Re: More U.S. Children Vaccinated Than Ever



In <[email protected]>, abacus wrote:

> "D. C. Sessions" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>> In <[email protected]>, abacus wrote:
>>
>> > I'm not adamant about my kids avoiding that tiny risk. I'd be
>> > perfectly willing to get them (and me) immunized if I felt the risk of
>> > the disease (which is known and considerably less than 30% - that's
>> > the percentage of cases of unknown origin) was greater than the
>> > unknown risk of the vaccination. What I asked (and has yet to be
>> > answered) is the question above:
>>
>> Your rhetoric is interestingly biased.
>
> Thank you. I strive to ask interesting questions that others don't.

Why, I wonder, do you assume that the risk of the disease
is any better known than the risk of the vaccine? I would
hazard that the risk of the vaccine is if anything better
known (for useful purposes) than that of the disease.

Our uncertainty over the vaccine risk is in the single-digit
parts per million, comparted to the disease risk uncertainty
being at least two orders of magnitude greater.

>> > If I don't need to be vaccinated against Hep B, why in the world
>> > should my small children need it?
>>
>> > If the risk is not sufficient for me, a sexually active albeit
>> > monogamous adult, to need the vaccine, why do my children, who are not
>> > sexually active, need the vaccine?
>>
>> Because just as adults engage in activities which small
>> children don't, small children engage in activities
>> which adults don't.
>>
>> Not always willingly.
>
> I don't follow you here. We were earlier (it's been clipped)
> discussing the risk incurred during visits to friends. Could you be
> more specific about what activities children engage in (willingly or
> not) that adults do not that would increase the risk? Are we still
> talking about casual visits to friends' houses?

Very few adults, for instance, dig around with their hands
in playgrounds. They're not much into biting each other,
either. The list is extensive.

Hepatitis B virus has a remarkably long half-life outside of
the human body, especially in cool places away from sunlight.
For some reason, children like exploring such places more than
most adults do.

--
| Microsoft: "A reputation for releasing inferior software will make |
| it more difficult for a software vendor to induce customers to pay |
| for new products or new versions of existing products." |
end
 
"abacus" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] (David Wright) wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > abacus <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >[email protected] (David Wright) wrote in message
> > >news:<[email protected]>...
> > >> In article <[email protected]>,
> > >> abacus <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >> >[email protected] (David Wright) wrote in message
> > >> >news:<[email protected]>...
> > >> >> In article <9l%[email protected]>,
> >
> > >> >Risk factors that are unknown to the researcher are not the same as
> > >> >being non-existant.
> > >>
> > >> I suppose that's true in some abstract sense, but what about in a
more
> > >> practical sense? If we have no reliable method of determining in
> > >> advance who's at risk, how do we know who to skip vaccinating?
> > >
> > >Even if *you* can't tell in advance which child is at high risk, the
> > >child's parents can.
> >
> > Oh, I get it -- the child's *parents* are omniscient! That clears
> > things right up for me.
>
> It doesn't take omniscience to know whether or not you or members of
> your household are engaging in high risk behaviors.
>

Wrong. Teenagers have sex, even when their parents think they are not having
sex.

(...)

> But if my children attended school, I would be required to get them
> vaccinated for Hep B. A mandate I disgree with because Hep B is not a
> communicable disease in the same league as, say, measles or whooping
> cough.

No, but hepatitis B causes liver cancer, liver failure and hepatitis. These
are potentially very serious diseases.

> I don't understand why all children need to be vaccinated but not all
> adults. Seems to me that adults have a higher risk of exposure than
> children. But only adults who are classified as high risk are
> recommended for the vaccine. It really seems to me evidence of the
> pro-vaccination bias of the committee. If I don't need to be
> vaccinated against Hep B, why in the world should my small children
> need it?

All children will enter high risk groups (teenagers). Whether or not they
enter high risk groups because they have sex with men, will do IV drugs or
have sex with prostitutes cannot be predicted, either by the medical
establishment or their parents.

Plus, there is a risk of Hep B in babies from their mothers (which is small
but not zero if their mothers test negative for the disease) or from blood
transfusions. It is impossible to predict 100% accurately which kids will
need blood products.

