Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Study Finds Unvaccinated Students Putting Other Students At Risk

samzenpus posted about 2 years ago | from the have-some-mumps dept.

Medicine 1025

New submitter haroldmandel writes in with a story about the increase of certain diseases in school-age children due to parents not having their kids vaccinated. "Parents nervous about the safety of vaccinations for their children may be causing a new problem: the comeback of their grandparents' childhood diseases, reports a new study from the University of Pennsylvania School of Nursing. Despite the successes of childhood immunizations, wrote Penn Nursing researcher Alison M. Buttenheim, PhD, MBA, in the American Journal of Public Health, controversy over their safety has resulted in an increasing number of parents refusing to have their children vaccinated and obtaining legally binding personal belief exemptions against vaccinations for their children."

cancel ×


Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

They're stupid (5, Insightful)

neo8750 (566137) | about 2 years ago | (#41107479)

That is all i have say.

Re:They're stupid (5, Funny)

Lumpy (12016) | about 2 years ago | (#41107557)

I think there is a Vaccine for that. Maybe that is the problem, the parents missed their vaccinations?

Re:They're stupid (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41107689)

another example on the stupidity and lack of education of the people of the united states of america.

Re:They're stupid (5, Insightful)

dywolf (2673597) | about 2 years ago | (#41107853)

And that's why they need educated. And the education system itself is to blame for this. Too much rote learning, and not enough learning how to learn and learning how to think. It's not terribly difficult to sit down and think for a second and realize that if you dont get vaccinated, you're dependent on everyone else still getting vaccinated in order to not get sick. And even then, that still leaves "outside the herd" sources of infection, as well as diseases that arent transmittable (and have no herd immunity effect), such at Tetenas (spelling, I know).

But that requires thinking and reasoning skills, and too many people seem to only have the ability to yell at the tv "Stupid conservatives/liberals".


Tastecicles (1153671) | about 2 years ago | (#41107485)

So, submitter, how much did Smaxoglithkline pay you?

Re:SCAREMONGERING. (4, Informative)

MightyYar (622222) | about 2 years ago | (#41107503)

Vaccines are not that profitable. Please adjust your tinfoil hat.

Re:SCAREMONGERING. (0, Flamebait)

x1n933k (966581) | about 2 years ago | (#41107721)

I'm looking at a quick list of vaccinations for from my local clinic that range between 20$ and 120$. 5 millions kids in California seems like a nice chunk of change.

Re:SCAREMONGERING. (4, Informative)

alen (225700) | about 2 years ago | (#41107777)

revenue not profits

you have to spend money on R&D, FDA approval, complying with all kinds of regulations selling to the government, bulk discounts. very little profit on vaccines


Crisses (776475) | about 2 years ago | (#41107857)

Well, then you want to catch every single child you can, to maximize the profit, right? After all, you invested in R&D, FDA approval & compliance with regulations. But once you have it on the assembly line, each vial of vaccine can't really cost much on top of those up-front costs.... so we'd better start immunizing all those stragglers too!

Re:SCAREMONGERING. (5, Interesting)

Sarten-X (1102295) | about 2 years ago | (#41107847)

Having worked in the medical research field, I can tell you with certainty that vaccines are that profitable...

  • They're profitable for the data center operators, who spend six months running database queries to assemble a clinical trial.
  • They're profitable for the insurers, who no longer have to pay for treatment of some very difficult diseases.
  • They're profitable for the utility companies who charge for powering the lab equipment for several years while a vaccine is produced.
  • They're profitable for the data analysts, who are paid to go over the results from the lab tests only to say "chemical A did not significantly do anything different than chemical B".
  • They're profitable for the researchers who get paid for spending a decade understanding the biological mechanisms of any particular disease, and finding ways to disrupt them (and nothing else).

Finally when it's all said and done, the actual pharmaceutical company can bring in billions of dollars in revenue selling the vaccine, which is just about enough to fund the next few projects.


Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41107901)

These all seem like wonderful things to be profitable for.

Re:SCAREMONGERING. (4, Interesting)

Dr_Barnowl (709838) | about 2 years ago | (#41107597)

He didn't need to be paid, the mind control nanobots they put in the vaccines made him do it.

Alternate hypothesis ; anti-vaxxers are actually a shadowy conspiracy of the radical Green movement who want the human race thinning out a bit to lower our impact on Mother Earth.

These diseases cause not just death, but maiming and suffering on a grand scale when allowed to spread unchecked. Not being vaccinated is on a par with smoking - it's a stupid and bad for not just your health but for the health of those around you.

Vaccination must have been very successful for us to even HAVE an anti vaccination movement, because the memory of the horrors of childhood diseases makes anyone bearing it a lifeline proponent of getting your shots...

So how does rapine of corporations (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41107823)

So how does rapine of corporations change medical fact?

Vaccines work and not vaccinating your children cause infections in others.

GSK empploy people. Does that prove employing people is SCAREMONGERING???

Because... (3, Insightful)

jongalbreath (1621157) | about 2 years ago | (#41107493)

everyone's best friend should be Polio.

Re:Because... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41107715)

Already is.

