected to risk death by bleeding rather than put other people at risk,

The risk is too low for vaccines to be taken into consideration. You can't legitimately compare it to someone bleeding profusely.

15 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Society doesnt have 'rights'.  Where is 'society' mentioned in the constitution as having rights. Or the charter.

All rights in the Charter can be limited on grounds that are 'reasonable' in a free and democratic society. Section 1 states this clearly.

15 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Do you see the issue now?  

No. I don't accept that the 'rights' of an individual to be free of a minuscule chance of dangerous adverse reaction from a vaccine - while taking upon themselves the usually worse odds of getting the disease the vaccine was intended for - trump society's need to avoid being swept by communicable diseases every year, which would be the inevitable result of you getting your way.

Edited March 2 by I am Groot

[I am Groot]

15 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Well for starters it'd be great if you could stop acting like a brainless loser.  That'd help

You really want to turn the conversation in that direction, you gullible twat?

15 hours ago, CdnFox said:

And once we've got that taken care of - what I would like is people to have a right to decide what happens to their body without being PUNISHED. And what happened with covid was punishment.  People should have a right to choice and every accommodation should be made to support their choice.

And society, which is made up of people, should also have the right to choose not to associate with low intellect fools who don't believe in science and want to infect everyone else with the diseases they and their children will get. Go live in Ecuador or somewhere they don't have vaccines. Oh, wait! They do! Otherwise, you die of tropical diseases! 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, I am Groot said:

Uhm, except that the odds of bleeding out if you're bleeding heavily are pretty high;

The odds of you killing someone if you're whipping down the streets at 160 are pretty high.

You're trying to nit pick and it's just silly.  At the end of the day two reasonable people with different priorities can look at that same data and arrive at different conclusions.  Don't let your hatred and bias cloud your logic.

1 hour ago, I am Groot said:

The risk is too low for vaccines to be taken into consideration.

That is your opinion. It may not be the opinion of others. It is NOT a scientific fact.  It IS a scientific fact that some people will get very sick and may die.  Some may decide that's an intolerable risk.

Meanwhile most vaccines are only about 60 -70 percent effective at best - so  you're not even eliminating the risk of the illness if you do it.

I"m not arguing one way is better than the other - but reasonable people could reach either conclusions.

1 hour ago, I am Groot said:

All rights in the Charter can be limited on grounds that are 'reasonable' in a free and democratic society

Reasonable is an opinion. not a scientific fact. All it really means is that "you have the rights and freedoms that we don't disagree with for as long as we don't disagree'.  But we knew that - they can also set aside your rights unreasonably if they want by using the notwithstanding clause

But that doesn't make it right.  They can seize your property without compensation according to the charter but that doesn't make that right

You're getting this aren't you?

certain if you don't stop it quickly. The odds of being harmed by measles, mumps and rubella vaccines are negligible. We've been using them for many decades. Adverse reactions almost never happen, and when they do they're with people who are immunocompromised or suffering some other disease. And even then deaths are extraordinarily rare. The odds of a child dying from these vaccines is lower than being hit by lightning. 

 

Quote

No. I don't accept that the 'rights' of an individual to be free of a minuscule chance of dangerous adverse reaction from a vaccine

Then you don't believe people have a right to decide what medical proceedures  they should or should not be forced to undergo if the state believes it's in the state's interest.

And i guess you can have that opinon - can you think of any other groups that believed that? People who felt that individuals had no say in medical treatments or experiments if it was in the interest of the state? Were those good people in your opinion? Would you want history to view you the same way?

 Bottom line is that sooner or later there's a backlash and then you've got a problem. The trans didn't want to listen to people's concerns and called them names - now we've got marches in the streets and provinces passing more and more laws. 

Trudeau wanted to call peple names and demand everyone get vaxxed - now a leader will be elected who's party has the opposite stance. Wonder what laws or compensation will come from that?

So who's the non-thinking people here? How does it make sense to make enemies of people you disagree with like that?