Jeff
 
"D. C. Sessions" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In <[email protected]>, abacus wrote:
>
> > Are you recommending that everyone be vaccinated against Hep B? Not
> > just children?
>
> I would. The reason we focus on children is simply that
> there is that the mechanisms exist for getting kids
> immunized, and nothing comparable exists for adults in
> the general case.
>
> Medically this is far from ideal, but socially it's
> what we've got to work with.

Actually, considering that the vaccine is very safe and that there is risk
of newborns (even those born to mothers who are hep B negative) getting hep
B, giving the vaccines to newborns rather than waiting a couple of months
seems to be a good idea to me.

Jeff
 
"abacus" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Mark Probert <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<Bpb%[email protected]>...
> > abacus wrote:
> >
> > > Tsu Dho Nimh <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...

(...)

> > > Sure, we visit other people. Why would my children be more at risk
> > > during a casual visit than I am? If that risk warrents vaccination,
> > > why isn't it recommended for me?
> >
> > Pertussis is a bad cough in adults, and a serious disease in children.
> > See the difference? I doubt it.
>
> Uh, the conversation was about Hep B, not pertussis. See the
> difference? I doubt it.

Good debating tactic. Bring up a new subject, then say that the conversation
was about something else.

Jeff
 
[email protected] (PF Riley) wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> dialysis she would get the vaccine.) All children, however, are (1)
> more likely to become chronic carriers if acutely infected (unlike
> adults who have made it past that stage without becoming infected),
> and (2) more likely to develop "high risk" behaviors as they go
> through adolescence and young adulthood (please save your "not *MY*
> child!" argument) so that immunizing them all BEFORE they have
> acquired an infection is preferable to waiting until a child develops
> high risk behaviors and THEN expecting him to come in for a series of
> three shots (as research has shown that the former strategy and not
> the latter both increases the likelihood of completing the vaccination
> series and in reducing the burden of chronic hepatitis B in a
> population.)

That second point is really important, since the peak time for those high-
risk behaviors (late adolescence) is also when people are likely to have
very little routine contact with doctors *and* when they're most likely to
be "feeling immortal."
 
Mark Probert <[email protected]> wrote:

>Your children's risk, for HepB is for a life long condition *starting at
>a much younger age.*

>In that sense, the risk is different. Perhaps one of the MDs can address
>the difference of HepB if it is contracted as a child ans opposed to an
>adult, if there is a difference.

Children are more likely to become permanent carriers, wiht the
likelihood being higer the younger thay are. That leads to
chronic liver problems.

http://cpmcnet.columbia.edu/dept/gi/hepB.html

HBV causes acute and chronic hepatitis. The chances of becoming
chronically infected depends upon age. About 90% of infected
neonates and 50% of infected young children will become
chronically infected. In contrast, only about 5% to 10% of
immunocompetent adults infected with HBV develop chronic
hepatitis B. In some individuals who become chronically infected,
especially neonates and children, the acute infection will not be
clinically apparent.
Some individuals with chronic hepatitis B will have clinically
insignificant or minimal liver disease and never develop
complications. Others will have clinically apparent chronic
hepatitis. Some will go on to develop cirrhosis. Individuals with
chronic hepatitis B, especially those with cirrhosis but even
so-called chronic carriers, are at an increased risk of
developing hepatocellular carcinoma (primary liver cancer).
Although this type of cancer is relatively rare in the United
States, it is the leading cause of cancer death in the world,
primarily because HBV infection is endemic in the East.


http://www.tdh.state.tx.us/ideas/factsht/hepb.htm
(nice map of incidence of chronic infection)

RISK FACTOR:
Close personal contact with someone who is a chronic HBV carrier.
HBV is highly contagious, infection can occur by sharing razors
and toothbrushes as the virus can remain infectious for up to (7)
days even on dry surfaces.

Tsu

--
To doubt everything or to believe everything
are two equally convenient solutions; both
dispense with the necessity of reflection.
- Jules Henri Poincaré
 
Tsu Dho Nimh wrote:

> Mark Probert <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Your children's risk, for HepB is for a life long condition *starting at
>>a much younger age.*
>
>
>>In that sense, the risk is different. Perhaps one of the MDs can address
>>the difference of HepB if it is contracted as a child ans opposed to an
>>adult, if there is a difference.
>
>
> Children are more likely to become permanent carriers, wiht the
> likelihood being higer the younger thay are. That leads to
> chronic liver problems.
>
> http://cpmcnet.columbia.edu/dept/gi/hepB.html
>
> HBV causes acute and chronic hepatitis. The chances of becoming
> chronically infected depends upon age. About 90% of infected
> neonates and 50% of infected young children will become
> chronically infected. In contrast, only about 5% to 10% of
> immunocompetent adults infected with HBV develop chronic
> hepatitis B. In some individuals who become chronically infected,
> especially neonates and children, the acute infection will not be
> clinically apparent.
> Some individuals with chronic hepatitis B will have clinically
> insignificant or minimal liver disease and never develop
> complications. Others will have clinically apparent chronic
> hepatitis. Some will go on to develop cirrhosis. Individuals with
> chronic hepatitis B, especially those with cirrhosis but even
> so-called chronic carriers, are at an increased risk of
> developing hepatocellular carcinoma (primary liver cancer).
> Although this type of cancer is relatively rare in the United
> States, it is the leading cause of cancer death in the world,
> primarily because HBV infection is endemic in the East.
>
>
> http://www.tdh.state.tx.us/ideas/factsht/hepb.htm
> (nice map of incidence of chronic infection)
>
> RISK FACTOR:
> Close personal contact with someone who is a chronic HBV carrier.
> HBV is highly contagious, infection can occur by sharing razors
> and toothbrushes as the virus can remain infectious for up to (7)
> days even on dry surfaces.

Thanks. Your repsonse was what I suspected, i.e. that kids bear a higher
risk than adults.
 
What's the point? Do the Jones' get them?

"Jeff Utz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Actually, considering that the vaccine is very safe and that there is risk
> of newborns (even those born to mothers who are hep B negative) getting
hep
> B, giving the vaccines to newborns rather than waiting a couple of months
> seems to be a good idea to me.
>
> Jeff
>
>
 
"abacus" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>> "fred & michele" <[email protected]>
wrote

> Sigh, you know, you've given a lot of rare examples, but you haven't
> answered the question. Rare examples exists for both sides - like the
> couple who meets when both are virgins, marry and neither ever has sex
> with anyone else.

I would wager that the examples I've given are not nearly as rare as you'd
like to believe. And while those examples were given in the past tense, in
many cases they are happening in the present tense. Are you convinced that
most people are willing to lose their spouse, their kids, & everything else
they value as a result of confessing their infidelity, bisexuality, or IV
drug use to their family? I've worked with soooo many people who definitely
weren't.

> At some point, the original statement got clipped, which had to do
> with whether or not it requires omniscience for someone to know if the
> members of their household are engaged (note the current tense, not
> past tense) in high risk behaviors. Your examples are not relevant to
> that statement.

See above.

> Again, it sounds as if you are recommending that everyone be
> vaccinated against Hep B, not just children. Why do you feel that is
> necessary when even the CDC committee on vaccine policy does not?

I am not recommending the vaccine for everyone. Everyone should be aware of
the whole picture. Many people mistakenly believe they are not at risk
because they think their relationship is monogamous, that their SO has no
past or present risky behaviors, that their friends, neighbors, or loved
ones are completely honest with them. IF you are right (& I hope everybody
has honest folks in their lives), your risk for contracting Hep B, HIV, etc.
is quite small. IF you are mistaken & are one of (sadly) many people with a
SO who has a secret (past or present) that could endanger your health, you
may be assessing your risk based on erroneous information.

> > I don't condemn anyone for trusting their spouse. I console many of
them
> > when that trust has been violated. I would never say there aren't any
such
> > relationships, but I would challenge ANYONE to know *for sure* which
> > relationships are worthy of unquestioning 100% trust.
>
> I have not recommended unquestioning 100% trust. There are a great
> many factors that go into what certainty one has of one's spouse.
> Their personality, their history, the way they treat other people, the
> quality of the relationship, the depth of knowledge you have of them.
> All these things get assessed, mostly unconsciously, when making
> decisions based on trust. And what level of certainty is appropriate
> before staking one's life on that trust? Is 99% enough? 99.99999%?
> We must each decide that for ourselves. What I am saying is that
> sometimes, such trust is justified. It's as much a mistake to assume
> that such trust is never justified as it is to assume that it always
> is.

Agreed. One has to assess the risk & make one's decisions based on the
facts & what level of risk one is willing to take. In order to asses the
risk realistically, all possibilities have to be considered.

