Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Haha. NP here. You'd better stay home then, because there are unvaccinated people ALL OVER. If you make the choice to take your daughter out, you bear the responsibility.

Going out in public is not actually a choice. It's something that normal people normally do as part of normal life.

That means being exposed to people who don't vaccinate, also within their rights to circulate in public. If a parent wants to go out in public, they have to accept that others are going to be there too, and that is their choice.

Yes, people who don't vaccinate also have a right to circulate in public. What they don't have a right to do is be a vector of vaccine-preventable disease.

Actually, it seems they do.

A legal right, I guess. Not a moral right, though.

Yes, a legal right. Unless that changes, it seems safe to say there can potentially be unvaccinated people everywhere. Parents who dislike that should plan accordingly.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Haha. NP here. You'd better stay home then, because there are unvaccinated people ALL OVER. If you make the choice to take your daughter out, you bear the responsibility.

Going out in public is not actually a choice. It's something that normal people normally do as part of normal life.

That means being exposed to people who don't vaccinate, also within their rights to circulate in public. If a parent wants to go out in public, they have to accept that others are going to be there too, and that is their choice.

Yes, people who don't vaccinate also have a right to circulate in public. What they don't have a right to do is be a vector of vaccine-preventable disease.

Actually, it seems they do.

A legal right, I guess. Not a moral right, though.

Not for long. I think we are going to start seeing criminal prosecutions and civil suits.

Of course kids who aren't vaccinated have a right to be out in public. Thats why every start should make laws that parents do not have a right not to vaccinate their children (unless there's a medical reason). If we could keep all the unvaccinated children home, that would work. But we can't, so lets give them vaccinations.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Haha. NP here. You'd better stay home then, because there are unvaccinated people ALL OVER. If you make the choice to take your daughter out, you bear the responsibility.

Going out in public is not actually a choice. It's something that normal people normally do as part of normal life.

That means being exposed to people who don't vaccinate, also within their rights to circulate in public. If a parent wants to go out in public, they have to accept that others are going to be there too, and that is their choice.

Yes, people who don't vaccinate also have a right to circulate in public. What they don't have a right to do is be a vector of vaccine-preventable disease.

Actually, it seems they do.

A legal right, I guess. Not a moral right, though.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Haha. NP here. You'd better stay home then, because there are unvaccinated people ALL OVER. If you make the choice to take your daughter out, you bear the responsibility.

Going out in public is not actually a choice. It's something that normal people normally do as part of normal life.

That means being exposed to people who don't vaccinate, also within their rights to circulate in public. If a parent wants to go out in public, they have to accept that others are going to be there too, and that is their choice.

Yes, people who don't vaccinate also have a right to circulate in public. What they don't have a right to do is be a vector of vaccine-preventable disease.

Actually, it seems they do.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Haha. NP here. You'd better stay home then, because there are unvaccinated people ALL OVER. If you make the choice to take your daughter out, you bear the responsibility.

Going out in public is not actually a choice. It's something that normal people normally do as part of normal life.

That means being exposed to people who don't vaccinate, also within their rights to circulate in public. If a parent wants to go out in public, they have to accept that others are going to be there too, and that is their choice.

Yes, people who don't vaccinate also have a right to circulate in public. What they don't have a right to do is be a vector of vaccine-preventable disease.

Anonymous wrote:RE: efficacy of the pertussis vaccine. I haven't checked out assertions here that the efficacy is 80 percent or less. But when I grew up, pertussis and polio were the only childhood illnesses for which there was a vaccine. I knew absolutely no one who got pertussis. But just about everyone got chicken pox, mumps, measles, and rubella.

I'm in my early 50s, and the only childhood disease I got was the one I wasn't vaccinated for, the chicken pox. Co-workers about 10 years older than me got every childhood disease, including mumps, measles, chicken pox, etc. Aunts and uncles got all those, PLUS POLIO.

My son is now 13, and neither he nor ANY of his friends or ANY one in his 4 different schools have gotten ANY of the childhood diseases.

VACCINES WORK.

And it's a total crock that anyone with half a brain said they are 100 percent without side effects. ALL medicines have side effects ...look at baby aspirin. Kids have died from bad reactions to Tylenol and Motrin. I've known that vaccines had side effects since I was 10 years old.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Haha. NP here. You'd better stay home then, because there are unvaccinated people ALL OVER. If you make the choice to take your daughter out, you bear the responsibility.

Going out in public is not actually a choice. It's something that normal people normally do as part of normal life.

That means being exposed to people who don't vaccinate, also within their rights to circulate in public. If a parent wants to go out in public, they have to accept that others are going to be there too, and that is their choice.

Responding to/ adding on to my post above- it all depends how far the parent wants to take it. If someone is so outraged and scared about non-vaccinated people in public, they have the right to keep their child at home. If they choose not to, that's on them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Haha. NP here. You'd better stay home then, because there are unvaccinated people ALL OVER. If you make the choice to take your daughter out, you bear the responsibility.

Going out in public is not actually a choice. It's something that normal people normally do as part of normal life.

That means being exposed to people who don't vaccinate, also within their rights to circulate in public. If a parent wants to go out in public, they have to accept that others are going to be there too, and that is their choice.

Anonymous wrote:

Haha. NP here. You'd better stay home then, because there are unvaccinated people ALL OVER. If you make the choice to take your daughter out, you bear the responsibility.

Going out in public is not actually a choice. It's something that normal people normally do as part of normal life.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is your point with all of this?

If you're an anti vaxxer you can stay right the fuck away from me and my infant. I can say this politely or use lots of profanity... End result is the same... I don't want to breathe the same air as you and if I find out you're at the same pediatrician or daycare center as me, I'm going to make a big fucking stink.

Again, you are an idiot! Just because my kids are not fully vaxxed, does not mean that they are walking hosts. My daughter is not just carrying, measles, etc etc. what do you not get? You have your kid vaxxed, what's the worry dear? Question? Are you fully vaxxed? Doubt it. Have you had you titers checked?
Nice language by the way....

Op, I love you!

My child is not vaxxed, you mouth breather. She is an INFANT.

I am indeed fully vaxxed, I have no idea why you'd think I wouldn't be.

And if your little disease vector gives my baby measles, my language will be the least of your worries.

Haha. NP here. You'd better stay home then, because there are unvaccinated people ALL OVER. If you make the choice to take your daughter out, you bear the responsibility.

Anonymous wrote:

No, your breast milk was not inferior, it is just that nothing is 100% effective. Was your child under six months and mainly breastfed? That gives better immunity, but again, there is no 100%, even with vaccinations. I've known a number of kids who had been vaccinated for chicken pox who still got it. At least breastfeeding is one thing we can do for our babies who are too young for vaccinations to give them some amount of protection. As a mother, I'll take whatever level of protection I can get for my kids until they can get all their vaccinations.

Well, some of us can. Others of us can't. Another reason why herd immunity is a good thing.

RE: efficacy of the pertussis vaccine. I haven't checked out assertions here that the efficacy is 80 percent or less. But when I grew up, pertussis and polio were the only childhood illnesses for which there was a vaccine. I knew absolutely no one who got pertussis. But just about everyone got chicken pox, mumps, measles, and rubella.

Anonymous wrote:

An infant that is being breastfed receives whatever immunities his or her mother has, so babies actually can have some protection before they are vaccinated. One of my children was born during a measles outbreak and the doctor was very reassuring that my baby had a lot of protection through my immunities (which had been checked during pregnancy).

Guess my breastmilk was inferior. My oldest got chicken pox while I was BFing him. He was too young to get the vaccine. I had chicken pox when I was a kid and had shingles 2 years before he was born so I know my antibodies to the chicken pox virus were high.

No, your breast milk was not inferior, it is just that nothing is 100% effective. Was your child under six months and mainly breastfed? That gives better immunity, but again, there is no 100%, even with vaccinations. I've known a number of kids who had been vaccinated for chicken pox who still got it. At least breastfeeding is one thing we can do for our babies who are too young for vaccinations to give them some amount of protection. As a mother, I'll take whatever level of protection I can get for my kids until they can get all their vaccinations.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whether you agree or not there clearly are people with differing opinons.

People can have any opinion they chose. However, it is a fact that 99 percent of children who get the MMR or chicken pox vaccine do not have a serious adverse reaction.

And, if current public holds, laws will be passed making it very difficult for parents to enroll children who are medically able to receive vaccines but have not done so from entering public school.

Over 99%. 99% would be 1/100 kids having a serious reaction.

You are right, more than 99 percent is the correct way to express the safety, I should have been more precise.