Take-up of MMR vaccine falls for fourth year in a row.
Discussion
Hayek said:
durbster said:
Hayek said:
They should just offer the seperate vaccines and dump the combined MMR. It doesn't matter that it's perfectly fine, there's a cloud of doubt that will forever hang over it.
That would be considered a victory by the ignorant. That sort of idiocy should never be rewarded.Maybe they should stop kids who haven't been vaccinated (without a valid reason) attending school.
I wonder how children who aren't vaccinated and then develop serious side effects must feel? How do you justify to your own child or indeed their friend for whom the vaccine wasn't effective that your own stupid actions have serious harmed them?
ScotHill said:
Lazadude said:
Oakey said:
That's not why people are refusing it for their kids, it's because they think it'll cause autism.
My point, was the NHS say the vaccine definitely does not cause a reaction and its got to be environmental even though it very obviously does. This makes the people say "what else are they saying it doesn't do?", which then mixed with faceache, it spirals.
Edit: yep - https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/vaccinations/mmr-sid...
Hayek said:
durbster said:
Hayek said:
They should just offer the seperate vaccines and dump the combined MMR. It doesn't matter that it's perfectly fine, there's a cloud of doubt that will forever hang over it.
That would be considered a victory by the ignorant. That sort of idiocy should never be rewarded.Maybe they should stop kids who haven't been vaccinated (without a valid reason) attending school.
Shakermaker said:
durbster said:
Jasandjules said:
So therefore it seems clear that vaccines did not reduce disease, but sewers and clean water etc did
Here's a radical idea: both solutions are effective.Sewers and clean water had the greatest impact, yes, because they were starting from such a high number. If the vaccine had been invented earlier then it is likely that is what would have had the greater impact. But the sewers and clean water didn't eradicate the disease, they just were able to give people the ability to live in much more sanitary conditions than they had before. Not really too hard to believe, is it? No longer were people walking through human faeces thrown into the street, drinking water which fed from the same places, etc etc.
One outbreak of cholera (or typhoid or similar) was stopped in London when someone took the handle off the pump where all the dirty water was being drawn from (Source: That show that Mark Williams did on Discovery 10-15 years ago)
but vaccines have then come along and got rid of the disease in nearly all other cases where it was still occurring.
Smallpox did not disappear due to sanitation improvements between the late 1960s and 1980, the ring vaccination programmes did.
As with most disease, sanitation plays a major part, however without vaccination many diseases that are almost memories now, would still be major issues.
andy_s said:
Hayek said:
durbster said:
Hayek said:
They should just offer the seperate vaccines and dump the combined MMR. It doesn't matter that it's perfectly fine, there's a cloud of doubt that will forever hang over it.
That would be considered a victory by the ignorant. That sort of idiocy should never be rewarded.Maybe they should stop kids who haven't been vaccinated (without a valid reason) attending school.
If parents don't want to inject their children then they should have at least a good reason as that's to the detriment of everyone.
The 'good reason' seems to be just the words of a fraudster 20 years ago that continue to echo to this day.
If we didn't have a nationalised health service this would be less of an issue because the market would respond to what people want.
ETA: Making something manditory will probably increase the opposition to it.
Edited by Hayek on Monday 24th September 13:31
Hayek said:
Who gets to decide what is or is not a good reason? Generally people would like their children vaccinated. Thanks to a lot of noise that amounted to nothing there is misplaced distrust in a certain vaccine, but people are entitled to be concerned rightly or wrongly. If it's government policy to make sure as many as possible are vaccinated then it should do a better job at PERSUADING people of the safety of the MMR and/or offer the seperate injections.
If we didn't have a nationalised health service this would be less of an issue because the market would respond to what people want.