> Do you always insist on using a condom with your life partner? Or are
> you willing to accept the risk that he's passing on some venereal
> disease to you?

Based on the information I have, the testing we've both undergone, & the
protection itself, no. Can I say with complete certainty there's no risk?
Hell no. [BTW, I don't put as much stock in condoms as some people do --
too many "rubber babies" are walking around for me to count on them as 100%
protection.]

My work over the years with IV drug users most likely increased my risk of
Hep B infection -- ditto for my work with HIV+ clients & patients. We were
both married to others before we met. While testing has shown me fortunate
to have avoided both, I have gladly been vaccinated for Hep B.. We are both
still tested regularly after almost 12 years together -- if there ever is a
positive result, hopefully the other one will not yet have been infected.
I'm not a mind reader, nor can I ever guarantee anyone's else's behavior but
my own. Both of us find this perfectly reasonable.

>Once again, you seem to be recommending the Hep B vaccine for everyone.

I am recommending that people examine every possible risk. Including the
ones they'd rather not think about.

> Not just children and high risk adults. A somewhat different stance
> than others have taken, but it does eliminate the question of why my
> child should get the vaccine but not me. You apparently think we both
> should.

I think that weighing the risk of vaccination against the risk of infection
with Hep B usually favors the vaccine. Whenever I hear "I thought he was
faithful" or "I didn't know she used IV drugs before we met" from an
infected patient, I feel it's a shame that something honorable like trusting
someone else turned out to be a bad idea. And that a simple vaccine --
something that isn't inconvenient, doesn't interfere with one's life in any
way, & isn't expensive -- could've spared someone a lot of grief. And maybe
their health & life.

I sincerely hope your trust is never betrayed by your SO, friends,
neighbors, or anyone else. In light of what I've come across over the
years, the Hep B vaccine gives me one less thing to give even a second's
concern to.

Michele
I ENJOY being a cranky *****.
 
On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 04:25:15 GMT, [email protected] (David
Wright) wrote:
>
>Well, I just hope your kids don't suffer for your decision. After
>all, even kids from good homes can wind up having unsafe sex, becoming
>IV drug abusers, etc. Not that that's the odds-on proposition, but it
>*does* happen depressingly often.

Just last week I saw a 16-year-old church-going honors student who
just spent a good portion of her summer doing missionary work with her
parents. She had a little cystitis related to the sexual intercourse
she has with her boyfriend. She's on the pill and uses condoms,
fortunately, which she gets at Planned Parenthood. Her parents, of
course, think she's a virgin.

PF
 
In <[email protected]>, David Wright wrote:

> I don't think flu shots are officially recommended except for those
> considered "at risk," e.g. those over 65 (there are other groups, but
> I can't remember them offhand).

Asthmatics, immunocompromised, health care, live with at-risk.
There may be others that /I've/ missed, but I think that gets
most of them.

--
| Microsoft: "A reputation for releasing inferior software will make |
| it more difficult for a software vendor to induce customers to pay |
| for new products or new versions of existing products." |
end
 
[email protected] (David Wright) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> abacus <[email protected]> wrote:
> >[email protected] (David Wright) wrote in message
> >news:<p2N%[email protected]>...
> >> In article <[email protected]>,
>
> >> >> >It doesn't take omniscience to know whether or not you or members of
> >> >> >your household are engaging in high risk behaviors.
> >> >>
> >> >> Does it not?
> >> >
> >> >No, it doesn't require omniscience. In some cases, a bit of detective
> >> >work might be required, but not omniscience. <g>
> >>
> >> But you're claiming that you *know*, with great confidence, what's
> >> going on in your household. And you're probably right -- that nobody
> >> there is secretly engaging in high-risk behavior. The problem is that
> >> many other people think that about their households too, and some of
> >> them are wrong. Since we don't have a magic wand to use to determine
> >> which ones are right and which aren't, what do we do?
> >
> >Be honest with people and let them make their own decisions. (Why is
> >that such a controversial approach? What does it say about our culture
> >and society that such an approach is not given much consideration?)
> >Even if someone is incorrect in their assessment of what's going on in
> >their own households, they are more likely to make the best decision
> >for themselves and their children than an impersonal universal policy.
>
> I don't share your faith in that, actually. People are, on average,
> just terrible at assessing risk.

I don't know that I have a greater faith than you do in their ability.
I just don't believe that a uniform policy will result in better
choices overall than giving individuals the information necessary to
make decisions based on their particular situation and needs.