Almost every person with a healthy natural immune system exposed to Poliovirus will brush it off with no symptoms and gain additional lifelong protection. The chances are almost nil of paralysis in this instance. About 95% of those exposed won't even have symptoms, even during an epidemic. 5% will have mild symptoms such as fever. Paralysis occurs in 1 of every 1000 of this 5%, and it's theorized that this group has genetic and anatomic susceptibility.

Polio peaked when sanitation was introduced, suggesting that the quarrantine of the fear of germs led to immune weakening.

The late George Carlin offered an anecdote of his childhood in Manhattan during the 1940's. "As kids we swam in the Husdon River.." (which at the time was full of sewage). "We swam in liquid shit. Why? To cool off. Not one of us kids got Polio (while others were dropping like flies).". He asserted that exposure to germs strengthened his immunity. "The immune system needs germs.. to practice on". Some of the best advice ever.

You can't get full natural immunity from synthesized germs. You can't fool mother nature. Let "herd immunity" work the way it was intended.

Re:Because... (2)

Sarten-X (1102295) | about 2 years ago | (#41107899)

Can we see a peer-reviewed version of the Carlin study, please?

Re:Because... (2)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 2 years ago | (#41107911)

These are not synthesized germs, there is no mother nature, and there is no way it was intended to work.

You are making patterns out of random chance, a pretty normal human failing, but a quite dangerous one.

Vaccines should be mandatory. (3, Insightful)

ZorinLynx (31751) | about 2 years ago | (#41107497)

This is why vaccinations need to be mandatory. If you want to live in society, you have to follow society's rules and that includes rules that keep you from putting others at serious risk.

Re:Vaccines should be mandatory. (3, Insightful)

MightyYar (622222) | about 2 years ago | (#41107525)

Agreed. The only exemptions should be for allergy or other medical problems - those are sufficiently rare that herd immunity should not be compromised.

Re:Vaccines should be mandatory. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41107543)

Agreed. The only exemptions should be for allergy or other medical problems - those are sufficiently rare that herd immunity should not be compromised.

No, there should be no exemptions. It's survival of the fittest, if we allow allergy ridden people to breed, it will only lead to a weaker society as a whole.

Re:Vaccines should be mandatory. (2, Insightful)

Tastecicles (1153671) | about 2 years ago | (#41107563)

Earth, Hitler. 1938.

Re:Vaccines should be mandatory. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41107609)

[quote]Earth, United States. Early to mid 20th century.[/quote]


Agreed (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41107745)

Here is yet another example of why I'm proud that my genes stop here (I don't have kids and never will). After thousands of years of organized coercion, human culture is still moving towards primitive authoritarianism, rather than away from it.

For this reason, I truly do not care what comes of humanity in the future, and I am proud that I have never, and will never, willingly contribute to the advancement of coercion.

In the end, humanity doesn't want people like me. Go ahead and say it: you know you want to. Ironically, you don't even have to. Humanity has already made that perfectly clear.

Re:Vaccines should be mandatory. (1)

MightyYar (622222) | about 2 years ago | (#41107591)

Your ideas are compelling. I think you might have stumbled upon the answer to our shortage of handicap spaces. Do you have a newsletter?

Re:Vaccines should be mandatory. (1)

michelcolman (1208008) | about 2 years ago | (#41107621)

For the same reason, vaccination should actually NOT be mandatory. Let natural selection sort out the nutcases' offspring.

Re:Vaccines should be mandatory. (1)

HungryHobo (1314109) | about 2 years ago | (#41107657)

problem is the viruses mutate faster than we do so everyone else gets screwed.

Re:Vaccines should be mandatory. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41107691)

For the same reason, vaccination should actually NOT be mandatory. Let natural selection sort out the nutcases' offspring.

However, vaccination is not 100% successful. A small percentage of people do not gain the full immunity. These unvaccinated kids can pass the disease on to those that did get vaccinated and they will die too.

Re:Vaccines should be mandatory. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41107627)

You just proved yourself too stupid to survive. Live up to your ideas and do something about it.

Re:Vaccines should be mandatory. (1)

TFAFalcon (1839122) | about 2 years ago | (#41107637)

Resistance to disease is also a survival trait. If you want to preserve 'survival of the fittest' then vaccinations have to be stopped, not forced on people. Only if enough children die will humanity progress! (/sarcasm)

Re:Vaccines should be mandatory. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41107731)

> Resistance to disease is also a survival trait.

Posting anonymously so I don't lose my mod points.

You don't understand how vaccines work, do you? Dead or inactive viruses are put in your bloodstream. Your body's immune system then creates the antibodies/defense to prevent you from getting the disease in the future. Your body DOES develop resistance to the disease -- naturally. All a vaccine does is speed and control the process.

Theoretically, you could do the same thing if, for example, you could briefly and carefully expose yourself to influenza: just enough of the virus to make your immune system take action, but without becoming seriously ill. Vaccines are just a controlled way to do that. Go read the wiki article on them.

Re:Vaccines should be mandatory. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41107537)

No way!

Those that are vaccinated should be safe anyway.
If they are not, then there's no reason to vaccinate.

Let's not forget: Vaccines are big business.

Re:Vaccines should be mandatory. (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41107573)

I dont think you understand how vaccination works, its not a 100% guarantee, it improves the odds of not getting something, and thus its able to completely surpress a disease if it has no hosts it can survive on. When unvacinated people are introduced then are lowering the odds for those vacinated.

Think before you post.

Re:Vaccines should be mandatory. (3, Insightful)

michelcolman (1208008) | about 2 years ago | (#41107747)

And increasing the odds for the disease to develop resistance against vaccination. Sick people spread millions of little bits of virus around, some of those have mutations, and some of those mutations will make them resistant against current vaccines. A mix of vaccinated and unvaccinated people is probably the best possible breeding ground for resistant strains.

Re:Vaccines should be mandatory. (5, Funny)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 2 years ago | (#41107595)

No way!

Those that are vaccinated should be safe anyway.
If they are not, then there's no reason to vaccinate.

I've heard that mathematicians working at the cutting edge of theoretical statistics have recently hypothesized the existence of probabilities other than "0" and "1". It's pretty cool stuff, with potential implications in all sorts of areas...

Re:Vaccines should be mandatory. (3, Insightful)

sensationull (889870) | about 2 years ago | (#41107549)

Agreed, parents who don't should be forced to wear dunce hats in public as they are usually to thick to even have a remotely reasonable reason why.

Re:Vaccines should be mandatory. (5, Insightful)

sargon666777 (555498) | about 2 years ago | (#41107559)

This is why vaccinations need to be mandatory. If you want to live in society, you have to follow society's rules and that includes rules that keep you from putting others at serious risk.

Wow what a slippery slope that is... So for instance should H1N1 vaccinations be required? What about flu shots? If everyone got the flu shot we would likely run out before the high risk people (the young and elderly) had a chance to get it. Not to mention the potential side effects of many vaccines. Personally I and my children are vaccinated for everything I consider a serious disease (polio, etc.), but not H1N1 for instance because the chance of death is practically non-existent. In a free society you have the choice to be stupid... If you take away that choice then its no longer a free society.

Re:Vaccines should be mandatory. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41107629)

Your problems aren't with a slippery slope. Your problems are with an over broad statement that you have found some practical concerns of implementation.

However, the reason we would run out of flu shots before everybody got it is because of the production levels are where they are, not because more can't be produced. That said, you are correct that the flu shot is a temporary thing, but the problem in the statement you object to is a lack of technical qualification to it, which could be remedied with a limitation to serious diseases for which the vaccines will last a considerable period of time as opposed to something seasonal like the flu.

The OP didn't make that distinction, but it's not a slippery slope problem that they didn't.

Also, let's consider this, is a society truly free if other people are free to harm you?

Re:Vaccines should be mandatory. (1, Informative)

TFAFalcon (1839122) | about 2 years ago | (#41107701)

They should be vaccinated to the 'stable' diseases. Those that don't change year to year and are life threatening/crippling. Flu shots on the other hand are 'best guesses' each year, 'protecting against' a disease that is mostly just an annoyance rather then a real threat.

Re:Vaccines should be mandatory. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41107565)

"This is why vaccinations need to be mandatory. If you want to live in society, you have to follow society's rules and that includes rules that keep you from putting others at serious risk."

So you're saying that we should follow the lead of Mississippi and West Virginia? That is a first for slashdot.

This! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41107583)

This is why vaccinations need to be mandatory. If you want to live in society, you have to follow society's rules and that includes rules that keep you from putting others at serious risk.

And for those that refuse or still get sick, as a final solution they should be placed in camps where they can be concentrated for the health of the society. We should also place addicts too - they are a harm to society with the DUIs and whatnot.

There are some others with deviant behavior that places others, especially children, at risk - like kiddie porn consumers - and they should be put into those camps. Muslims too - they are a threat to our society.

We could put the Secret Service in charge - give them new snappy uniforms to make it look official.

We can make a better society! For America!

Re:Vaccines should be mandatory. (1)

Threni (635302) | about 2 years ago | (#41107599)

> If you want to live in society, you have to follow society's rules

Where does it say that?

Re:Vaccines should be mandatory. (2, Insightful)

Dr_Barnowl (709838) | about 2 years ago | (#41107605)

It's implicit in the definition of "society". If you don't participate, you're just a parasite clinging to the side.

Re:Vaccines should be mandatory. (3, Insightful)

msauve (701917) | about 2 years ago | (#41107659)

And what if I don't want to live in society? Will society let me independently exist, or will they force my participation, through such means as property taxes? And if I'm not given a choice, who's the parasite?

Re:Vaccines should be mandatory. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41107757)

You're born into it. That maybe unfair, but that's the way it is. (Bawling about how unfair something is just makes you sound like a baby, so please don't start.) If you want to escape from society, you have to move far enough away from it that you are not taking advantage of any of the things that its members pay for (roads, hospitals, schools, ...)

Re:Vaccines should be mandatory. (4, Informative)

ultranova (717540) | about 2 years ago | (#41107769)

And what if I don't want to live in society? Will society let me independently exist, or will they force my participation, through such means as property taxes?

Paying property taxes implies that you own property, which in turn implies that you're using the legal ownership guarantees of the society and thus participating.

Yes, you can exist independently of society; it's just a such a darn miserable existence that no one chooses that. And if some do, that existence is likely to be a short one, since humans are herd animals and don't really do well on their own, even if we don't count receiving an education as participation.

Re:Vaccines should be mandatory. (1)

Type44Q (1233630) | about 2 years ago | (#41107865)

...since humans are herd animals and don't really do well on their own...

It would seem you speak for yourself (perhaps even accurately)...

Re:Vaccines should be mandatory. (5, Insightful)

Hardhead_7 (987030) | about 2 years ago | (#41107607)

I don't think they need to be mandatory, but I think what *should* happen is we need to publicly shame these parents. Every time a kid dies of Whooping Cough, those parents need to be on the news the same as if they'd drowned their kid in a bathtub.

No, education should be optional: vaccine or GTFO. (2)

Rogerborg (306625) | about 2 years ago | (#41107673)

Tough on the kids, but if the flat earthers want to devolve back to their Garden of Eden fantasy, let's get the party started.

The only real question is which group is going to end up as the Eloi and which the Morlocks. Me, I'm not that keen on the sun.

Re:Vaccines should be mandatory. (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41107749)

Serious risk of zero.

The CDC should be afraid of their own statistics.

Let's develop a drug to prevent automobile crashes instead.

Re:Vaccines should be mandatory. (3, Interesting)

Zocalo (252965) | about 2 years ago | (#41107813)

I don't doubt that this is going to go through the upper reaches of legal system sooner or later, but initially at least, I think the solution is probably more in your second sentence than the first; non-vaccinated kids are putting other kids at risk, so perhaps the schools and local authorities need to start thinking about this in terms of risk and liability. Say one of the non-vaccinated kids is shown to have introduced a serious illness into a class, which then rips through the non-vaccinated pupils in that class and probably also picks up a few of the vaccinated ones too since vaccination isn't always 100% effective. If fatalities and/or life-changing debilities result it's probably just a matter of time before someone decides to sue their school board for gross negligence in failing to adequately protect little Johnny from what ails/ailed him, regardless of whether little Johnny was vaccinated or not.

Not a lot a school is going to be able to prevent that from happening, particularly since some particularly nasty diseases are contageous before the symptoms become visible. Segregating the non-vaccinated kids individually clearly isn't going to be viable, so that really just leaves a choice between a school insisting on its pupils being vaccinated or them being unable to attend. Of course, neither of those options are likely to be palatable to the parents who strongly believe in the non-vaccination of their kids, even if the school provides them with some suitably frank educational material [] , so the courts are still going to get involved.

Re:Vaccines should be mandatory. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41107893)

The whole concept of the 'herd' immunity is to protect those that don't get the shot... so, why worry about the herd immunity,
that's basically saying you need to get the shot so someone else doesn't.....

How is this news now? (4, Insightful)

VendettaMF (629699) | about 2 years ago | (#41107529)

Every reputable medical doctor, along with every pundit even slightly knowledgable about medicine or even basic biology has been warning of this issue ever since the antivaxxer morons got their idiotic campaign going.

There's a shock... (5, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 2 years ago | (#41107539)

I suspect that, rather than "Despite the successes of childhood immunizations", it would be because of those successes that the 'controversy' is presently raging...

Because of the effectiveness of widespread childhood vaccination, we've had at least a generation of people with minimal firsthand exposure to all the wacky pathogenic fun that used to be quite common. Plus, depending on the herd immunity requirements for a given pathogen and vaccine, being part of the first n% of opt-outs is basically cost-free. It isn't until you get closer to herd immunity breakdown that being unvaccinated starts to carry any serious additional risk of infection.

If you have a situation where people's knowledge of the risks is largely historical and the odds are pretty good that you can free-ride your way past them in any case, it (sadly) seems only to be expected that there would be room for assorted controversy to flourish.

Re:There's a shock... (-1, Troll)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | about 2 years ago | (#41107623)

Despite the success of childhood immunizations, a lot of people believe that the chocolate rations are really smaller and not bigger. There are a lot of real-world examples of statistics claiming a change in one direction (decrease in crime, increase in overall public health, etc) when it's really the opposite. There are far more real-world examples of things being stated as such as a mantra (for example: fat causes heart disease; most of your calories should come from carbohydrates), without actually being true or at least without good solid evidence (there's strong evidence that modern high-carb diets basically evolved because growing wheat/rice is cheap, and that high carb intake causes a hell of a lot more than just heart problems).

Most people of course believe the mantra. Everyone says vaccinations have increased public health. We have seen a real increase in public health. We accept that vaccination is a big part of that. Many people--journalists included--think that their beliefs shouldn't be challenged. That vaccinations are 'good' is obvious, it's obvious that they've improved public health, and yet there's controversy... because these people must be loonies, can't they see that vaccinations are good? Their very success should prevent such controversy because we all know of their effectiveness.

Also I don't get why unvaccinated students are putting other students at risk. Wouldn't vaccinated students be risk-free? This article reads to me like "Teenagers foregoing condom use putting teenagers who don't have sex at risk" ...

Re:There's a shock... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41107667)

When was the last time you were seriously concerned about getting smallpox?

Re:There's a shock... (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41107703)

rtfa: The people who refuse the vaccines on the basis of some stupid beliefs are putting the people that can't take the vaccines because of some medical condition at risk.

Re:There's a shock... (4, Insightful)

Dog-Cow (21281) | about 2 years ago | (#41107719)

Also I don't get why unvaccinated students are putting other students at risk.

Another example of the reason why stupid should be painful. And given the topic, fatal.

Re:There's a shock... (4, Informative)

pscottdv (676889) | about 2 years ago | (#41107727)

According to the article, some people cannot get vaccinations due to allergies or other medical conditions. Those people are put at risk.

Also, some vaccinations are not 100% effective, so anyone for whom the vaccination was not effective is put at risk.

Re:There's a shock... (5, Informative)

Dr_Barnowl (709838) | about 2 years ago | (#41107811)

Also I don't get why unvaccinated students are putting other students at risk.

A couple of reasons ;

i) Vaccination isn't a perfect shield against disease.

If vaccination gives you 90% immunity, and you spray a whole school with the disease, 10% of the kids will get it. But happily, diseases don't spread like that - they need human hosts. If the only person you come into contact with is your teacher, and they get the disease, you'll be exposed. But if he's vaccinated too, your chances of getting it just went down to 1%, because his chance of contracting it is lower. Herd immunity matters because it reduces the number of carriers, which decreases the risk that anyone, vaccinated or otherwise, will even contact the disease, let alone contract it.

ii) The more hosts a disease has, the more it will mutate.

Viruses reproduce at a prodigous rate under great selection pressure - they mutate quickly. Chances are, that one will develop a mutation that makes the current vaccines less effective, or ineffective. The more chances the virus has to reproduce, the more likely this will happen. Therefore unvaccinated folks are doing the equivalent of putting a sign in their lot saying "Terrorists welcome! Come experiment here to discover new ways to kill decadent infidels!"

Re:There's a shock... (4, Insightful)

Jason Levine (196982) | about 2 years ago | (#41107829)

If you don't use a condom, the only people at risk are you and your partner. (Well, and anyone else that person sleeps with, but the immediate risk is just the two of you.)

If you don't get vaccinated, you can spread diseases to people who are too young to get vaccinated, people who's vaccinations didn't take (vaccination isn't 100% effective for everyone), people who can't get vaccinated due to allergies/illness/etc. And you don't have to have intimate contact with these people. Walk by one of them in a store and you might have passed on your virus. Sneeze on your hand, touch your desk, and you'll pass your virus on to the person who sits there next class period. This is bad enough when we're talking about something minor like a cold. However, if you're talking about whooping cough, mumps, or polio, your lack of vaccination could mean severe injury or death to someone else.

Re:There's a shock... (5, Informative)

HungryHobo (1314109) | about 2 years ago | (#41107879)

"Also I don't get why unvaccinated students are putting other students at risk. Wouldn't vaccinated students be risk-free? This article reads to me like "Teenagers foregoing condom use putting teenagers who don't have sex at risk" ... "


not this idiotic crap again.

There's always some moron who's too lazy to actually do some reading first to at least know what they're challenging.

in a certain percentage of people who get vaccinated the vaccine doesn't "take".
it varies by vaccine. in some the uptake is 95%+ in others 80% or lower. in some it's only a hair above the percentage of the population who need to be immune to maintain herd immunity.

so if you get the shot there's only a 95% chance that your body will react to it and make you immune.

there's also the immune compromised, the very young and the very old.

so johnny idiot decides vaccines are evil and doesn't get his kid vaccinated. nod only does johonny idiots kid get sick or die but also a certain percentage of the children of non-negligent parents who just got unlucky or were sick. they suffer because negligent parents drag everyone bellow the herd immunity threshold.

Re:There's a shock... (1)

Type44Q (1233630) | about 2 years ago | (#41107909)

Mod parent up; I realize that all anti-vaxxers are completely and totally insane and therefore by definition have no valid points to make... but if they did (just saying...), it might include some of these...

Anti-stupidity vaccine (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41107577)

Timing is everything.

Note the proliferation of graphic news reports appearing a few months before 15 April in the US of tax-evaders and just plain folks who failed to file a return. They are arrested and harassed, all to scare the population into compliance.

Note the story which sidesteps legitimate and ongoing questions of safety, efficacy, disease surveillance, and risk, while outrageously pairing "Informed choice" with false assertions of safety. Meanwhile the portfolio of Paul Offit expands.

What's needed is a vaccine to stop stupidity and lust for money and power. However, its application would bring the herd, who relies on these for its survival, to an end.

Continued tinkering with the human immune system is our next Fukushima. Convenience has its price.

Sources (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41107601)

What I don't get is why some parents will listen to the theories of one discredited doctor, but will distrust the advice of every other doctor out there. Do they seriously believe all doctors are able to pull off some huge conspiracy and there is only one good doctor speaking the truth?

Darwin Strikes Again (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41107611)

Its really sad, because those who suffer will be the children who don't get vaccinated, the elderly who will be exposed to those children who get the disease, and the babies who are too young to get vaccinated yet. Those who should suffer have already HAD their vaccinations when THEY were children!

When you live in a society, you DO have certain responsibilities to the society!

Bad Risk Assessment (5, Insightful)

Jason Levine (196982) | about 2 years ago | (#41107615)

At its core, the anti-vax movement is bad risk assessment for a few reasons. First of all, the horrors of the diseases that most vaccinations prevent against haven't been seen in a few generations. People my age (30's) with kids have never lived in a world where you could get polio or mumps at any moment and wind up dead, on an iron lung, deaf, scarred for life, etc. They score the risk of these infections as low because they don't see them. (The fallacy here being that the *reason* they don't see them is because of vaccines.)

Then, they hear scare tactics from certain people (Wakefield, McCarthy, etc) who claim that vaccines contain mercury/fetal tissue/generic toxins/etc that will harm their child. One shot and suddenly your child will catch The Autism. (Picture that in a much scarier font and cue a woman screaming off camera.) This would be so horrible and so, they conclude, we must stop all vaccinations until they are proven 100% safe.

The fallacy with this last one is that 1) there has never been a proven link between vaccines and autism, 2) even if there was, the diseases vaccines prevent are far worse than autism, and 3) no medical procedure is 100% safe. In fact, nothing anyone does is 100% safe. Driving in to work? You could get in a car crash and die. Better not commute to work until they can design cars that are 100% safe. Walking down the street? You could trip, hit your head, and die. Better not walk until they design 100% safe sidewalks.

The fact is that risk that vaccines pose is minuscule (and mainly limited to allergic reactions or slight fevers) and the threat these diseases pose is huge should they make a comeback. It is only bad risk assessment that makes vaccines look like a bigger threat than the diseases.

Re:Bad Risk Assessment (1)

Quakeulf (2650167) | about 2 years ago | (#41107723)

Within reason, let these idiots handle themselves as long as they don't force their ways upon others, and it will benefit the world.

The point of a vaccination? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41107617)

Isn't the point of getting a vaccination to protect you from the disease? How does it matter if it's floating around in the air, on a dog, bird or mosquito, or another kid?

Considering that when the very first time a vaccine is used, almost nobody has had the shots, how does it work so well at the beginning, when 99% of the people around you don't have it yet? I find the arguments against abstainers don't hold up to logical scrutiny...

Re:The point of a vaccination? (2)

Dog-Cow (21281) | about 2 years ago | (#41107759)

I find that you deserve death by torture.

My logic is just as unassailable as yours.

Thank you Jenny McCarthy (5, Informative)

schwit1 (797399) | about 2 years ago | (#41107625)

Jenny McCarthy body count []

“I do believe sadly it's going to take some diseases coming back to realize that we need to change and develop vaccines that are safe. If the vaccine companies are not listening to us, it's their f___ing fault that the diseases are coming back. They're making a product that's s___. If you give us a safe vaccine, we'll use it. It shouldn't be polio versus autism.”

Jenny McCarthy in Time Magazine, April 2009

Hmmmm, color me confused.... (0)

justcauseisjustthat (1150803) | about 2 years ago | (#41107633)

The only students at risk are those who do not get vaccinated, which means those children's parent chose to put them at risk.
Personally I think vaccines are a good thing and as soon as patches with micro-needles make them painless, there will be one less hurdle.

Mandatory vaccines are another step towards fascism, education and clear communication would get most people there (except Scientologists).

Re:Hmmmm, color me confused.... (1)

Dog-Cow (21281) | about 2 years ago | (#41107789)

No. Vaccines are not 100% effective. If you are vaccinated, but no one else is, your chances for infection are much greater than they would be if otherwise because each one of those people has greater chance of catching and spreading the disease to you. The more people are vaccinated, the less chance each person has of contracting and spreading the disease.

Re:Hmmmm, color me confused.... (1)

usuallylost (2468686) | about 2 years ago | (#41107799)

The concern isn't for the children whose parents didn't get them immunized. The concern is for another group of children who can not be immunized due to allergies to ingredients in the vaccines. Basically the population refusing to be vaccinated is a vector to infect those who can't be vaccinated.

Re:Hmmmm, color me confused.... (5, Informative)

MozeeToby (1163751) | about 2 years ago | (#41107833)

The only students at risk are those who do not get vaccinated

False. Some number of children can't be vaccinated for legitimate medical reasons, usually allergic reaction to the vaccine ingredients. Then there's a certain number, ranging from 1-5+% that the vaccine simply doesn't take, they are not 100% effective. These two classes of people rely on the fact that the diseases they are vulnerable to aren't present in the general population, if there is an outbreak, the sick people don't come into contact with enough vulnerable people for the disease to spread at a rate that can sustain itself. The numbers necessary are different for each disease, but generally range from 90-99% need to be immune to prevent a wide scale outbreak. These people are harming more than their own children (which would be bad enough), they put everyone else at risk too.

Re:Hmmmm, color me confused.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41107869)

Maybe you're confused. You're certainly uninformed, in an era of amazing access to information. Maybe you're disingenuous, maybe you're stupid. None of these categories, sadly, are mutually exclusive. Still, just to debunk your viciously dangerous leading sentence:

To improve your chances of keeping your house in a brush fire, it's not enough to keep the brush on your property trimmed back. Your neighbors have to do it too. Nasty fascist fire departments will encourage you and them to do so.

It's the rise of the morons (1)

fredrated (639554) | about 2 years ago | (#41107643)

And I always thought society would get smarter and smarter.

Re:It's the rise of the morons (1)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | about 2 years ago | (#41107783)

No, this is why governments are spending lots of money on "Smarter Cities Solutions." Those city folks just keep getting dumber and dumber. The cities themselves need to get smarter to keep up with the decline.

The measles outbreaks in england (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41107653)

About 75% of them had their shots. Vaccines aren't really proven to do what they say. None of them proven to be safe. Pig Pharma itself is the problem. A poop vaccine approved for the recommended schedule while the inventor of it was head of the CDC? Really? And all you FUCKING MOUTH BREATHING SHEEP TRUST MOTHER FUCKERS like that? PPPFFFFFFFFFFTTTTTTTTT.. Come near my kids with a mandatory vaccination and I will consider it a threat to their lives( Gardisil deaths anyone? Gulf War Syndrome?) and promptly exercize my rights to defend them.

Re:The measles outbreaks in england (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41107815)

And when your children get sick, they will be burned alive to protect the rest of us.

Rights (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41107663)

This really is a question of rights. Personally I think the promotion of rights has gotten out of hand, and I think most should get vaccinated.

However, lets consider the pros and cons of vaccines.

health benefits from negligible to lifesaving,
herd immunity

side effects from minor discomfort to lifelong illness or death.

Yes the chances of being sensitive and dying from a vaccine are too small, but shouldn't our own bodies be inviolable in all but the most extreme cases?

Isn't part of living in a "free society" the right to make choices, even the wrong ones?

The data suggests that in most cases the benefits are clearly in favour of getting vaccinated, and we should, but I think we should have the right to choose.

I call BS. Read the source article: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41107665) []

“Vaccines are one of the great public health achievements of the last couple of centuries,” Dr. Buttenheim said. “They protect us from diseases that used to routinely kill hundreds of thousands of children in the United States and still kill hundreds of thousands globally.

Sounds reasonable, until...

Nationally, because of generally widespread vaccination coverage among children, vaccine-preventable childhood diseases that once caused substantial disease burdens and death in the United States remain rare occurrences. Measles once infected four million people and killed 4,000 of them each year, mostly young children. With high measles vaccine coverage over several decades, endemic measles was eliminated in the United States as of 2000. The current routine childhood immunization schedule is estimated to prevent 42,000 deaths and 20 million cases of disease and to save $14 billion in direct medical costs per U.S. birth cohort.

I'm sorry but these numbers don't add up to the concern expressed in the article. This is one doctors opinion who's own statements don't match the articles own numbers. Seems like a bit of BS to scare people into thinking that their tax dollars are going to be paying for sick kids. Anyone have any numbers on the cost of these vaccinations in the US?

Wow I just posted regarding this... (0, Troll)

wisebabo (638845) | about 2 years ago | (#41107685)

From the Samsung posting...

By the way, how much of the following do you agree/disagree with? If there is a high correlation between all of these perhaps, for everyones sake, we could just shorten disagreements by separating people into two groups. No judgement here, it just would save everyone a lot of time.

Thinks Evolution is just a theory
Thinks Global Warming is not real/is a conspiracy
Thinks Obama is a socialist
Thinks Obama is a muslim
Thinks Obama was not born in the United States
*New* Thinks Obama will hand over sovereignty of U.S. to U.N. (Lubbock county judge)
*New* Thinks "legitimately raped" woman are biologically capable of preventing pregnancy (inherent in Republican Party Anti-Abortion Platform)
Thinks cutting government spending during a severe recession/depression is the appropriate thing to do
Thinks the U.S. health care system is the best in the world which justifies it costing twice as much as the next major country (Germany) while neglecting millions
Thinks Apple products are markedly inferior to the alternatives
Thinks Samsung didn't copy Apple

So, if people sort themselves into two groups say one called "Republicans" and the other say "Democrats" and would identify themselves as such, we could save everyone a lot of grief.

Re:Wow I just posted regarding this... (1)

schitso (2541028) | about 2 years ago | (#41107855)

+1 "I'm right, you're wrong because I say so"

Who Benefits? (0)

Crisses (776475) | about 2 years ago | (#41107707)

First Question: If vaccines really work, then how are unvaccinated children putting vaccinated children at risk? Study data about recent outbreaks of the vaccine-available illnesses for a clue on this one... Is herd immunity a myth?

Next: Is this issue one of those "Things the government & 'science' tell us are true but are actually only to benefit large corporate interests"? Every child from the day they are born has a "vaccine schedule" -- starting with Hep B vaccine which is a disease they must have unprotected sex or use injected dirty needles to get? Is this a case of over-vaccinated to go along with over-medicated children?

Correlation or causation? Increases of childhood developmental disabilities vs. being vaccinated... are they related? It's so hard to tell, since they're constantly giving children vaccines when they're growing. But there's plenty of parents whose children have problems within 72 hours of vaccines being administered to make at least the anecdotal cases seem compelling -- at least THAT child should not have had those vaccines. Would you rather your child had the mumps, or encephalitis resulting in autism?

Always! ask who benefits. Because I'd love to see the data that says that children benefit.

Re:Who Benefits? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41107781)

Exactly! Where are the Autistic Amish kids?

Re:Who Benefits? (2)

cyp43r (945301) | about 2 years ago | (#41107889)

Effective does not equal one hundred percent efficacy. There is a direct correlation between being vaccinated and not catching those specific diseases - it's not a high correlation between being immunised for measles and catching something else, and this is still being tested in those parts of the world that don't have vaccinations. The risk of autism is small to non existent (there is no correlation). Would you rather your kid have autism or catching tetanus and dying? Parents tell all sorts of anecdotes that turn out to be true, the most prominent of which is sugar rushes. The singular of data is not anecdote. -just because big pharmaceutical companies benefit doesn't mean children who get vaccinated don't either. It's like not eating food because 'Big Agro' is profiting.

What risk? (1, Interesting)

Meneth (872868) | about 2 years ago | (#41107711)

How can the vaccinated students be at risk? They're supposed to be immune.

Re:What risk? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41107779)

RTFA: 'People who cannot get immunizations because of allergies or compromised immune systems rely on "herd immunity,"'

Re:What risk? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41107793)

Very well done! Vaccinations put those that refuse it at risk as well....I just cannot imagine kids going to school with zombies...

Re:What risk? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41107805)

Vaccines don't have a 100% success rate, so even people who receive a vaccine can still be at risk if herd immunity breaks down.

Re:What risk? (2)

Lectoid (891115) | about 2 years ago | (#41107835)

I'd guess mutations.

Re:What risk? (1)

dumael (1172411) | about 2 years ago | (#41107841)

Vaccines do not guarantee immunity, but are very, very likely to.

Re:What risk? (1)

MozeeToby (1163751) | about 2 years ago | (#41107851)

Vaccines are not 100% effective. Modern vaccination efforts rely on the effects of herd immunity to prevent outbreaks.

Re:What risk? (4, Informative)

Jason Levine (196982) | about 2 years ago | (#41107877)

Vaccines aren't 100% effective. There are some for whom the vaccine didn't work. If we were talking about a fully vaccinated population, it wouldn't matter. Herd immunity would protect these people (along with those too young to get vaccinated and those who have valid medical reasons like allergies). However, if too many people stop vaccinating, herd immunity breaks down and these people are subjected to a disease that their immune system isn't ready for.

A different kind of mandatory ... (1)

giorgist (1208992) | about 2 years ago | (#41107821)

Maybe some schools should have it as a matter of safety. If your child is not immunized, you cannot come to this school because you put other children at risk. That way they will end up taking their kids to "open minded" schools. At these schools you will very soon discover some pretty grim statistics. Within a few years all these alternative schools will cease to exist. It is terrible that we treat kids as ginneapigs.

Why do the Vaccine's need to be filled with CRAP (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41107827)

Like Mercury...I don't know about you guys but the thought of injecting mercury into my bloodstream..not something I'm fond of..can't we make vaccine's without that..

Everyone else can take the risk (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41107843)

These people drive me crazy. I've talked to some of them. They don't believe in risking their child with a vaccination. But when I ask about vaccinations as a whole, they also don't want an end to them. Basically what they want is everyone else to vaccinate and risk their children; so they don't have to vaccinate their own.

Choice works both ways (4, Interesting)

Geeky (90998) | about 2 years ago | (#41107861)

How about letting choice run both ways? If you choose to refuse vaccination for your child, the school can choose to refuse to allow them in? Exemptions only allowed in the case of provable medical conditions such as allergies.

That way, if your community decides that it wants vaccinations, you can either go along with it, find an alternative school somewhere else or choose to home school.

From the bleedin'-obvious department (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 2 years ago | (#41107905)

Study Finds Unvaccinated Students Putting Other Students At Risk

Uh, yeah, that's because that is exactly what vaccines are meant to avert. Did we need a study for that?

(no, I didn't read TFA; yes, I am being a bit facetious)

Interesting Enough (1)

Kr1ll1n (579971) | about 2 years ago | (#41107913) [] - Study: Whooping cough outbreak linked to vaccinated children
vs. [] - Intentionally Unvaccinated Students Putting Other Children at Risk (This is TFA)

TFA references the Measles outbreak in 2008 as being caused by a single unvaccinated student who had been to Europe, where he was infected with it.
The 1st link talks about the recent Whooping Cough outbreak and found that vaccinated students were more likely to be infected than thos who had not been vaccinated.

Is it possible that TFA is neglecting the possibility of a different strain? I mean, how unlikely is that?
Understand, MRSA is believed to have been brought on by our sterilize everything mentality coupled with using antibiotics for every affliction. I would be willing to bet that the Measles in TFA is a different strain.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>