Unvaxxed child in Texas just died of the measles

[Anonymous]

It does not prevent measles. However, people are giving it prophylactically to children for weeks, causing liver damage and other problems.

The AAP protocol is to give two doses if infection is active, then a third dose about a month later. That's it.

RFKJ is going to kill more children with this.

[Anonymous]

It’s spreading….

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s spreading….

Meant to post this one:

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unvaxxed people by choice should not be able to get medical help. They endanger others. You can’t accept medical expertise at the end if you dont at the beginning. And I’m not sorry for this opinion.

Drink your bleach. Eat tide pods. Pray it away. Whatever. But no hospital for you. ESPECIALLY when families like this then criticize medical personnel for not doing enough to save their kid. Buddy YOU DIDNT DO ENOUGH. It is YOU that killed your child.

People say things like this and posture like they're dispensing tough love. They're not. Here's how you know: there are lots of things that are endanger public health that we tolerate and celebrate that have *zero* upside. Junk food. Recreational drug use. Sedentary lifestyles. As to people who recklessly overindulge in these, no one suggests withholding medical care--and for good reason; it's totally ghoulish.

Junk food only threatens the health of people who eat it. Sedentary lifestyles only threaten the health of the people who are sedentary. Recreational drug use is mostly illegal and can be prosecuted. Slipping recreational drugs to other, unknowing people is a crime. However, people who are unvaccinated by choice and not for medical reasons present a real threat to the people who cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons. They can spread contagions to vulnerable people. If 98% of the people who can safely be vaccinated are vaccinated, that protects all of the people who cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons. My avoiding junk food and exercising doesn’t protect anyone who eats junk food and is sedentary. That’s why the things you listed are different.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s spreading….

Everything’s bigger in Texas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Junk food is not contagious.

Sedentary lifestyle aren't contagious.

Recreational drug use isn't, either, but when you jeopardize other lives doing it (e g, intoxicated driving), you face penalties and can be arrested.

C'mon, PP. You know the difference. It's not just about making bags choices -- it's about making bad choices that put others at immediate clear risks. This isn't punishment for making bad choices, but it is instead protecting people from the immediate risks from those choices.

Being anti-vaccine is not contagious either. I think what you mean to say is that there is not the same degree of negative externalities that result from a drug user as there are from an antivaxxer. I am not defending antivaxxers, but that is simply wrong. Having a friend that does meth makes that person's friends far likelier to get addicted to meth.

Manufacturing, selling and even possessing meth are crimes. We don’t dismiss using meth as simply a “lifestyle choice.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s spreading….

More than that. 520 nationwide. And you’ll never guess who was president last time it was so high. Here’s a hint: it was 2019.

From NBC
The 523 cases recorded in less than three months represent the second-highest annual total the country has seen in a decade. In the only year with more cases, 2019, the United States nearly lost its measles elimination status.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Sad how no one here on this site is bright enough to mention the critical necessity of building immunity.

Vaccinations are the safest way to build immunity, both individually and via herd immunity, and they’re being discussed on this thread.

For anyone wondering if they already have immunity, a simple blood draw with the titers checked will confirm your status.

[Anonymous]

Are we going to have more pages dedicated to this "crisis" than deaths? I'll go with yes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Junk food is not contagious.

Sedentary lifestyle aren't contagious.

Recreational drug use isn't, either, but when you jeopardize other lives doing it (e g, intoxicated driving), you face penalties and can be arrested.

C'mon, PP. You know the difference. It's not just about making bags choices -- it's about making bad choices that put others at immediate clear risks. This isn't punishment for making bad choices, but it is instead protecting people from the immediate risks from those choices.

Being anti-vaccine is not contagious either. I think what you mean to say is that there is not the same degree of negative externalities that result from a drug user as there are from an antivaxxer. I am not defending antivaxxers, but that is simply wrong. Having a friend that does meth makes that person's friends far likelier to get addicted to meth.

Manufacturing, selling and even possessing meth are crimes. We don’t dismiss using meth as simply a “lifestyle choice.”

If that distinction matters, it is more reason-- not less-- treat it punitively.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Sad how no one here on this site is bright enough to mention the critical necessity of building immunity.

Building immunity to measles is not a thing. You either get the vaccine, or you get the measles to become immune.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unvaxxed people by choice should not be able to get medical help. They endanger others. You can’t accept medical expertise at the end if you dont at the beginning. And I’m not sorry for this opinion.

Drink your bleach. Eat tide pods. Pray it away. Whatever. But no hospital for you. ESPECIALLY when families like this then criticize medical personnel for not doing enough to save their kid. Buddy YOU DIDNT DO ENOUGH. It is YOU that killed your child.

People say things like this and posture like they're dispensing tough love. They're not. Here's how you know: there are lots of things that are endanger public health that we tolerate and celebrate that have *zero* upside. Junk food. Recreational drug use. Sedentary lifestyles. As to people who recklessly overindulge in these, no one suggests withholding medical care--and for good reason; it's totally ghoulish.