> >Even without absolute certainty, individuals can still have a good
> >idea of what the probability is that they are correct in their
> >assessments of the behavior of other members of their households.
> >Individuals can also say "I can't be certain" and decide that the
> >benefit of the precautions are not worth the risk/cost. Uncertainty
> >alone does not imply that precautions are the best choice.
>
> But there's also the price of being wrong, and especially being wrong
> when you're responsible for someone else. If you decide you're not at
> risk and don't get yourself vaccinated for some disease and then die
> of it, I may sneer at you, but it was your decision to make. When
> you're making it for someone else, and life doesn't go the way you
> expected, and *they* suffer, that's a broader area.

Ah, now this is an interesting philosophical area. In regards to
children, whether the decision is made on an individual basis by their
parents, or by society making the choice for everyone, some will
suffer due to the wrong choice being made - both individuals who have
an adverse reaction to the vaccine and individuals who's disease could
have been prevented by vaccinateion.

I think that a) overall better choices will result from allowing
individuals the freedome to make their choices and b) there is more
incentive to make good decisions and more accountability for poor
decisions when parents do so for their individual child than when
policy makers make the decision for everyone.

I find it extremely troubling that our society is moving more and more
in the direction of dictating to parents what they MUST do rather than
allowing them the freedom to choose for themselves. For this
newsgroup, it's vaccination decisions that get debated, and
occasionally other health habits like eating/exercise/smoking. In
others, it's disciplinary matters, educational issues, and others.
But I see an increasing virulence towards those who advocate allowing
parents the freedom to make choices that others consider wrong - like
spanking or homeschooling. Currently, we still have such freedoms,
but they are definitely being attacked under the guise of "protecting
the children".
 
"D. C. Sessions" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> In <[email protected]>, David Wright wrote:
>
> > I don't think flu shots are officially recommended except for those
> > considered "at risk," e.g. those over 65 (there are other groups, but
> > I can't remember them offhand).
>
> Asthmatics, immunocompromised, health care, live with at-risk.
> There may be others that /I've/ missed, but I think that gets
> most of them.

Interesting. In our area, during the flue season, vaccines are
cheaply and widely available, many employers will provide a site.
Some grocery stores do too. The impression given (from the newspaper
and other media, not the best sources I must admit) is that everyone
should get them unless they fall into an exception category. I'll
keep that in mind this year.
 
She has assumed a missionary position then?

"PF Riley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 04:25:15 GMT, [email protected] (David
> Wright) wrote:
> >
> >Well, I just hope your kids don't suffer for your decision. After
> >all, even kids from good homes can wind up having unsafe sex, becoming
> >IV drug abusers, etc. Not that that's the odds-on proposition, but it
> >*does* happen depressingly often.
>
> Just last week I saw a 16-year-old church-going honors student who
> just spent a good portion of her summer doing missionary work with her
> parents. She had a little cystitis related to the sexual intercourse
> she has with her boyfriend. She's on the pill and uses condoms,
> fortunately, which she gets at Planned Parenthood. Her parents, of
> course, think she's a virgin.
>
> PF
 
In article <[email protected]>,
abacus <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] (David Wright) wrote in message
>news:<[email protected]>...
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> abacus <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >[email protected] (David Wright) wrote in message
>> >news:<p2N%[email protected]>...
>> >> In article <[email protected]>,
>>
>> >Be honest with people and let them make their own decisions. (Why is
>> >that such a controversial approach? What does it say about our culture
>> >and society that such an approach is not given much consideration?)
>> >Even if someone is incorrect in their assessment of what's going on in
>> >their own households, they are more likely to make the best decision
>> >for themselves and their children than an impersonal universal policy.
>>
>> I don't share your faith in that, actually. People are, on average,
>> just terrible at assessing risk.
>
>I don't know that I have a greater faith than you do in their ability.
> I just don't believe that a uniform policy will result in better
>choices overall than giving individuals the information necessary to
>make decisions based on their particular situation and needs.

Take that philosophy to its extreme and it's the classic libertarian
line. So you'll toss out seat belt laws and child safety seat laws
and motorcycle helmet laws, for instance. Now, you may also be in
favor of doing exactly that -- I'm not sure. I'm not in favor of it,
just because it'll lead to more dead people. Frequently, they'll be
dead stupid people, which may not be such a bad thing, but it's still
a questionable idea from a public health standpoint.

>> >Even without absolute certainty, individuals can still have a good
>> >idea of what the probability is that they are correct in their
>> >assessments of the behavior of other members of their households.
>> >Individuals can also say "I can't be certain" and decide that the
>> >benefit of the precautions are not worth the risk/cost. Uncertainty
>> >alone does not imply that precautions are the best choice.
>>
>> But there's also the price of being wrong, and especially being wrong
>> when you're responsible for someone else. If you decide you're not at
>> risk and don't get yourself vaccinated for some disease and then die
>> of it, I may sneer at you, but it was your decision to make. When
>> you're making it for someone else, and life doesn't go the way you
>> expected, and *they* suffer, that's a broader area.
>
>Ah, now this is an interesting philosophical area. In regards to
>children, whether the decision is made on an individual basis by their
>parents, or by society making the choice for everyone, some will
>suffer due to the wrong choice being made - both individuals who have
>an adverse reaction to the vaccine and individuals who's disease could
>have been prevented by vaccinateion.

Yep. I'm not blind to the consequences here. Put in seat belt laws
and you'll probably be able to find some weird case of a guy who would
have lived except that he got trapped by his seat belt and couldn't
get out. Which still doesn't mean that in most cases, he wouldn't
have been better off wearing the belt. Make vaccination mandatory and
you'll probably see some bad vaccine reactions that would not have
happened if the vaccine had been optional. But make it optional and
you'll see disease and death that would have otherwise been avoided.

>I think that a) overall better choices will result from allowing
>individuals the freedome to make their choices and b) there is more
>incentive to make good decisions and more accountability for poor
>decisions when parents do so for their individual child than when
>policy makers make the decision for everyone.

That's not entirely clear to me. The trouble with accountability in
this case is that it's mostly of the "guilty conscience" variety.
Unless kids start suing their parents for not vaccinating them.

>I find it extremely troubling that our society is moving more and more
>in the direction of dictating to parents what they MUST do rather than
>allowing them the freedom to choose for themselves.

It bothers me too. Many such things are overreactions to bad
parenting in isolated cases. I don't have a magic solution,
and saying "let the parents decide everything" isn't automatically
going to produce better results. Public health is like that.

>But I see an increasing virulence towards those who advocate allowing
>parents the freedom to make choices that others consider wrong - like
>spanking or homeschooling.

I wouldn't know about the homeschooling -- certainly it can produce
some outstanding students. Does it really attract such hostility?

>Currently, we still have such freedoms, but they are definitely being
>attacked under the guise of "protecting the children".

Sometimes legitimately. This is a thorny area.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)
 
In article <[email protected]>,
abacus <[email protected]> wrote:
>"D. C. Sessions" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:<[email protected]>...
>> In <[email protected]>, David Wright wrote:
>>
>> > I don't think flu shots are officially recommended except for those
>> > considered "at risk," e.g. those over 65 (there are other groups, but
>> > I can't remember them offhand).
>>
>> Asthmatics, immunocompromised, health care, live with at-risk.
>> There may be others that /I've/ missed, but I think that gets
>> most of them.
>
>Interesting. In our area, during the flue season, vaccines are
>cheaply and widely available, many employers will provide a site.
>Some grocery stores do too. The impression given (from the newspaper
>and other media, not the best sources I must admit) is that everyone
>should get them unless they fall into an exception category. I'll
>keep that in mind this year.

I think there's been some caution about recommending it for everyone
if for no other reason than to prevent shortages of vaccine, thus
endangering the high-risk people. My own employer has offered flu
shots for the last few years and I've always signed up for them, but
I'd go out and pay for one myself if they stopped offering shots.

Many people each year who think they have the flu actually have
something else. A really virulent flu will put you flat on your
back for days, feeling as if you'd like to die if it weren't too
much effort.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)
 
[email protected] (David Wright) wrote:

>Many people each year who think they have the flu actually have
>something else. A really virulent flu will put you flat on your
>back for days, feeling as if you'd like to die if it weren't too
>much effort.

I could tell you a story about someone who believes in vaccination but
didn't have a flu shot this year for some reason. Then a particularly
nasty flu came along to make the most of the milder-than-usual Sydney
winter. Still, I might have lost some income during the days when I
couldn't even manage to type the URL of the local voluntary euthanasia
society's web site but at least I was spared the horrors of the sore
arm adverse effects.

