Said I, reacting to a post over at Facebook that links to something Ron Paul said.
ADDED: At Facebook, Annie Gottlieb asks if I "feel differently about state and local mandates, as opposed to federal?" And I say:
What feelings are you attibuting to me, Annie? I didn't say I was opposed to mandating vaccines. I'm just saying I think mandating vaccines could be something that has jumped to the forefront politically because it works well to serve the purpose of denying us choice in all sorts of things, such as what foods we can eat and whether we must exercise and so forth. As for what level of government will be imposing this on us, I think the federal govt is more dangerous because you lose the ability to relocate to another state you might like better.
Posts
80 comments:
Ron Paul contributes something to national politics, but he's far too rigid ideologically, and frankly thoughtless at times. As a result, I feel he often does a disservice to libertarianism by making it seem so rigid and thoughtless. Libertarians debate issues with each other all the time, because first principles only tell you so much.
Ron Paul is not a great thinker. He's not a competent technocrat. He's not a deal maker.
But most of the time I appreciate his instinctive anti-government reaction.
I had a dreadful case of measles as a small boy in the early 1960s. It left me with permanent hearing damage. Nonetheless, I do not prefer that the government force anyone to be vaccinated. I also prefer that the government not force me to buy energy efficient light bulbs or pay for unproductive citizens to idle about all day. The history of Progressivism is a history of creeping totalitarianism. It should be rejected at every turn.
I do not prefer that the government force anyone to be vaccinated.
I agree with this statement. But (You knew a But was coming) a person who willingly suppresses herd immunity should have to pay some kind of penalty, to be determined by the community affected.
360 cases of measles in Amish community last year, imported from Philippines.
Factoid: The 82nd Airborne troopers dumped to hold off Sadaam Hussein's tanks with light weapons somewhere in the desert between Kuwait and Saudi Arabia in August 1990 were forced to have many shots. Those shots included experimental ones for Nerve Gas exposure. In hindsight the nerve gas shot did more harm to them than enemy fire did.
It is a weighing of the risks.
At least we can demand from the authority over our public health risks that the top of guys in chain of command takes those same shots.
I demand Rand Paul resign for being Ron Paul's son.
Oso Negro said...
It left me with permanent hearing damage.
Imagine if you had also been immunosuppressed at the time. An small but real possibility for some.
I agree that the government does not have the right to make you put something in your body if you don't want to. We discussed this regarding the girl with cancer who did not want the chemotherapy. But, actions, or lack of actions in this case, have broader consequences for the herd.
I'm glad Ron and Rand are out there making arguments that may not otherwise pierce the public consciousness. It seems to me that on many issues most people's first instinct is to implicitly trust the government and not to raise questions. I wish it were otherwise.
BDNYC: Ron Paul is not a great thinker. He's not a competent technocrat. He's not a deal maker.
Most voters do not consider these qualifiers for the Presidency - since 2008 at least.
Question: Who, except those who choose not to vaccinate, would be harmed by choosing not to vaccinate? Those who do choose to vaccinate would be immune, and not harmed.
Answer: The public at large would be harmed, because we have socialized the cost of medical care. Those who have bought into the 'insurance' of immunization would pay for the care of those who have not. In a libertarian society there would be no such problem.
Ann Althouse What feelings are you attibuting to me, Annie? I didn't say I was opposed to mandating vaccines. I'm just saying I think mandating vaccines could be something that has jumped to the forefront politically because it works well to serve the purpose of denying us choice in all sorts of things
The cynic in me think the same thing about the Silk Road guy and his child porn charges---I mean who would want to defend a pedophile.
The link between 100,000 non-vaccinated children entering the US last year and being dispersed around the US and these outbreaks of mumps, measles and whooping cough is a massively under discussed topic. Dropping infected or disease carriers into the middle of the herd, blows away any herd immunity the domestic non-vaccinated people enjoy.
Who, except those who choose not to vaccinate, would be harmed by choosing not to vaccinate? Those who do choose to vaccinate would be immune, and not harmed.
Actually, this is wrong. Vaccines are not 100% effective. So if some of those who are vaccinated will become sick.
The link between 100,000 non-vaccinated children entering the US last year and being dispersed around the US and these outbreaks of mumps, measles and whooping cough is a massively under discussed topic.
Actually, the countries those children came from have higher vaccination rates than the U.S.
Most (all) states require proof of vaccinations for admission to public schools.
Can private employers require the same, or is this intrusion into the medical condition of applicants just another thing like running a Numbers game (State Lottery) that permitted only to Government?
There are lots of "stalking horses". They of course require a longer planning horizon than most efforts. I tend to think of the quote from the movie "Broadcast News" Instapundit reminded me of recently.
Broadcast News (1987)
Aaron Altman: I know you care about him. I've never seen you like this about anyone, so please don't get me wrong when I tell you that Tom, while being a very nice guy, is the Devil.
Jane Craig: This isn't friendship. You're crazy, you know that?
Aaron Altman: What do you think the Devil is going to look like if he's around?
Jane Craig: God!
Aaron Altman: Come on! Nobody is going to be taken in by a guy with a long, red, pointy tail! What's he gonna sound like?
[hisses]
Aaron Altman: No. I'm semi-serious here.
Jane Craig: You're seriously...
Aaron Altman: He will be attractive! He'll be nice and helpful. He'll get a job where he influences a great God-fearing nation. He'll never do an evil thing! He'll never deliberately hurt a living thing... he will just bit by little bit lower our standards where they are important. Just a tiny little bit. Just coax along flash over substance. Just a tiny little bit. And he'll talk about all of us really being salesmen. And he'll get all the great women.
"Who, except those who choose not to vaccinate, would be harmed by choosing not to vaccinate? Those who do choose to vaccinate would be immune, and not harmed."
Quite aside from the already-mentioned problem of the vaccine not being effective for everyone who gets it and from the problem for the set of persons who have a medical need not to take the vaccine (allergies, etc.), there's the problem that parents are making the choice and the children are harmed. We don't let parents do everything they want with their children! We disagree about where the line is between what the parent controls and what the community can require, but there obviously must be line. You can't torture your children.
Don't schools require kids to be vaccinated to enroll? I seem to remember a study a while back (maybe 10 years) that NYC kids had a relatively low rate of vaccination up to age 5 or so.
After that age, they had a high rate because they could not go to school without them.
When my kids started school back in the 70's we had to provide vaccination records. I think my gradnkids did too in the oughties.
I have no problem with something like this.
John Henry
"Herd" = "collective" ?
Freder Frederson said...
Actually, the countries those children came from have higher vaccination rates than the U.S.
Now, sadly, this is true. The attacks on science, from all sources, have undermined a former consensus.
Most (all) states require proof of vaccinations for admission to public schools.
Yes, but the problem is that some states (CA included) allow a "personal belief" exemption which defeats the purpose.
Perhaps we need a bit more nuance about which vaccines should be required. I think every kid should get measles and some other vaccines. Especially polio. Not sure I want the govt mandating it.
Rand Paul (and perhaps Ron) did not, as I understand it, object to all vaccines. He did question whether a 5 year old needed an HPV vaccine.
As a kid we were all vaccinated against smallpox. Smallpox, as a disease, is extinct and there is no longer a need for vaccination. Polio was a horrible and common disease when I was a kid. It is now close to extinct. (THANK YOU DR SALK!!!) I question whether American kids, who are at virtually no risk for it, should be getting it.
Rather than say all vaccines are good or all bad, I think we need to look at each one individually.
I think that is what the Pauls are doing.
John Henry
Levi Starks said...
"Herd" = "collective" ?
When it comes to infectious agents we are a collective. The virus doesn't care about the subtleties of your philosophy.
For many agents we are also a collective with other mammals and some birds. Viruses don't care how big your brain is either.
Most (all) states require proof of vaccinations for admission to public schools.
Many States have personal belief exemptions now, so kids can go to school without their vaccinations.
Megan McArdle suggested a stronger exemption process for schools, but also mandatory vaccination requirements for playing youth sports and flying. These all seem much less onerous than government force. If your children are going to engage in activities that bring your children in very close contact with other people, than they need to ensure they will not be a risk to those who might have compromised immune systems.
Frankly, I think you could leave the schools with a fairly loose personal belief vaccine exemption policy and have a very strict one for flying (which is easily justified, I believe) and eliminate most of the fad unvaccinated crowd.
When I went in the Navy in '67 we were vaccinated up the ying-yang. (literally)
The first few weeks of basic it seemed like we were getting shots every day. Sometimes a cocktail of several vaccines in each arm at once with pneumatic injectors.
We finished up with a massive triple dose of penicillin in the butt cheeks just to kill anything else.
I probably got vaccinated against 50 or more diseases. I'll probably live forever.
Anyone here with more recent experience? Is this still the practice in boot camp?
John Henry
The reason the vaccination issue is being discussed is because we have experienced outbreaks.
Those outbreaks have occurred in mainly left wing enclaves because the percent of people not getting vaccines has started to reach levels that will trigger them.
People who for medical reasons cannot get vaccines or for whom vaccines are not fully effective are having their health put at risk by the collective choices made by the anti-vaccine folks.
There are two reasons this issue has damaged Republican politicians: media bias and that Hillary has far better political instincts than the Pauls.
The reason his issue may continue to harm Republicans is if the paranoid fringe of libertarians keeps it alive with conspiratorial rationalizations.
We should require everyone to be vaccinated so that those for whom the vaccination is ineffective don't catch the disease they were vaccinated against.
Am I the only one who sees the flaw in this argument?
In the end it comes down to statistics, and how we interpret them. We wiped out smallpox because the disease itself was so devastating, and the vaccine was so effective. It was win win easy choice
Bullshit - worldbank indicates that Guatemala < USA, which was our most recent hoard. One also notes that West Africa can be best described as 'sloppy'. And of course, we're not getting an average representation of the populace in our illegal immigrant population, driving the numbers down.
One also wonders just how a country like say, Greece, which when they had massive forest fires back seven or so years ago an couldn't tell how much property was destroyed because they don't have the records of property ownership... should be trusted on the vaccination statistics. And Greece, for all its troubles, its a Prussian model of efficiency compared to anyone further south. On ebola, where serious consequences are not unimaginable, the West Africans were very obviously making up the numbers.
In short, immigrants are very obviously a problem, and a problem that the powers that be don't give two shits about correcting. Measles - a disease which has not killed in this country since, what - 2001? And in fact that has a higher deathrate *due to its vaccine* is now suddenly a big deal?
No, if we were truly concerned about infectious disease, we would have a zero-tolerance policy towards illegal immigration and rigid checks on travelers. Instead, we boogie-man a hipster in San Francisco or some family out in the middle of Nowhere, Idaho.
Power projection, all this is, all the way down.
Ann made the point the other day that when us old folks were kids there was no vaccination for measles and most of us seem to have survived unharmed. Yes, there were the unfortunate few who suffered damage as Oso Negro did, but I wonder whether the number was any greater than those who have adverse reactions to the current vaccination.
The limited effectiveness of this year's flu vaccine is a reminder that skepticism about government directives for our health are well placed.
I am very cynical about Big Pharma's role in advocating the administration of shots - and many other medications (anti-cholesterol medications being my prime bogeyman). Follow the money!
re the Pauls pere et fil I am much more willing to listen to them on vaccines than I am to the typical politician whose exposure to science consists of a couple science classes in High school.
Doctors, including the Pauls, are not infallible. But they do have a much better background and level of knowledge. We should pay attention to them on this.
Not blindly follow them, of course. But listen to them. Hilary? Obama? Not so much.
John Henry
Who, except those who choose not to vaccinate, would be harmed by choosing not to vaccinate? Those who do choose to vaccinate would be immune, and not harmed.
Actually, this is wrong. Vaccines are not 100% effective. So if some of those who are vaccinated will become sick.
Another problem with this argument is that it is parents deciding for children whether they get vaccinated, not adults deciding for themselves. We (as society) insist people feed and clothe their children or we do it for them. I think even the most extreme libertarians are OK with that.
Vaccinations are much the same. If you don't vaccinate a high percentage, the disease wins and some children die. With measles, being one of the most contagious diseases know, the percentage needs to be quite high.
It's very interesting how the position on vaccinations has shifted among the liberals. While many of the major hold out groups are liberal, associated with a weird combination of anti-corporatism, pseudo-environmentalism, and fear of technology, the debate has shifted around to where the media is banging on Republicans for holding the same view that most democrats have espouse, that vaccines work, kids should be vaccinated, but that parents have some choice in the matter. The media is totally dishonest in its presentation of this for most part. Someone ask Hillary if she believes in compulsory vaccination, please. They won't because they know the real answer will loose votes in the Wholefoods crowd. It's a very dishonest discourse going on now.
Threading the needle between compulsory and highly recommended is tough and calls for judgement, not a strong suit of our media or politicians. The measles vaccine is highly effective; if you get both shots as a child, you're about 97% protected. Flu, much less so, and it needs to be taken annually. If we had an ebola vaccine, I don't think mandatory vaccinations in the US would be warranted (except maybe health care workers, the way wildlife workers now get rabies vaccinations). But I can see where Liberia or Sierra Leone would be justified.
Those outbreaks have occurred in mainly left wing enclaves because the percent of people not getting vaccines has started to reach levels that will trigger them.
Anti vaxxers are not all left wing. It is probably evenly distributed among right and left. My friend's brother is a far right Christian (Christian Identity) and he refuses to have his kids vaccinated (and don't get him started on fluoride toothpaste). And of course his kids are always getting sick and have bad teeth--go figure.
"Yes, there were the unfortunate few who suffered damage as Oso Negro did, but I wonder whether the number was any greater than those who have adverse reactions to the current vaccination."
Before the measles vaccination program started in 1963, we estimate that about 3 to 4 million people got measles each year in the United States. Of those people, 400 to 500 died, 48,000 were hospitalized, and 4,000 developed encephalitis (brain swelling) from measles.
-Compare that to 96 deaths from the vaccine over a TEN YEAR period in 2000's in the US.
I think the harm reduction is clear. 450 annual deaths vs. 9.6 from the vaccine suggests we are better with the vaccine despite it's current imperfections.
http://www.cdc.gov/measles/about/faqs.html
Re: Althouse:
We disagree about where the line is between what the parent controls and what the community can require, but there obviously must be line. You can't torture your children.
Wait, what? I thought the only effective limit was that a father can sell his children into slavery only thrice, after which they are emancipated. A father's power to punish his children, including even death, goes without saying. I am not sure what position the learned jurists have taken on the question, but I believe that torture would fall within the scope of those ancient paternal rights set forth in the Twelve Tables which are, after all, the foundation of our law.
O tempora! O mores!
So if we agree that the government has the right to take action on our bodies (or to veto the parent's wishes for its child)... I don't wanna hear any of you fools bitching and moaning when someone in power goes full throttle anti-abortion and uses your own policies against you.
*That's not what we intended!*
I for one am shocked that it's bloody measles of all things that made this the hill the left wanted to fight on, but there you have it.
"As for what level of government will be imposing this on us, I think the federal govt is more dangerous because you lose the ability to relocate to another state you might like better."
Bingo Althouse- it is our last best option. Or Australia we would go I guess.
Does she or doesn't she vaccinate?
Only her Samsung knows for sure.
(Future ad tag line.)
John Henry...
When I was in the Army (early 80s) we went through a similar "shots party" where we were given multiple shots for multiple sessions using those pneumatic injectors as well. Between those and the push-ups, some days you could not lift your arms...
Less government is better government.
Not for every point on the line, perhaps, but for every point we're at in the West.
Actually, the countries those children came from have higher vaccination rates than the U.S.
I keep seeing this statement, but it is a classic strawman. Unless the kids from those countries have a 100% vaccination rate (which I doubt), then 100,000 unvaccinated kids can still leave those countries and come here unvaccinated.
That aside, I don't believe for a minute that countries like Guatemala and El Salvador have higher vaccination rates than the U.S., even with the anti-vaxxers' numbers rising.
I went through boot camp in 1981 and had the same experience as John Henry describes.
I suspect most of the vaccines were ones I had already gotten from my pediatrician, but the Corps was probably making sure everybody had them all.
As for herd immunity, how about a reactive program? Always allow exemptions for those who oppose getting vaccinations but make the process of getting the exemption in line with compliance in that area. So, in Mississippi where vaccination rates are high, the exemption process is easy. In a place like Boulder CO or Marin County CA, make a lot of hoops to jump through. Only those who really care will go to the trouble.
I am very cynical about Big Pharma's role in advocating the administration of shots - and many other medications (anti-cholesterol medications being my prime bogeyman). Follow the money!
As someone who's worked in healthcare indirectly (financial), I can tell you that "Big Pharma" doesn't make a ton on vaccines. The patents have expired, and they're cheap to make. And as a heart patient at a young age, I can also tell you that anti-cholesterol medicine has saved my life.
Sorry, but I ain't buying the conspiracy bullshit.
It seems like only yesterday that Professor Althouse was concerned that some other person was in the grips of paranoia.
As the government lawyer put it "The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes."
Give 'em an inch and they take a mile.
AReasonableMan said... [hush][hide comment]
Freder Frederson said...
Actually, the countries those children came from have higher vaccination rates than the U.S.
Now, sadly, this is true. The attacks on science, from all sources, have undermined a former consensus.
You guys will believe anything. Ever seen a documentary of poor areas in South America?Ever been to rural Mexico. There is no way all those people have been vaccinated.
Ron Paul is right on this for two reasons:
1) There have been measles outbreaks in this country for years, going back to at least the late 1980's. That's when we realized we had to give kids TWO MMR vaccines to improve protection. Before that, they just got one. So, the hype about this outbreak is unusual within my memory. I suspect that is intentional. And for the very reasons Paul is mentioning.
2) As others have mentioned, not all vaccines are equal. There are some that are necessary and of proven value against diseases that are highly contagious and were once widespread- polio, measles, mumps, rubella, diphtheria, pertussis, Hemophilus influenza (which was once a common cause of meningitis in young children.) But others, like hepatitis, chickenpox, human papilloma virus, pneumococcus- not so much. Big Pharma is behind the push for the expansion of all these "recommended" vaccinations. We are living in the golden age of corporate cronyism. You will notice, they are not making a distinction in the types of diseases and vaccines in the pro-vaccine educational efforts. Their hope is that all vaccines will be accepted as necessary to be a good parent, good citizen, good neighbor. Win win for Big Pharma!
The problem is, the indiscriminate recommendations of vaccination without regard to the nature of the disease we are targeting undermines the public's confidence in the experts and in all vaccines. They know these expanded recommendations are a crock. But collectively, we've forgotten how bad the original childhood vaccine diseases could be, so people don't take those vaccine recommendations seriously, either. They think they are on the same level as the newer questionable vaccines.
I'd like to see the CDC scale back their recommendations for childhood vaccinations to the truly useful and necessary and then concentrate their public education efforts on these diseases. Stop pushing HPV vaccines, and such. But that won't happen.
Win win for Big Pharma!
Another truther for Big Pharma.
What a laugh. Pharma companies do NOT make a ton of money on vaccinations. The competition is stiff, and the patents have all expired. It's a laugher that pharma companies and healthcare providers (who actually administer the vaccines) have conspired to push the fact that we need vaccines when we really don't. This is 9/11 truther level nonsense.
But do continue to believe the anti-Vax housewives coalition if it makes you sleep better at night.
Freder Frederson said...
"The link between 100,000 non-vaccinated children entering the US last year and being dispersed around the US and these outbreaks of mumps, measles and whooping cough is a massively under discussed topic."
Actually, the countries those children came from have higher vaccination rates than the U.S.
Where are you getting your facts from?
Blogger AReasonableMan said...
"Freder Frederson said...
Actually, the countries those children came from have higher vaccination rates than the U.S."
Now, sadly, this is true.
Well, if the two of you agree, then it must be true!
Or maybe it's not true.
We discussed this regarding the girl with cancer who did not want the chemotherapy.
Cancer doesn't have an R-nought of 14, does it?
"The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes."
Fallopian tubes aren't contagious.
FullMoon said...
AReasonableMan said... [hush][hide comment]
Freder Frederson said...
Actually, the countries those children came from have higher vaccination rates than the U.S.
Now, sadly, this is true. The attacks on science, from all sources, have undermined a former consensus.
You guys will believe anything. Ever seen a documentary of poor areas in South America?Ever been to rural Mexico. There is no way all those people have been vaccinated.
Most people don't understand how these statistics come about. Mainly because we live in a society that is unlike most others in human history.
I've traveled to Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, and even some very run down poor areas of the United States for missionary work.
It's incredible the squalor some people live in. Single room huts with dirt floors for a family of 10. These people aren't born in hospitals. They don't have birth certificates. They don't think about going to the dentist for their teeth, or the doctor for a cold.
What we're probably seeing is an extrapolation. WHO, or an organization for each country that is similar to WHO (Or our CDC) goes to large cities and determines a vaccination rate.
Then they extrapolate that out to entire populations.
In Guatemala we went into the mountains and hills to bring medicine to the indian population. They didn't even speak Spanish. They spoke Quiche indian. It was a terrible time understanding them.
It's common in Guatemala for someone my age to have a mark on their arm from where they received a vaccination as a child. A mark like my parents have, but that I don't have. These Indians don't have those marks. It's because no on thinks about them, or cares about them, or even bothers to vaccinate them. They don't have insurance, or jobs, or even travel to the city.
But I don't expect American liberals to understand this.
The link between 100,000 non-vaccinated children entering the US last year and being dispersed around the US and these outbreaks of mumps, measles and whooping cough is a massively under discussed topic.
Freder Frederson said...
Actually, the countries those children came from have higher vaccination rates than the U.S.
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.IMM.MEAS/countries
United States 91%
Mexico 89%
Guatemala 85%
Honduras 89%
Belize 99%
El Salvador 94%
Nicaragua 99%
Costa Rica 91%
Panama 92%
I Callahan- you are wrong about the more recent vaccines. They are not available generically and they are EXPENSIVE! These are the ones that are not available generically - Gardasil, Prevnar 13 (now recommended for the elderly in addition to Pnemovax which is now cheap), Rotateq, Hepatitis A and B vaccines, Varivax, Zostavax.
Prevnar is $150 per dose, wholesale. Kids get four doses. Now old people are also going to be getting a dose of it. Tell me Big Pharma isn't going to profit from that.
Gardasil is $146 a dose. 3 doses a kid. And recently expanded to include boys as well as girls. Tell me that's not lining Big Pharma's purse.
That's just two of the more outrageous examples.
If telling the truth makes me a truther, then so be it. But don't call me anti-vaccine because I question some vaccines. They aren't all equal. Only someone who refuses to think about the issue would think they are.
You are wrong about the more recent vaccines. They are not available generically and they are EXPENSIVE! These are the ones that are not available generically - Gardasil, Prevnar 13 (now recommended for the elderly in addition to Pnemovax which is now cheap), Rotateq, Hepatitis A and B vaccines, Varivax, Zostavax.
There may be some local governments that are pushing these, and yes, someone may make some money off of it (horrors!).
But they're not germane to the current discussion, which is based on the recent measles outbreak, for which the vaccines fall into the cheap/patent expired category.
Vaccines are mandated for the same reason auto insurance is mandated--you have a huge free-rider problem that kills people.
It's the same reason you have to hook your toilet up to city sewer, and pay for it, or do something else mandated by local government.
I Callahan- it certainly is germaine. Read my original comment again. One of the reasons that people don't take the measles vaccine seriously is that they have been inundated with vaccine recommendations. They don't take the experts seriously any longer. If we get back to the basics, we will have a better compliance, IMHO.
And another thing- the reason the Big Pharma profits matter in this, is that if you took their influence away then the CDC would be more likely to go back to minimalist recommendations. The explosion of recommendations really looks like coprorate influence from where I stand in the trenches.
I C, FF and Col. just to make it clear, you think the indigent poor of central America are getting all their shots? Or is it that the U.S. is getting affluent illegal immigrants who have had all their shots?
Here is another example. Used to be, the meningitis vaccine was recommended for high-risk groups only - people exposed to meningitis, people who would be living in crowded conditions (military barracks), people with health conditions that make them more susceptible to meningitis. Meningitis is not common, but it is highly communicable and usually occurs in limited community outbreaks that were managed with vaccination of exposed individuals and quarantine of the sick person. It's a bad disease, so the immunization recommendation was expanded several years ago to include everyone going to college, then to all teenagers. Now it is has been expanded to a dose at 11 or 12 years of age. But, if you get it before the age of 16, you have to have a second booster. Now, why the change in recommendation? Why not wait until age 16 to give the vaccine? Is there something special about 11 year olds that make them more susceptible to meningitis than, say, 8 year olds? No. This is just one of many baffling recommendations to come down the pike in recent years.
Oh, and the wholesale cost of a meningitis vaccine? $112.
WHO data weird; "total suspected measles cases" for US is less than "total confirmed measles cases."
All "Suspected" data for all of the countries listed by the Colonel (except Mexico) had no confirmed cases and therefore were discarded from data. Something is not right with the stats.
Col,
United States 91%
Mexico 89%
Guatemala 85%
Honduras 89%
Belize 99%
El Salvador 94%
Nicaragua 99%
Costa Rica 91%
Panama 92%
Something not mentioned in these percentages, you have to read the details to find out.
These numbers are children who get the initial vaccine at 1 years of age.
In the USofA, we have 3 shots for Measles. One at one years of age. Then another between 4 and 6. Then another in our teens/adult years.
So, follow up questions.
How much confidence is there in the accuracy of those numbers?
Are these indigenous people getting these shots?
Are they getting their follow up shots?
I don't have the answers and I couldn't find them online. But I suspect I know the answers.
Sydney, not everything is a conspiracy theory.
The fact that Gardasil is now recommended for boys as well as girls is the huge increase in throat cancer among men (Michael Douglas anyone?). A blanket vaccination recommendation seems a lot more straight forward than asking a teenage boy about his oral sex habits. Those who believe their children will be protected from that risky behavior can still decline (and that's ok too), but I have no problem with Gardasil as a recommended vaccine. It makes sense.
@Mark 1043 Thanks for the info. In this instance the numbers certainly support vaccination.
I just noticed in the WP that cholesterol is about to lose it's villain status. Let's watch Big Pharma on that one!
CK
Oh, please, don't meander over to FaceBook. That's a disaster area. Don't do that.
The science is settled. (Where have I heard that before?)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/02/10/feds-poised-to-withdraw-longstanding-warnings-about-dietary-cholesterol/
@I Callahan 1051 I did not say it was a conspiracy, I said I was cynical about Big Pharma's role in the recommendation of medications in general. I am happy that there was a solution to your heart problems. My complaint with cholesterol medications is that we are being told to take a medicine for a condition that we are learning varies by individual and that the medicine is known to be harmful to other organs in the body. I AM very suspicious that big pharma has had a role to play in the drastic lowering of cholesterol guidelines over the last few years, the solution to which is a pill. Now the WP today has an article that the "gummint" is about to remove cholesterol's villain status.
Almost any time I watch TV there is an ad for some medication or other that certainly isn't over the counter. If there's no money in it, why the ad? ….and, by the way, watch out for those 4 day erections!!
I C, FF and Col. just to make it clear, you think the indigent poor of central America are getting all their shots? Or is it that the U.S. is getting affluent illegal immigrants who have had all their shots?
I assume I'm the "I C", so I'll answer: neither. I think the immigrants who came in did NOT get their shots, and that FF believes in something that isn't remotely true.
i Callahan @1:03
I believe Sydney is correct and that these high priced vaccines are germane to the role of Big Pharma in the vaccination business.
It is not local governments, but doctors who end up pushing these high priced vaccines. Have you ever studied the role of "detail men" in the distribution and prescription of Big Pharma drugs? Bribery and collusion ain't the half of it!
The assumption that HPV vaccine will prevent oropharyngeal cancer is just that - an assumption. They have not been in use long enough to prove that. It is an extrapolation. It may seem intuitive that because oropharyngeal cancer can result from HPV infection that immunizing against HPV will prevent the disease, this is not necessarily so. There are many types of HPV virus. The vaccine only protects against two types of human papilloma virus. Right now, those two types are more widely responsible for cancers. In the future, if widespread immunization is adopted, the other types could become the source of cancers in their place. So, it isn't clear that immunizing boys will prevent cancer. Ditto with anal cancer.
FullMoon said...
You guys will believe anything. Ever seen a documentary of poor areas in South America?Ever been to rural Mexico. There is no way all those people have been vaccinated.
I have spent time in central America. The people are not particularly well off. They are not stupid. They vaccinate their kids.
The fact that Gardasil is now recommended for boys as well as girls is the huge increase in throat cancer among men (Michael Douglas anyone?).
There's also the fact that no guy wants to find out that he may have caused his wife (or anyone else) to get cancer.
But even though I support the use of the non-critical vaccines, I agree with sydney that it might help public relations with anti-vaxxers to distinguish between the critical vaccines that protect us against highly contagious diseases and those that protect us from diseases spread by more intimate contact or needles. The effective approaches to talking about those two groups may differ.
One of the reasons that I can't bring myself to identify as a libertarian (I identify as a libertarian-ish conservative) is the kind of thing Ron (not Rand -- different guy, different issues) Paul is quoted as saying, that measles vaccination involves "new" government powers. For as long as we have been aware of threats to PUBLIC health, the role of government to protect the public has been recognized. You aren't allowed to empty your chamber pot into the street because doing so exposes other people to the risk of illness.
As far as I'm concerned, if you don't want to get inoculated to protect yourself from a disease, that's your choice. Live or die happy. But you not getting inoculated for infectious diseases means you are threatening to infect me or mine, and you don't have the right to do that.
There's plenty of room for rational discussion about whether or not inoculation for a particular disease should be mandatory, but that requires analysis of a lot of medical and epidemiological issues. Some of the commenters have tried to do that. Others haven't. You know who you are.
For me, I don't care. I had measles as a kid, and so I guess I'm immune. My grand children have had the vaccine. But I'd hate to think of children suffering and perhaps dying unnecessarily because of Jenny McCarthy and RFK Jr. Or Ron Paul.
I don't trust "Big Pharma" operating out of North America, Europe, Japan, and other high-trust societies. But, I am confident that the government procurement agents in Russia, Guatemala, Zimbabwe, and similar places would never buy c-grade or worse product marked as something else to pass off as vaccine for their hapless citizens. I am also highly confident that the reporting agents for countries such as these would never claim to be doing other than they are, and that the big centralized government recordkeeping agencies at the UN would never tilt data or reporting criteria to somehow make the US look worse than such countries (and Iran or Cuba). They came up with the Gini Coefficient after all.
"Question: Who, except those who choose not to vaccinate, would be harmed by choosing not to vaccinate? Those who do choose to vaccinate would be immune, and not harmed."
There are a nontrivial number of persons who can not be vaccinated because they have been immunosuppressed of have other conditions that confer great risk.
I'm OK with parents not vaccinating their kids as long as they quarantine them. No public school, no airplane trips, no Disneyland.
We should also require immunization for visas from other countries.
"Actually, the countries those children came from have much less accurate public health data than the U.S.
FIFY lefty.
"There are a nontrivial number"
Sorry... is a non-trivial number.
Edited the sentence and forgot to edit the verb.
What a laugh. Pharma companies do NOT make a ton of money on vaccinations. The competition is stiff, and the patents have all expired.
The competition is not particularly stiff in the vaccine market. Because of the legal and financial fallout from the Cutter Incident, there are only a handful of U.S. companies that manufacture vaccines. Depending on which vaccine you're talking about, one company or another usually has a virtual monopoly on the U.S. market. While Glaxo- and Sanofi- make "competitor" vaccines to Merck's MMR-II, Merck has a monopoly on the U.S. market because the government gave them the only license to sell it here. You can't buy the competitor product here if you want it.
Margins on vaccines have gone up in the last 20 years or so. Hepatitis B, pneumococcal, and HPV have all been money-makers (for the manufacturers; your doctor still loses money on vaccine administration)
100,000 non-vaccinated children entering the US last year …
Freder Frederson said... Actually, the countries those children came from have higher vaccination rates than the U.S.
Which countries did most of these children come from?
Honduras 18,244 (89% vaccination rate)
Guatemala 17,057(85% vaccination rate)
El Salvador 16,404 (94% vaccination rate)
Mexico 15,634 (89% vaccination rate)
Freder forgot to include a link showing that 3 out of 4 of those countries have lower rates than the US. But he did manage to preface his response with "Actually"
Thanks Sydney for the list of vaccines. I will now get the ones I didn't have and ask my wife and kids to do the same. Better to be over insured than under insured.
Post a Comment