Junk food only threatens the health of people who eat it. Sedentary lifestyles only threaten the health of the people who are sedentary. Recreational drug use is mostly illegal and can be prosecuted. Slipping recreational drugs to other, unknowing people is a crime. However, people who are unvaccinated by choice and not for medical reasons present a real threat to the people who cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons. They can spread contagions to vulnerable people. If 98% of the people who can safely be vaccinated are vaccinated, that protects all of the people who cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons. My avoiding junk food and exercising doesn’t protect anyone who eats junk food and is sedentary. That’s why the things you listed are different.

That would be a reasonable response if contagion were the only negative externality that can result from a health choice. Of course, that is not the case, and a fairly obvious one is the staggering healthcare costs that come from treating disease that could have been prevented or managed through sensible lifestyle changes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Junk food is not contagious.

Sedentary lifestyle aren't contagious.

Recreational drug use isn't, either, but when you jeopardize other lives doing it (e g, intoxicated driving), you face penalties and can be arrested.

C'mon, PP. You know the difference. It's not just about making bags choices -- it's about making bad choices that put others at immediate clear risks. This isn't punishment for making bad choices, but it is instead protecting people from the immediate risks from those choices.

Being anti-vaccine is not contagious either. I think what you mean to say is that there is not the same degree of negative externalities that result from a drug user as there are from an antivaxxer. I am not defending antivaxxers, but that is simply wrong. Having a friend that does meth makes that person's friends far likelier to get addicted to meth.

Manufacturing, selling and even possessing meth are crimes. We don’t dismiss using meth as simply a “lifestyle choice.”

If that distinction matters, it is more reason-- not less-- treat it punitively.

I don’t understand what you’re saying. You think people who are anti vax are treated more punitively than meth users?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unvaxxed people by choice should not be able to get medical help. They endanger others. You can’t accept medical expertise at the end if you dont at the beginning. And I’m not sorry for this opinion.

Drink your bleach. Eat tide pods. Pray it away. Whatever. But no hospital for you. ESPECIALLY when families like this then criticize medical personnel for not doing enough to save their kid. Buddy YOU DIDNT DO ENOUGH. It is YOU that killed your child.

People say things like this and posture like they're dispensing tough love. They're not. Here's how you know: there are lots of things that are endanger public health that we tolerate and celebrate that have *zero* upside. Junk food. Recreational drug use. Sedentary lifestyles. As to people who recklessly overindulge in these, no one suggests withholding medical care--and for good reason; it's totally ghoulish.

Junk food only threatens the health of people who eat it. Sedentary lifestyles only threaten the health of the people who are sedentary. Recreational drug use is mostly illegal and can be prosecuted. Slipping recreational drugs to other, unknowing people is a crime. However, people who are unvaccinated by choice and not for medical reasons present a real threat to the people who cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons. They can spread contagions to vulnerable people. If 98% of the people who can safely be vaccinated are vaccinated, that protects all of the people who cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons. My avoiding junk food and exercising doesn’t protect anyone who eats junk food and is sedentary. That’s why the things you listed are different.

That would be a reasonable response if contagion were the only negative externality that can result from a health choice. Of course, that is not the case, and a fairly obvious one is the staggering healthcare costs that come from treating disease that could have been prevented or managed through sensible lifestyle changes.

No one is complaining about the money that it costs to treats children with serious measles complications. This isn’t a financial discussion. What’s being discussed here is the toll that non vaccinated people take on the health of people who can’t be vaccinated. There’s a very easy, effective way to prevent the spread of measles. When people opt not to prevent measles, they become vectors for transmission of this highly contagious disease and the result is an outbreak, which can kill or maim young children and people with weakened immune systems. Obesity health complications costs us all more money to treat, but one person’s obesity doesn’t impact another person’s health, which is what the problem is with non vaxers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Junk food is not contagious.

Sedentary lifestyle aren't contagious.

Recreational drug use isn't, either, but when you jeopardize other lives doing it (e g, intoxicated driving), you face penalties and can be arrested.

C'mon, PP. You know the difference. It's not just about making bags choices -- it's about making bad choices that put others at immediate clear risks. This isn't punishment for making bad choices, but it is instead protecting people from the immediate risks from those choices.

Being anti-vaccine is not contagious either. I think what you mean to say is that there is not the same degree of negative externalities that result from a drug user as there are from an antivaxxer. I am not defending antivaxxers, but that is simply wrong. Having a friend that does meth makes that person's friends far likelier to get addicted to meth.

Manufacturing, selling and even possessing meth are crimes. We don’t dismiss using meth as simply a “lifestyle choice.”

If that distinction matters, it is more reason-- not less-- treat it punitively.

I don’t understand what you’re saying. You think people who are anti vax are treated more punitively than meth users?

No. The proposal I am responding to is that antivaxxers should be denied medical care. When I pointed out that we don't do that for meth users, the response was offered that meth is illegal. I am simply pointing out that, if you are using legality of conduct to determine what to treat, it feels backwards to say you should treat something *because* it is illegal.