Beta
×

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!

Mutant Registration vs. Vaccine Registration

timothy posted about 5 months ago | from the ok-you-need-not-register-your-zombies dept.

Medicine 493

Responding to an editorial endorsing a national vaccine registry in Canada (though the same kind of registry could be and has been proposed in the U.S. with the same logic), an anonymous reader writes "Vaccine Registration makes me think of Mutant and Superhero registration. The reasons are similar. It's based on fear and misinformation. People fear that unvaccinated people will doom us all. Sound familiar? The difference is this is real. (Oh, and they probably won't use sentinels to track down the dangerous unvaccinated folks.) Thoughts?" From the linked editorial: "A national vaccination registry would identify which Canadians have been fully vaccinated, those who have received less than a full dose of shots, and those who have not been vaccinated at all. Having a vaccine registry in place in the event of an outbreak of measles, whooping cough, and diseases like these would enable public health officials to identify the children and adults who need vaccinations. Getting them the shots they need would reduce the risk of anyone on the list getting sick, and would also reduce the threat of an outbreak in the community in which they live or travel to [and] from." In the U.S., immunization records — at least, ones which have been put in electronic form at all — are maintained in a mix of databases, including at the state level, or maintained by cities, or by insurance companies and medical providers. Here, some people (like the reader who submitted this story) also see a potential for unwarranted privacy invasion in a national vaccination registry; however, their case isn't helped by often being tied to opposition to vaccination more generally.

cancel ×

493 comments

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

Well... (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47118945)

Well except mutants aren't real and can't doom us all whereas unvaccinated people can.

Re:Well... (3, Interesting)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about 5 months ago | (#47119165)

Yes, this is just misplaced paranoia. Vaccinations are legitimate public health information. Since vaccinations are required for school, international travel, and military service, most vaccinations records are already in some government database anyway. Consolidating the records will reduce costs, make it easier for people who move or change doctors, and make the information accessible in an emergency. Why should I care if the government knows my shot records?

Re:Well... (2)

expatriot (903070) | about 5 months ago | (#47119355)

This is one of those topics that attracts loonies like flies to honey. Of course in the comments below, each side thinks the other side crazy too much control or too irresponsible.

For me, I think everyone should be vaccinated for common and dangerous diseases. The uncommon ones you can chose to or not (as when traveling). People don't remember polio and smallpox or brain-damage caused by measles.

Re:Well... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47119361)

How weird that slashdotters can occassionally spot misplaced paranoia, when that's most of what Slashdot is since it turned into a paranoid anti-government blog.

Re:Well... (0)

matthewmok (412065) | about 5 months ago | (#47119363)

Yes and the same should be done for those with STDs as that data should be considered public health information; as the public healthcare costs and risks in this area are far greater than, lets say measles as an example. You should be able to go to a government web site and enter a persons name to check and see if they have vaccinations, STDs, etc. /sarcasm

Re:Well... (4, Insightful)

mellon (7048) | about 5 months ago | (#47119325)

Also, you are an anti-vaxxer by choice, but a mutant by birth.

Re:Well... (2)

TubeSteak (669689) | about 5 months ago | (#47119477)

Also, you are an anti-vaxxer by choice, but a mutant by birth.

For many people, being unvaccinated is kind of like religion: it's a choice their parents made for them and there's no real motivation to do something different.

Never underestimate the power of inertia.

Re:Well... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47119335)

Reading the comments from the antivax croud on that site makes me think that conspiracy theorists are the biggest danger to society, it's willful anti-scientific, anti-intellectualism.

These people will gleefully sail us into the abyss, blaming everyone else all the way down.

Makes sense actually (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47118955)

We need to know who the mouthbreathing luddites are so we can round them up should there be a big outbreak of something actually nasty.

NO. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47118959)

The government has NO RIGHT to know what will and won't make me sick. That is the ultimate intrusion. The only reason the feds would even want to know this is to develop nerve agents and other weapons knowing who's susceptible to them domestically.

Re:NO. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47118991)

They don't need to develop nerve agents, because you've intentionally left yourself vulnerable to a natural pathogen.

If I missed the joke I apologize

Re:NO. (5, Insightful)

gstoddart (321705) | about 5 months ago | (#47119029)

The government has NO RIGHT to know what will and won't make me sick.

Except when what can make you sick, can make others sick or even kill them.

If you want the ability to walk around un-immunized and risk your life, maybe you should have to accept civil and criminal liability in the event someone else gets sick.

Because if you being un-immunized causes people to die, and you knew that was a possibility, well, sounds like manslaughter to me.

Re:NO. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47119125)

Lets go down this path of criminal liability every time someone gets sick - good idea. The problem is that what you want is criminal liability for those that don't vaccinate, but for those that do it becomes an 'act of God'.Vaccinated person gets someone else sick = no liability. Un-vaccinated person = lock em up and throw away the key.

I'll leave this here. Perhaps it is the vaccinated ones that ought to be held criminally liable... or perhaps we ought to let parents make their own choices and stop threatening each other like barbarians.

  http://www.foodmatters.tv/articles-1/vaccinated-children-five-times-more-prone-to-disease

Re:NO. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47119269)

Wow, just go away. Seriously. I can't believe you actually said this, not to mention you linked to a website domain named FOODMATTERS.TV for some bad science -- that has repeatedly been disproven (actually, it was never proven to begin with).

Re:NO. (2)

Himmy32 (650060) | about 5 months ago | (#47119367)

The problem is that parents are making decisions for just their own children. Their children can make other vaccinated kids or immuno-comprimised sick, where if they hadn't those kids wouldn't of. So the parents are making a decision which effects the well being of more than their children. Now how do you hold them accountable or liable for taking a risk with other peoples children, that's an interesting ethical question.

As far as your article goes, that information was based on a 8,000 responses on an anonymous web survey done by a homeopathic quack with no test controls and biased wording. It's about as far from science as you can go.

http://scienceblogs.com/insole... [scienceblogs.com]

Re:NO. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47119207)

Lets go there.

I want to see a registration of all people with HIV/AIDS, with criminal penalties if you fail to register, after all they can kill you.
Lets also have a list of all women who have had abortions, again with criminal penalties for failing to register, after all they have already killed.

Whats that? My idea is insensitive and wrong, but yours is ok?

Re:NO. (1)

mellon (7048) | about 5 months ago | (#47119351)

You don't get to choose whether you are infected with HIV. You are not at risk of being killed by a woman who has had an abortion (or if you want to make the case that you are, let's see some data, Science Boy). If you don't get vaccinations, the science is really clear on what the consequences are.

Re:NO. (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47119359)

People with HIV who have had deliberately had sex with people have been charged with attempted murder and for good reason too.

Re:NO. (4, Insightful)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about 5 months ago | (#47119403)

Whats that? My idea is insensitive and wrong, but yours is ok?

Yes. My neighbor's HIV/AIDS status is none of my business because I don't have sex with my neighbor. My neighbor's abortion history is none of my business because abortions are not contagious. But my neighbor's vaccination record for measles and polio IS my business because those are contagious diseases that can spread through a community.

Re:NO. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47119447)

I want to see a registration of all people with HIV/AIDS, with criminal penalties if you fail to register, after all they can kill you.

You won't get HIV/AIDS by casual contact with someone. You might get one of these things not being vaccinated.

Lets also have a list of all women who have had abortions, again with criminal penalties for failing to register, after all they have already killed.

You say killed, I say removed unwanted tissue growth.

Possibly something your mother should have done.

Re:NO. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47119469)

How can someone vaccinated be sick from a virus from the non-vaccinated(Mutations aside)? And if both who are sick are not vaccinated, who's liable?

Re:NO. (4, Insightful)

LWATCDR (28044) | about 5 months ago | (#47119085)

Wow
Slashdot you really need add a +1 crazy to the moderation levels.
Someone might actually enjoy reading the nut jobs on Slashdot.

Re:NO. (5, Insightful)

QuietLagoon (813062) | about 5 months ago | (#47119257)

The government has NO RIGHT to know what will and won't make me sick.

On the contrary, the government has every right to assure you are vaccinated. Your ignorant and paranoid refusal to be vaccinated threatens the health of others. The threat you pose if you are not vaccinated is not some misguided rant of a paranoid, but a real and present medical danger.

.
If you do not want to get vaccinated, then go live in complete isolation, far, far away from those who want their children to be healthy. The moment you choose to interact with society, then you have a responsibility not to make that society sick.

Re:NO. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47119287)

That is the ultimate intrusion.

Ultimate? While it is an intrusion, to think it is the ultimate intrusion that the government can or has made, you lack a lot of imagination and awareness.

Re:NO. (1)

mellon (7048) | about 5 months ago | (#47119339)

Of course, you can avoid this problem simply by GETTING YOUR FUCKING VACCINATIONS! Come on, dude. Grow up.

Infectious diseases ... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47118961)

Look, if you're a luddite and have chosen to not be vaccinated against infectious diseases, you are a public health risk.

If I or my children get sick due to contact with you, I want legal recourse against you.

If you are un-immunized, you really have no business going into places like hospitals where you will put the lives of others at risk.

If you solely bore the risk of not being immunized, and only you and your family might become ill -- well, good for you, you'll take yourself out of the gene pool and do us all a favor.

But, if you're a moron who hasn't vaccinated your children because you've been listening to Jenny McCarthy, I don't want you or your children anywhere me or my family.

You want to be a plague carrier? Fine, but you can't go into public.

Diseases which had been mostly eradicated which are suddenly making a resurgence are entirely due to idiots who think the vaccine is going to give them another disease. You're entitled to your stupid beliefs, but you are not entitled to spread disease.

If you choose to exercise your right to not be immunized, you give up some of your rights as far as you could infect others.

Re:Infectious diseases ... (5, Insightful)

Electricity Likes Me (1098643) | about 5 months ago | (#47119037)

Also you actively need to be kept away from other people like you.

Unvaccinated people congregating in geographical proximity is actively a bad thing - i.e. schools need to know how many unvaccinated children (for any reason) are present since while 1 is probably fine, 10 more or less undoes herd immunity benefits for them. It has serious ramifications if any 1 presents with symptoms of something normally vaccine-preventable.