I think the key to it is to think of children not as a parents property to do as they will, but as someone they are responsible for, with the emphasis on 'responsible'. If people have concerns then they should talk with their doctor, read the literature and look at the evidence. I know that's slightly idealistic, but it's quite possible to reach the conclusions without having to be 'persuaded' as such, although that has it's place of course, but for those that have an entrenched view despite the evidence, 'persuasion' is just propaganda anyway.If we didn't have a nationalised health service this would be less of an issue because the market would respond to what people want.
andy_s said:
Hayek said:
Who gets to decide what is or is not a good reason? Generally people would like their children vaccinated. Thanks to a lot of noise that amounted to nothing there is misplaced distrust in a certain vaccine, but people are entitled to be concerned rightly or wrongly. If it's government policy to make sure as many as possible are vaccinated then it should do a better job at PERSUADING people of the safety of the MMR and/or offer the seperate injections.
If we didn't have a nationalised health service this would be less of an issue because the market would respond to what people want.
I think the key to it is to think of children not as a parents property to do as they will, but as someone they are responsible for, with the emphasis on 'responsible'. If people have concerns then they should talk with their doctor, read the literature and look at the evidence. I know that's slightly idealistic, but it's quite possible to reach the conclusions without having to be 'persuaded' as such, although that has it's place of course, but for those that have an entrenched view despite the evidence, 'persuasion' is just propaganda anyway.If we didn't have a nationalised health service this would be less of an issue because the market would respond to what people want.
Hayek said:
Who gets to decide what is or is not a good reason? Generally people would like their children vaccinated. Thanks to a lot of noise that amounted to nothing there is misplaced distrust in a certain vaccine, but people are entitled to be concerned rightly or wrongly. If it's government policy to make sure as many as possible are vaccinated then it should do a better job at PERSUADING people of the safety of the MMR and/or offer the seperate injections.
If we didn't have a nationalised health service this would be less of an issue because the market would respond to what people want.
ETA: Making something manditory will probably increase the opposition to it.
The problem is, people don't necessarily "want" what is best for them. And not getting your child vaccinated represents a risk not just to them, but to those children who have not yet been vaccinated - such as newborn babies - or indeed, those who have other medical conditions which preclude them from being vaccinated. Thanks to herd immunity, these groups are generally well protected, because the fact that nearly everyone else is vaccinated reudces the chance of them ever coming in to contact with someone who has the disease. Also, the vaccine is not 100% effective. Close, very close, but not completely effective in every case. If we didn't have a nationalised health service this would be less of an issue because the market would respond to what people want.
ETA: Making something manditory will probably increase the opposition to it.
Edited by Hayek on Monday 24th September 13:31
Go to somewhere without a nationalised health service... how about the USA? Where, thanks to people saying "I don't want my child vaccinated" in large enough numbers, the number of instances of these diseases coming back up has increased, and not just against those who aren't vaccinated, but against those who can't be (medical) haven't been (babies) and of course, the minute number for whom the vaccine didn't work.
Do you want that?
Hayek said:
Who gets to decide what is or is not a good reason? Generally people would like their children vaccinated. Thanks to a lot of noise that amounted to nothing there is misplaced distrust in a certain vaccine, but people are entitled to be concerned rightly or wrongly. If it's government policy to make sure as many as possible are vaccinated then it should do a better job at PERSUADING people of the safety of the MMR and/or offer the seperate injections.
If we didn't have a nationalised health service this would be less of an issue because the market would respond to what people want.
ETA: Making something manditory will probably increase the opposition to it.
If you are not trolling, it's scary to think that you might have kids. If we didn't have a nationalised health service this would be less of an issue because the market would respond to what people want.
ETA: Making something manditory will probably increase the opposition to it.
Edited by Hayek on Monday 24th September 13:31
zedx19 said:
Oakey said:
That's not why people are refusing it for their kids, it's because they think it'll cause autism.