--
Peter Bowditch [email protected]
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
The Green Light http://www.ratbags.com/greenlight
I'm a Bright. Are you?
 
[email protected] (David Wright) wrote in message
> Take that philosophy to its extreme and it's the classic libertarian
> line. So you'll toss out seat belt laws and child safety seat laws
> and motorcycle helmet laws, for instance. Now, you may also be in
> favor of doing exactly that -- I'm not sure. I'm not in favor of it,
> just because it'll lead to more dead people. Frequently, they'll be
> dead stupid people, which may not be such a bad thing, but it's still
> a questionable idea from a public health standpoint.

The price of freedom has always been measured in lives. I consider
freedom, including the freedom to make what others consider *stupid*
choices, to be very very precious. I measure the cost in lives
sacrificed and consider it worthwhile.

We could, for example, save thousands of lives by making tobacco and
alcohol illegal. The argument to restrict freedom in order to save
lives doesn't sway me much when you're talking about choices with
direct consequences that effect only the individual making the choice.

In my opinion seat belt laws, helmet laws, and most drug laws should
be abolished. I consider the lives lost to be part of the price of
the freedom and those who die to be those who chose to take that risk
in the same way that many of our forefathers chose to risk their lives
in battle for our freedoms. The line is crossed when others are
endangered, as for example to drink and drive. Then they are risking
not just their own health and life, but that of others who have not
voluntary accepted the risk.

> >> >Even without absolute certainty, individuals can still have a good
> >> >idea of what the probability is that they are correct in their
> >> >assessments of the behavior of other members of their households.
> >> >Individuals can also say "I can't be certain" and decide that the
> >> >benefit of the precautions are not worth the risk/cost. Uncertainty
> >> >alone does not imply that precautions are the best choice.

> >> But there's also the price of being wrong, and especially being wrong
> >> when you're responsible for someone else. If you decide you're not at
> >> risk and don't get yourself vaccinated for some disease and then die
> >> of it, I may sneer at you, but it was your decision to make. When
> >> you're making it for someone else, and life doesn't go the way you
> >> expected, and *they* suffer, that's a broader area.
> >
> >Ah, now this is an interesting philosophical area. In regards to
> >children, whether the decision is made on an individual basis by their
> >parents, or by society making the choice for everyone, some will
> >suffer due to the wrong choice being made - both individuals who have
> >an adverse reaction to the vaccine and individuals who's disease could
> >have been prevented by vaccinateion.
>
> Yep. I'm not blind to the consequences here. Put in seat belt laws
> and you'll probably be able to find some weird case of a guy who would
> have lived except that he got trapped by his seat belt and couldn't
> get out. Which still doesn't mean that in most cases, he wouldn't
> have been better off wearing the belt. Make vaccination mandatory and
> you'll probably see some bad vaccine reactions that would not have
> happened if the vaccine had been optional. But make it optional and
> you'll see disease and death that would have otherwise been avoided.

We'll just have to disagree here. I prefer to allow people to make
the choice for themselves as to which risks they prefer to take than
have society impose that choice upon them. Which risk is smaller is
less a consideration than who has the right to make that choice - my
opinion is that its the individual rather the government.

> >I find it extremely troubling that our society is moving more and more
> >in the direction of dictating to parents what they MUST do rather than
> >allowing them the freedom to choose for themselves.
>
> It bothers me too. Many such things are overreactions to bad
> parenting in isolated cases. I don't have a magic solution,
> and saying "let the parents decide everything" isn't automatically
> going to produce better results.

Parents don't want their children to get diseases, to die in car
accidents, etc. The majority will behave responsibly without such
laws. The mandates don't guarantee better results either, just
different problems to deal with. Making alcohol illegal had a lot of
bad side effects. We see those the same problems now with other
drugs.

Car restraints save lives, no question about that. But a few years
ago, I sat in on an public discussion with local CPS officials on what
should constitute abuse and neglect. It was seriously discussed
whether a call regarding such a violation should justify an
investigation/removal of children. More recently, I've heard of cases
where children have been taken from the custody of their parents for
not having their children restrained, even though no accident or
injury occurred. Such are the problems with those laws. When the fine
is low, people don't tend to pay much attention to it. They behave
much as they would without them. Make the consequences draconian
(such as removal of kids from the home) and you'll get compliance, but
you have implemented a solution that's worse than the original
problem.

> Public health is like that.

Public health is not the only "public good" that needs to be
considered in these issues. From a pure public health perspective,
all handguns should be banned. But there are other considerations to
take into account.

> >But I see an increasing virulence towards those who advocate allowing
> >parents the freedom to make choices that others consider wrong - like
> >spanking or homeschooling.
>
> I wouldn't know about the homeschooling -- certainly it can produce
> some outstanding students. Does it really attract such hostility?

Yes.

> >Currently, we still have such freedoms, but they are definitely being
> >attacked under the guise of "protecting the children".
>
> Sometimes legitimately. This is a thorny area.

Indeed it is. I think that there is a deep division in this country
regarding how some of us want to live our lives versus how others wish
us to behave. I don't know what the end result will be.
 
"abacus" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] (David Wright) wrote in message
> > Take that philosophy to its extreme and it's the classic libertarian
> > line. So you'll toss out seat belt laws and child safety seat laws
> > and motorcycle helmet laws, for instance. Now, you may also be in
> > favor of doing exactly that -- I'm not sure. I'm not in favor of it,
> > just because it'll lead to more dead people. Frequently, they'll be
> > dead stupid people, which may not be such a bad thing, but it's still
> > a questionable idea from a public health standpoint.
>
> The price of freedom has always been measured in lives. I consider
> freedom, including the freedom to make what others consider *stupid*
> choices, to be very very precious. I measure the cost in lives
> sacrificed and consider it worthwhile.

I think this is a valid point with some exceptions.

1) When you are making the decisions for someone else (like your child) I
think you should be held to a higher standard of rationality.

2) It is only valid where there are plausible choices to make. For example:
The decision to have one (or more) drink a night is likely to have social
and medical benefits. Therefore it is not unlikely that a rational person
could look at the situation and decide to have it. Therefore it should not
be illegal. One may argue that drinking to excess or drinking and driving
should be illegal but clearly not all alcohol is detrimental. I don't see
the rational argument against wearing a seatbelt or helmet or not
vaccinating against most of the diseases we currently vaccinate. I have
never seen anyone present a cogent argument for any of these that one may
increase the odds of an adverse event by avoiding them.

--
CBI, MD
 
"CBI" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "abacus" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > [email protected] (David Wright) wrote in message
> > > Take that philosophy to its extreme and it's the classic libertarian
> > > line. So you'll toss out seat belt laws and child safety seat laws
> > > and motorcycle helmet laws, for instance. Now, you may also be in
> > > favor of doing exactly that -- I'm not sure. I'm not in favor of it,
> > > just because it'll lead to more dead people. Frequently, they'll be
> > > dead stupid people, which may not be such a bad thing, but it's still
> > > a questionable idea from a public health standpoint.
> >
> > The price of freedom has always been measured in lives. I consider
> > freedom, including the freedom to make what others consider *stupid*
> > choices, to be very very precious. I measure the cost in lives
> > sacrificed and consider it worthwhile.
>
> I think this is a valid point with some exceptions.
>
> 1) When you are making the decisions for someone else (like your child) I
> think you should be held to a higher standard of rationality.
>
> 2) It is only valid where there are plausible choices to make. For example:
> The decision to have one (or more) drink a night is likely to have social
> and medical benefits. Therefore it is not unlikely that a rational person
> could look at the situation and decide to have it. Therefore it should not
> be illegal. One may argue that drinking to excess or drinking and driving
> should be illegal but clearly not all alcohol is detrimental. I don't see
> the rational argument against wearing a seatbelt or helmet or not
> vaccinating against most of the diseases we currently vaccinate. I have
> never seen anyone present a cogent argument for any of these that one may
> increase the odds of an adverse event by avoiding them.

You mistake an argument against having laws regarding certain
behaviors, such as using seatbelts or drinking, as being the same as
an argument for or against the activity itself (i.e. using seatbelts,
drinking). They are not the same. I've been wearing a seatbelt since
they were made available - I can remember the first car my father
purchased that had them. Just because I used a seatbelt for decades
before it was required by law, doesn't mean that I agree with the law.

BTW, if you accept your argument, then tobacco should be illegal and
marijuana legal (at least by prescription). The latter has some
beneficial effects whereas the former does not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back