Re:Infectious diseases ... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47119045)

The only problem with your logic is that if you are immunized then the un-immunized people don't pose a threat against you. That's the point of you being immunized. So your argument is pretty much moot...

Re:Infectious diseases ... (5, Insightful)

josquin9 (458669) | about 5 months ago | (#47119111)

No, you're mistaken. An active outbreak of a disease increases the likelihood of mutation, which may create a strain that cannot be contained by the current vaccine. Even if the vaccinated will not catch the current iteration of the disease, they may be susceptible to whatever new horror results from giving this iteration free reign to evolve into something more deadly.

Re:Infectious diseases ... (5, Informative)

ranton (36917) | about 5 months ago | (#47119189)

The only problem with your logic is that if you are immunized then the un-immunized people don't pose a threat against you. That's the point of you being immunized. So your argument is pretty much moot...

Vaccinations are not 100% successful. We rely on everyone having the vaccinations so the chance of ever even being exposed to the pathogens is very remote.

Re:Infectious diseases ... (5, Insightful)

Rich0 (548339) | about 5 months ago | (#47119389)

The only problem with your logic is that if you are immunized then the un-immunized people don't pose a threat against you. That's the point of you being immunized. So your argument is pretty much moot...

Vaccinations are not 100% successful. We rely on everyone having the vaccinations so the chance of ever even being exposed to the pathogens is very remote.

In addition to this, with enough vaccination it becomes possible to eradicate a disease entirely. Today nobody has to take Smallpox vaccine and suffer the side effects of it (as an older vaccine it has quite a few). We wouldn't be free of the vaccine today if everybody didn't take it like they were supposed to decades ago.

Re:Infectious diseases ... (5, Insightful)

MiniMike (234881) | about 5 months ago | (#47119329)

You're forgetting that many people can not be immunized- babies, some elderly, people with compromised immune systems, people with other conditions. etc. These are the people who are most threatened. This threat is in addition to those mentioned in the other comments about mutations, and vaccinations not being 100% effective.

Re:Infectious diseases ... (3, Informative)

medv4380 (1604309) | about 5 months ago | (#47119371)

Dumbass, may you be forced to sit and listen while your infant child dies slowly of Whooping Cough because some dumbass didn't get a vaccine.

Re:Infectious diseases ... (1)

Himmy32 (650060) | about 5 months ago | (#47119417)

Being vaccinated doesn't mean you still can't get the disease. Add to that people who can't get immunized. Think about an un-vaccinated nurse giving a premature baby whooping cough.

Infectious diseases ... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47119051)

How can you get infected if YOU have been inoculated??? So how are they a public risk to you?

Re:Infectious diseases ... (4, Insightful)

thevirtualcat (1071504) | about 5 months ago | (#47119127)

There are valid medical reasons that some people can't get immunized. (Allergies, compromised immune systems, etc.) Those people benefit from herd immunity.

Re:Infectious diseases ... (1)

dywolf (2673597) | about 5 months ago | (#47119241)

precisely.
the vaccinated and healhty folks have nothing to fear.

its the folks who -cannot- be vaccinated who have anything to fear from those who -will not- get vaccinated.

Re:Infectious diseases ... (4, Informative)

hawguy (1600213) | about 5 months ago | (#47119161)

How can you get infected if YOU have been inoculated??? So how are they a public risk to you?

Because no vaccine is 100% effective, even if you're immunized, you can still catch the disease.

http://www.historyofvaccines.o... [historyofvaccines.org]

Why aren’t all vaccines 100% effective?

Vaccines are designed to generate an immune response that will protect the vaccinated individual during future exposures to the disease. Individual immune systems, however, are different enough that in some cases, a person’s immune system will not generate an adequate response. As a result, he or she will not be effectively protected after immunization.

That said, the effectiveness of most vaccines is high. After receiving the second dose of the MMR vaccine (measles, mumps and rubella) or the standalone measles vaccine, 99.7% of vaccinated individuals are immune to measles. The inactivated polio vaccine offers 99% effectiveness after three doses. The varicella (chickenpox) vaccine is between 85% and 90% effective in preventing all varicella infections, but 100% effective in preventing moderate and severe chicken pox.

Further, some individuals are unable to be vaccinated due to underlying medical conditions (allergies, compromised immune system, etc).

Re:Infectious diseases ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47119203)

The point still stands. If it's not 100% then someone who is immunized can catch and STILL give it to you. Thus both immunized and non-immunized pose the same threat to you.

Re:Infectious diseases ... (4, Insightful)

hawguy (1600213) | about 5 months ago | (#47119309)

The point still stands. If it's not 100% then someone who is immunized can catch and STILL give it to you. Thus both immunized and non-immunized pose the same threat to you.

The point only stands if you pretend that there's no real difference between an unimmunized person and a immunized person with 0.3% chance of catching the disease, and if you ignore the science behind herd immunity.

Re:Infectious diseases ... (4, Insightful)

Andy Dodd (701) | about 5 months ago | (#47119473)

In addition, in many cases, even if the vaccine is not fully effective, a vaccinated individual is likely to have a less severe infection and stay contagious for a shorter period of time.

Re:Infectious diseases ... (1)

Gadget_Guy (627405) | about 5 months ago | (#47119341)

How could they possibly pose the same threat level. Let's say (with simplified maths) that a particular vaccine is only 90% effective. That means that a vaccinated person has a 10% chance of becoming infected, while the unvaccinated person has 100% chance of infection. That means an unvaccinated person will be much more likely to act as a conduit for an outbreak simply because the disease will live longer in that individual.

Re:Infectious diseases ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47119369)

Just like you have a 50-50 chance of becoming a millionaire today, since you have equal chances of finding a suitcase with a bunch of money in it or not finding one...

Probabilities and risks don't work that way, especially when looking at the spread of diseases. And even relatively inefficient vaccine with 50-75% chance of working will effectively stop an epidemic if everyone has it. If everyone has a decent, but imperfect immunity, the disease will spread much slower, and with fewer people sick, there will be fewer exposures meaning a decent chance that others with even a crappy vaccine won't get it. If enough of a subset of people don't have a vaccine, then the disease can spread quickly through that sub-population, and those that are vaccinated will get much more exposure and greatly increasing the chances of spreading further and faster.

Otherwise, you sound like someone saying you have the same threat from playing Russian roulette with a gun that has 5 of 6 chambers loaded and a gun with only 1 of 6 chambers loaded.

Re:Infectious diseases ... (1)

mellon (7048) | about 5 months ago | (#47119387)

Can you explain for the class how immunization works?

Re: Infectious diseases ... (1)

pchasco (651819) | about 5 months ago | (#47119171)

Because no vaccine is 100% effective.

Re:Infectious diseases ... (1)

Virtucon (127420) | about 5 months ago | (#47119077)

There's no vaccine for Plague.

illegals (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47119185)

many are not vaccinated. Far worse than the "hollywood idiot" population.

Re:Infectious diseases ... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47119217)

If you have been immunized then you are largely safe from unvaccinated people. Lot of people don't understand that and spread a fear of unvaccianted people. That's not to understate the importance of vaccination, but I seem to see a lot of folks who are vaccinated and have a healthy immune system acting as if the unvaccinated are a direct threat to themselves, when they really are not.

By and large the people unvaccinated are not a danger to immunized people whose immune system is functional, but rather to other unimmunized or otherwise compromised people. Some are unvaccianted willingly, ie, there is no medical reason for their decision. Call them Group UA. Others cannot be vaccinated or are otherwise vulnerable to disease (such as chemo patients, AIDS sufferers, etc). Call them group UB. Its Group UB that has anything to fear from Group UA.

Re:Infectious diseases ... (2)

mellon (7048) | about 5 months ago | (#47119405)

You speak as if from authority. It would be good if you could go read up on herd immunity and then get back to us on whether you still agree with what you just said.

Re:Infectious diseases ... (-1)

silas_moeckel (234313) | about 5 months ago | (#47119311)

If your vaccinated then they present no risk to you or your family. This is exactly the response people are worried about.

I intentionally skipped one vaccination with my son. The science said it was the best choice for him at the time. This is not to be confused with the science that says accepting some bad outcomes to individuals is the best for the herd. When he was older he got the vax because the statistics changed.

In any event if your so worried you can stay locking in a bubble while the rest of us accept the basic risks of living. Being in control of what medical procedures we allow is a fundamental human right of bodily integrity and autonomy which by the way includes being able to move freely. The state should never be empowered to force any medical procedure on anybody or generally restrict them based upon their status.

Re:Infectious diseases ... (1)

mellon (7048) | about 5 months ago | (#47119415)

[citation needed]

Re:Infectious diseases ... (1)

matthewmok (412065) | about 5 months ago | (#47119395)

Then we should also quarantine for diseases that have no cure - like AIDS and other STDs.

Nessissary for public safty. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47118981)

Anti-vac morons are dangerous to themselves, but more importantly dangerous to others. Their un-vaccinated children are a vector for dangerous, crippling, or lethal diseases that should not exist in modern, developed nations. Where their idiocy spreads we've already seen outbreaks of diseases that were all but eradicated decades ago.

Exclude un-vaccinated children from public contact. Hold parents criminally liable in the event of an outbreak.

There is no compromise to be had here.

Re:Nessissary for public safty. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47119073)

Better yet, just euthanize them. They'll just grow up to become Christians anyway.

Misinformation? (5, Insightful)

CohibaVancouver (864662) | about 5 months ago | (#47118987)

The reasons are similar. It's based on fear and misinformation

No, it's based on facts. It's the anti-vaxxers who operate based on misinformation.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/... [www.cbc.ca]

A Vancouver father is calling on parents to vaccinate their children for chickenpox after his son nearly died from the disease while his immune system was compromised during chemotherapy.

Jason Lawson's 10-year-old son Beckett has been in and out of hospital for most of his life for cancer treatment, but Lawson says one of the scariest moments came when the boy caught chickenpox from a classmate at school.

Re:Misinformation? (1, Insightful)

Virtucon (127420) | about 5 months ago | (#47119047)

You know the chickenpox vaccinations is one of those that I always thought was a bit unnecessary considering how mild it was. I guess if your fighting something else it can be a real bugger but I guess in this kid's case, Flu could have also been as deadly or a cold.

Re:Misinformation? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47119083)

Heck, it's one of those vaccinations that really is unnecessary, albeit with risk. I was one of the last children to visit a "pox party". Not because my parents didn't believe in vaccinations (I had them all except for Hep B, which at the time didn't last long enough to be of serious value), but because the chicken pox vaccine was basically brand new on the market that year, and my parents weren't into making me a guinea pig.

Re:Misinformation? (5, Insightful)

CohibaVancouver (864662) | about 5 months ago | (#47119245)

"Unnecessary?"

Based on what science, exactly?

I'm 47. When I was a kid there was no pox vaccine - When my brother caught it he had the pox everywhere - Inside his mouth, on his tongue, genitals. He lay in a dark room crying for a week in pain, with terrible headaches, with my parents up at night with nothing they could do. Why on EARTH would you subject a kid to that, when with one jab you're protected?

That's child abuse.

Even with milder cases I have friends today who are still scarred from scratching from the terrible itching when they were kids.

Re:Misinformation? (3, Informative)

compro01 (777531) | about 5 months ago | (#47119383)

Actually, it's two jabs, but the point remains valid.

Also, never having chickenpox means you won't develop shingles later in life.

Re:Misinformation? (1)

Himmy32 (650060) | about 5 months ago | (#47119465)

But what they did in the end was make you have a chance at shingles later in life. : (

Re:Misinformation? (5, Insightful)

mlw4428 (1029576) | about 5 months ago | (#47119107)

That's assuming you get it as a child. If you don't catch chicken pox as a child and you don't get a vaccination for it you could catch it as an adult. It's much more severe as an adult and the chance of complications increases, even in healthy adults.

Re: Misinformation? (1)

tom229 (1640685) | about 5 months ago | (#47119223)

I had it at 25. It wasn't that bad. Mild fever for about a day. Itched like hell though.

Re: Misinformation? (2)

Jeff Flanagan (2981883) | about 5 months ago | (#47119427)

You got extremely lucky. At 25 the infection would normally have been much worst. I know someone who's basically physically handicapped and in pain for life due to nerve damage from the chicken pox virus. She went from healthy to moaning in pain all the time.

Re: Misinformation? (3, Informative)

Rich0 (548339) | about 5 months ago | (#47119481)

All diseases range in severity from individual to individual, and chicken pox and shingles are no different. Generally speaking it is worse for adults. That doesn't mean that every adult infection is guaranteed to be life-threatening, nor does it mean that a childhood infection can't kill somebody.

It really is in the public interest to reduce the incidence of these diseases all-around. For every few hundred cases of whooping cough that cause discomfort to a teenager there could be a case that kills a 4 month old child (who is still too young to vaccinate I might add).

Sure, the vaccines can also cause their own problems, but for any vaccine on the market the risks of side-effects and the risks of not being vaccinated are well known, and they wouldn't be on the market and on the vaccine schedules of virtually every developed nation if the one didn't greatly outweigh the other...

Re:Misinformation? (1)

laie_techie (883464) | about 5 months ago | (#47119149)

You know the chickenpox vaccinations is one of those that I always thought was a bit unnecessary considering how mild it was. I guess if your fighting something else it can be a real bugger but I guess in this kid's case, Flu could have also been as deadly or a cold.

There wasn't even a chickenpox vaccination available when I was young. When one child got sick with it, all the parents gathered their children to the sick child with the hope of catching it. Those with the disease were isolated from the public, though, so parents could decide who got exposed.

Re:Misinformation? (1)

Virtucon (127420) | about 5 months ago | (#47119299)

Same here, get it and never worry again.

Re: Misinformation? (1)

Applehu Akbar (2968043) | about 5 months ago | (#47119163)

Chicken pox becomes even more harmful at about the time you retire. A case of shingles, which anyone who carries the chickenpox virus can get, can ruin your dreams of travel and adventure.

Re:Misinformation? (1)

thevirtualcat (1071504) | about 5 months ago | (#47119261)

That's the one where the older you get, the worse it is. I've never been clear on why that is, but if you didn't have it as a kid or get immunized for it and then contract it as an adult, it's a serious problem.

Re:Misinformation? (1)

mellon (7048) | about 5 months ago | (#47119437)

Chicken Pox can be pretty deadly if you get the live virus as an adult.

Re:Misinformation? (2)

Adam Beutler (3532031) | about 5 months ago | (#47119225)

When my little brother got the chicken pox his temperature got up to 107. He was covered with them and had them down his throat. He couldn't eat or drink and was rushed over to the emergency room. They had to push lots of fluids and they said he could have died if they waited till the next morning to bring him in. Chicken pox can be VERY serious and deadly. VACCINATE!

Why just vaccines? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47118993)

People with any number of diseases are a potential public health threat. HIV comes to mind. But putting health records into one big database might allow for the types of research to identify patterns of disease that don't rise above the 1 in 1000 or 1 in 10,000 threshold that most studies are limited to. Picking on vaccinations rather than just linking all health records to a centralized database seems narrow and punitive rather that good public policy.

Re:Why just vaccines? (1)

laie_techie (883464) | about 5 months ago | (#47119283)

People with any number of diseases are a potential public health threat. HIV comes to mind. But putting health records into one big database might allow for the types of research to identify patterns of disease that don't rise above the 1 in 1000 or 1 in 10,000 threshold that most studies are limited to. Picking on vaccinations rather than just linking all health records to a centralized database seems narrow and punitive rather that good public policy.

HIV (and other STDs) are a bit more charged than simple vaccinations because of the way it spreads. Someone with HIV should notify any sexual partners of this before any risky activities (I have a vague memory of someone charged with homicide for purposefully infecting as many people as possible). This information should also be divulged in activities where other participants may be infected (sports where bleeding is normal comes to mind). However, HIV doesn't pose a major risk of spreading through normal, everyday contact. Contrast that to someone with the plague coughing in a movie theater.

Re:Why just vaccines? (1)

compro01 (777531) | about 5 months ago | (#47119409)

Someone with HIV should notify any sexual partners of this before any risky activities

Up here, that's legally required if they have a detectable viral load. If they don't, they can be charged with aggravated sexual assault.

Re:Why just vaccines? (1)

Gorshkov (932507) | about 5 months ago | (#47119343)

People with any number of diseases are a potential public health threat. HIV comes to mind. But putting health records into one big database might allow for the types of research to identify patterns of disease that don't rise above the 1 in 1000 or 1 in 10,000 threshold that most studies are limited to. Picking on vaccinations rather than just linking all health records to a centralized database seems narrow and punitive rather that good public policy.

Except that you're not going to catch HIV from somebody standing next to you at the bus stop, just because they said hello to you and breathed in your general direction

Already being done in the US (1)

Virtucon (127420) | about 5 months ago | (#47118997)

Try registering your kids for public school or enroll in a college in the US and you'll find that you have to have vaccination records. Many states also have public health laws [cdc.gov] that require doctors/nurses to keep records or notify the state when a patient has had a specific vaccine. If you're in the healthcare industry you also are tracked at a statewide level on your vaccination history.

US is Very Different than a National Regristry (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47119281)

That is not at all comparable; that isn't a national registry. There are state registries for a few vaccines, and yes, medical people must record medical treatments. You also must immunize your children unless you have a good reason not to if you're going to threaten my children with the potential of your child carrying a disease. The system we have now is okay, except for allowing any nutjob to opt not to vaccinate theri children. Medical and true (nutjob) faiths are fine. The left-wing anti-science crowd, however, should be forced to home-school their children if they choose to make them threats to everyone else's kid.

False Comparison (5, Insightful)

mrbene (1380531) | about 5 months ago | (#47119017)

Sure, the fundamentals are similar - building a list of people who are threats to the health of the rest of the population.

But, while super/mutant power are generally something innate and unselected, not getting vaccinated is, by and large, a choice.

If you are making a choice to ignore what science has earned human society, and that choice is putting other people at risk, get on the list.

Additionally, if I could not get vaccinated against something for some specific medical reason, I'd want to be on a list to be notified in case of an outbreak, so that I could lock myself away until it passed.

Please put the comic book down (5, Insightful)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about 5 months ago | (#47119019)

Go for a little walk, breathe some fresh air.

I'm torn on this (1)

Kierthos (225954) | about 5 months ago | (#47119025)

It would be an invasion of privacy, sure. I mean, if this were any other sort of medical records, we probably wouldn't care at all. I mean, if anyone proposed a national registry of "broke their leg skiing" or "genetically predisposed to be an alcoholic", we wouldn't be having this conversation.

On the other hand, there are so many idiots (compared to, say, 15 years ago) out there refusing to vaccinate their kids because they are listening to idiot celebrities like Jenny McCarthy, that something should be done to protect people who cannot get vaccinated (like very young children).

I don't know. It's one of those things where I don't think there is a simple answer that would work.

Re:I'm torn on this (1)

Kierthos (225954) | about 5 months ago | (#47119057)

Also, does anyone else have a problem with Jenny McCarthy telling mothers not to get their kids vaccinated, and then turning around and hawking e-cigarettes in commercials?

Re:I'm torn on this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47119463)

does anyone else have a problem

No I do not *

* Is she a jackass? Sure. But do I have any problem with what she says. Yes. But I also have issues with people who want to shut her up simply because they disagree with her. I also disagree with her, but it is her right to be a retarded idiot.

But to get to the brass tacks here. Where in the constitution does it allow the government to put me in a list like this? There is no 'public good' clause.

Registration lists are one step away from segregation. Which is clearly spelled out in our constitution, now. If you get one list the next list is easier because 'well we already have a list to do X'.

Like most econ theories people spout off they only look at the first month and never 10 years along.

Why would we give the jackasses in DC more power?

Re:I'm torn on this (2)

laie_techie (883464) | about 5 months ago | (#47119327)

It would be an invasion of privacy, sure. I mean, if this were any other sort of medical records, we probably wouldn't care at all. I mean, if anyone proposed a national registry of "broke their leg skiing" or "genetically predisposed to be an alcoholic", we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Actually, I fear my genetic information being available. Can you imagine a society similar to Gattaca? Car insurance company sees you're predisposed to be an alcoholic, so they charge you higher premiums, even though you don't drink. Health insurance company raises your rates because you're predisposed for some condition.

Really? Mutant registration? (4, Insightful)

nine-times (778537) | about 5 months ago | (#47119033)

How did this get on the front page? Comparing vaccination registrations with mutant registration? A remotely educated person would have at least tried to compare it to the real-life events that inspired the idea of "mutant registration", which were the treatment of Jews in Europe and of the Japanese in the US during WW2.

And this:

It's based on fear and misinformation. People fear that unvaccinated people will doom us all. Sound familiar? The difference is this is real. (Oh, and they probably won't use sentinels to track down the dangerous unvaccinated folks.)

Is this a joke? Is the suggestion that they won't use sentinels sarcastic?

And it's not "fear based on misinformation", it's fear based in real risk. When large numbers of people refuse to get vaccinated from serious infectious diseases, they're putting everyone else in the population at greater risk of infection.

Re:Really? Mutant registration? (3, Insightful)

LWATCDR (28044) | about 5 months ago | (#47119147)

" which were the treatment of Jews in Europe and of the Japanese in the US during WW2"
Talk about two vastly different levels.

The treatment of Americans of Japanese descent in the US was shameful.
The the treatment of the Jews by Nazi Germany was a Holocaust.

The sad thing is that treatment of Americans of Japanese descent has become so politicised that much of the history about it has been rewritten and many of the triggers are not taught because of fear that people will be accused of trying to justify it.

Re:Really? Mutant registration? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47119179)

And this:

It's based on fear and misinformation. People fear that unvaccinated people will doom us all. Sound familiar? The difference is this is real. (Oh, and they probably won't use sentinels to track down the dangerous unvaccinated folks.)

Is this a joke? Is the suggestion that they won't use sentinels sarcastic?

Personally, I completely agree with the idea of drone strikes on the homes of anti-vaxxers.

Re:Really? Mutant registration? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47119259)

I think he's not so much using X-Men (I think the mutant registration thing was Days of Future Past, which wasn't even that good of an arc) as he is the more recent Civil War. If you use Civil War, the concept sort of, kind of makes sense.

Civil War: A bunch of superheroes/villains have a fight near a school in Stamford, CT and accidentally cause an explosion that kills a bunch of people (a sanitized version of 9/11). As a result, Tony Stark/Iron Man demands that everyone with superpowers gets registered on the grounds that people running around with superpowers isn't the greatest idea in the world because people can get hurt or killed when those powers go off. Captain America opposes registration because he feels that it would allow the government to control super-heroism and interfere with his freedom to operate independently.

Vaccine Registry: A bunch of idiots who decide not to vaccinate their children accidentally cause a bunch of people who can't get vaccinated for various medical reasons to get sick and bring back diseases long thought to be extinct in the wild. As a result, some guy in Canada calls for people who don't want to get vaccinated to register because running around carrying infectious and potentially deadly diseases isn't the greatest idea in the world because people who can't get vaccinated get sick and potentially die. Jenny McCarthy and her ilk would probably oppose it because they don't want "the gub'mint" interfering with "muh freedoms".

The only difference is that vaccine registration would make a really, really boring comic.

Fear mongering (1)

voislav98 (1004117) | about 5 months ago | (#47119089)

This is a sensible public health policy and a perfectly appropriate response to recent outbreaks, for example of measles in Calgary. But let's not let that get in the way of invoking poorly contrived analogies and imply that the government will harvest unvaccinated people for their superpowers. I wonder what Michele Bachmann's superpower is?

Registry checklist: (5, Interesting)

jpvlsmv (583001) | about 5 months ago | (#47119113)

I'm trying to keep track of what kind of registries are acceptable for each (US) political party

No Fly Registry: It's Our Patriotic Duty (D&R)
Gun Owner Registry: Acceptable for (D), Unacceptable for (R)
Legal-to-work-in-US Registry: Acceptable for (R), Unacceptable for (D)
National ID card: Acceptable for (D), Unacceptable for (R)
Vaccination Registry: Acceptable for (D), Unacceptable for (R)
Superhero Registry: It's Our Patriotic Duty
Mutant Registry: Ditto
Windows Registry: Can't run Windows without it, and what else would you run?

lol very amusing (1)

Riceballsan (816702) | about 5 months ago | (#47119123)

I'd suppose the key difference between these stories, is one is a voluntary choice, one is something you are born as, and yeah I think a better analogy for fear mongering would be countries that make people register religions etc...

Mutant registration is a good idea, by the way (1)

Gregory Eschbacher (2878609) | about 5 months ago | (#47119133)

I know we're all supposed to buy into the mutants in X-Men as being corollaries for the civil rights movement, but actually registering mutants would be a very logical and beneficial step. A woman who can control the weather? A guy who can destroy buildings if his sunglasses fall off? A girl who can kill you by touching you briefly? People who can shape-shift, instantly teleport past security? People who can control your mind? Guess what? In the real world, having such people walking around controlling the weather on a whim wouldn't work. Gawker.com posted an editorial saying how the government should arrest Global Warming deniers. At the same time, shouldn't we arrest (or at least monitor) those that could actually make the the weather warmer? So yeah, the whole comparison in this story makes no sense. Mutants can (and in the comics are definitely) a menace and should be registered.

Vaccinate everyone? (1)

jenningsthecat (1525947) | about 5 months ago | (#47119141)

If we're really serious about this, governments and health agencies need to offer a variety of vaccines for a given disease, with different adjuvants, egg-free versions, etc, to accomodate those who have a nasty reaction to the most popular formulations. Then, offer people the choice between vaccine and quarantine.

Then again, this world is getting awfully overpopulated, and maybe we're due for another major culling, cold-hearted and horrible as that may sound...

Comparative risks and responsibilities (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47119169)

It's always interesting to see just how many supposedly well informed adults are, in fact, essentially incapable of practicing even the most basic, natural, accepted regimens of good health (proper diet, proper activity, proper hygiene), for either themselves or their children; yet these same individuals seem all too often to also be the ones going nuts over whether or not other people are vaccinated? Listen bub, I see morons compromising the fabric of a healthy and well-functioning society every which way to Sunday; vaccination is really not among the foremost of your problems.

manslaughter (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47119199)

i think this is a non-issue. people that don't get vaccinated and infect other people should be criminally charged for any negative consequences that their action have on others. if someone dies, then that's called manslaughter. also, they should bear the full costs of their treatment and of other innocent victims. they should make you sign a paper with all of this when you refuse a vaccine.

How about a numbers-only registry? (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 5 months ago | (#47119279)

If I knew that specific neighborhoods were mostly populated with people who were unvaccinated, I could avoid going there. They could still have their privacy and I could have my health. While they may feel that they are better off facing the diseases that they refuse vaccination against, some of us have more to lose by contracting some of those illnesses.

The nazi's made the jewish do registration and lat (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about 5 months ago | (#47119319)

The nazi's made the Jewish do registration and later the rounded them up and took them to camps.

Good luck with that. (0)

pla (258480) | about 5 months ago | (#47119321)

"Getting them the shots they need would reduce the risk of anyone on the list getting sick, and would also reduce the threat of an outbreak in the community in which they live or travel to [and] from."

One major problem with that... The morons not currently vaccinated didn't just somehow accidentally slip through the cracks and missed out on getting their MMR - They actively don't want vaccinations.

In implementing this seemingly reasonable service, does the government plan to round people up, hold them down, and vaccinate them by force against their will? Hey, I might actually agree with that, because these fools endanger me by reducing the overall population's overall "herd immunity" - But let's call a spade a spade, and not pretend this will come down to anything less than forced vaccinations at the wrong end of Government Guns.

And in that regard, I don't support this plan, because the very fact that the government would gloss over the only possible outcome makes me seriously question their real motivation. We can all see the obvious slippery slope, so which angle haven't we checked yet? Hmm, we have effective vaccines against opiates, they have ones for cannabis, cocaine, and tobacco well under way (and yet we can't cure cancer yet, really great use of resources, guys!). Why fight a war on drugs when you can just make the entire population incapable of getting high? Or how about the biological threat of the week, whether that means anthrax or smallpox or ebola or what-have-you?

So just no, thank you. The government that declares it has the right to force me to modify the conditions inside my own body against my will, becomes my mortal enemy and should expect a level of "cooperation" appropriate to that.

Darwin calling, anyone home? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47119365)

Ok, here's a reasonable approach to the problem.

No registration needed - if you are unvaccinated and get a disease, you pay for your own treatment. If you are vaccinated, you aren't responsible for paying for someone else's stupidity, you aren't on a government database and you can feel bad about the ignorant and diseased folks if you want to.

Vaccinated people don't have to worry about un-vaccinated people, unvaccinated people don't have to worry about vaccinated people, and nobody has to worry about the government.

When did the government become responsible for protecting people from their own stupidity anyways? Stupidity used to be a self-correcting problem... now we all have to subsidize it - and the bureaucracy that surrounds it.

Australia (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47119393)

Australia has a vaccination registry and has had it for many years (decades even). You have to have your vaccinations up to date to attend school (unless you have a valid medical reason for not having the vaccinations, there used to be a religious copout as well but I don't know if that is still in effect).
You also:
- have to have your children vaccinated to receive any child tax benefits
- get some extra money for having your kids vaccinated (I think there is 2 lots of bonus money, 1 at 2yrs and one at 4yrs old)
- get all your required vaccinations for free if you are covered by Medicare

Some vaccinations are not covered by Medicare if you are not in a high-risk group. Flu shots are free for pregnant women, over 55(?) year olds and a few other groups.

Go volunteer in an iron lung ward (1)

WillAdams (45638) | about 5 months ago | (#47119399)

Then, tell me you don't want your kids vaccinated.

Anti-vaxer here (e.g. come beat me up) (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47119471)

Every time one of these articles comes about people come out of the wood work to deride this Jenny McCarthy person. Who the heck is she anyway? Some kind of celebrity I see. But I don't watch TV or go to movies, so I am not aware of her. Not that I even care to know. Just pointing out that some of us luddites might have other reasons, particularly after actually looking into the ingredients of said vaccinations.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?