Potential autism or potential serious illness leading to potential brain damage or death, I know which risk I've took with my own 3 children. Aren't these anti-vaccine groups the same group of people that believe the earth is flat? jjlynn27 said:
Hayek said:
Who gets to decide what is or is not a good reason? Generally people would like their children vaccinated. Thanks to a lot of noise that amounted to nothing there is misplaced distrust in a certain vaccine, but people are entitled to be concerned rightly or wrongly. If it's government policy to make sure as many as possible are vaccinated then it should do a better job at PERSUADING people of the safety of the MMR and/or offer the seperate injections.
If we didn't have a nationalised health service this would be less of an issue because the market would respond to what people want.
ETA: Making something manditory will probably increase the opposition to it.
If you are not trolling, it's scary to think that you might have kids. If we didn't have a nationalised health service this would be less of an issue because the market would respond to what people want.
ETA: Making something manditory will probably increase the opposition to it.
Edited by Hayek on Monday 24th September 13:31
durbster said:
Maybe they should stop kids who haven't been vaccinated (without a valid reason) attending school.
To be clear, are you saying that children with HIV, Hep A, Heb B and measles, mumps etc should be allowed to attend school but those who have not been vaccinated but not infected should not? And you are saying that Muslims ought not be allowed to attend school? That is some serious implication.
Edited by Jasandjules on Monday 24th September 17:10
Jasandjules said:
durbster said:
Maybe they should stop kids who haven't been vaccinated (without a valid reason) attending school.
To be clear, are you saying that children with HIV, Hep A, Heb B and measles, mumps etc should be allowed to attend school but those who have not been vaccinated but not infected should not? (Do you have kids? Have you had them vaccinated?)
ScotHill said:
Lazadude said:
Oakey said:
That's not why people are refusing it for their kids, it's because they think it'll cause autism.
My point, was the NHS say the vaccine definitely does not cause a reaction and its got to be environmental even though it very obviously does. This makes the people say "what else are they saying it doesn't do?", which then mixed with faceache, it spirals.
Edit: yep - https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/vaccinations/mmr-sid...
MDMetal said:
The NHS doesn't help itself, we had a fuss when my wife asked for an elective c section and they said they don't do them despite their guidelines clearly saying they do. Even at the hospital before delivery several ward nurses asked what the medical reason was and said we couldn't possibly have got an elective one there must have been a medical reason. It's clearly a huge organisation but for there's not really any excuse for getting inconsistent messages, either defer the question or ensure you're giving correct advice, health is somewhat more important to give clear answers on than which trim levels offer which paint colours or other relatively pointless info that large organisations do get right.
It wouldn't surprise me if this sort of thing wasn't because from one postcode to another it's different, or even dependent on how prepared a doctor is to listen to whinging about "rights".Personally I'm staggered that "elective" c-sections are even remotely on the NHS radar. If there's no medical reason to have one, push. It surely has to cost more to perform them (very cursory scanning of the web suggests getting on for double - that should only be a choice if followed by the presentation of the credit card machine for the difference!).
_dobbo_ said:
It's 2018 and there are still people arguing about vaccination. People who don't vaccinate their children are a best morons and at worst wilfully endangering other children. fk those people.
Do you have the uptake rate for the last 5 years or so? Moonhawk hasn't replied yet.Will also need the numbers of vaccinated and unvaccinated in the ONS data I found but I can't see that listed either, do you have it please?
Lazadude said:
My point, was the NHS say the vaccine definitely does not cause a reaction......
Do they? Can you cite an example of this because as far as I can tell - the NHS are open about the potential side effects, even publishing them on their website:https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/vaccinations/mmr-sid...
Jasandjules said:
Do you have the uptake rate for the last 5 years or so? Moonhawk hasn't replied yet.
How about this:http://www.qualitywatch.org.uk/indicator/populatio...
These charts show that the uptake of all of the vaccines listed have been steadily declining since 2013/14. They are all below the world health target of 95% coverage, with the exception of DTap (2nd birthday) - which hit 95% in 2016/17 (and if the trend has continued - is likely also below that level by now).
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff