A hypothetical (for the non-vaxxers)

[icugal]

Hi guys.. firstly let me just state this thread isn't about judgement in any way.. it is a purely hypothetical question (and my curious mind can't help but ask :D ).

Ok.. so let's say that for whatever reason, there was a sudden outbreak of a preventable disease like Polio.. not just one or two cases.. but many cases (say like if australia was on edge of a potential epidemic outbreak.. like we were with bird flu recently).

Would you then consider immunising your children for the disease.. or would you stand by your long-standing beliefs.

Like I said, no judgement here... I'm just curious.

[shed]

Would you then consider immunising your children for the disease.. or would you stand by your long-standing beliefs.

We would be one of the first in line before the doctors office opened in the morning if I EVER thought there was a slightest chance that my child would catch a disease that would have lifelong repercussions to his health.

Hope that helps.

[prideNJoy]

We would be one of the first in line before the doctors office opened in the morning if I EVER thought there was a slightest chance that my child would catch a disease that would have lifelong repercussions to his health.

Hope that helps.


:iagree: :yes:

btw..
I read something recently that stated the bird flu was a hoax! :detective:

[QTB]

We would be one of the first in line before the doctors office opened in the morning if I EVER thought there was a slightest chance that my child would catch a disease that would have lifelong repercussions to his health.

Hope that helps.

Me too! :)

[the_queen]

I make the decisions regarding my children's health based on the facts. In our current situation, the fact is that they aren't at risk of catching these 'scary diseases'. So the risk of the disease doesn't outweigh the risk of the vaccine IMO. If there was a huge massive outbreak of polio - well, firstly I'd be questioning the effecacy of the polio vaccine, if suddenly heaps of vaccinated people started getting it ;). But secondly, I think I'd quarantine myself and the kids securely until I'd made a final decision about vaccines. I can not say right now whether I'd get us all vaccinated or not. I'd speak to our trusted doctor and find out what his opinion is.

[reAllytee]

We would be one of the first in line before the doctors office opened in the morning if I EVER thought there was a slightest chance that my child would catch a disease that would have lifelong repercussions to his health.

Hope that helps.

Same !

Well for Squeak anyways lol cause he isnt vaxxed but Boof is.

[ShadyCharacter]

I make the decisions regarding my children's health based on the facts. In our current situation, the fact is that they aren't at risk of catching these 'scary diseases'. So the risk of the disease doesn't outweigh the risk of the vaccine IMO. If there was a huge massive outbreak of polio - well, firstly I'd be questioning the effecacy of the polio vaccine, if suddenly heaps of vaccinated people started getting it ;). But secondly, I think I'd quarantine myself and the kids securely until I'd made a final decision about vaccines. I can not say right now whether I'd get us all vaccinated or not. I'd speak to our trusted doctor and find out what his opinion is.
What she said. I would re-assess the situation. But pretty sure I would get the vaccination, as the risk of my child getting the disease would obviously be much higher than it is now.

Then I would come on bubhub to get into an argument about how vaccines are obviously totally **** and don't work ;)

[my_lot]

Then I would come on bubhub to get into an argument about how vaccines are obviously totally **** and don't work ;)

Then why would you use the vax in the case of outbreak?

[the_queen]

I think her point is that if vaccines worked as effectively as is claimed, there wouldn't be any outbreak.

[my_lot]

yes and if they dont work "as effectively as is claimed" then there is an outbreak, what use would it be getting the vax done then?

[the_queen]

That would be my concern, and would play a big part in my decision. But part of my concern about vaccines is the question of whether they wear off or not - and if most of the carriers of the disease were adults, but vaccinated children seemed to be protected from it, then I would probably have my children and myself vaccinated (because even though it may wear off, it seems like it would protect us in the short-term during the current outbreak). If however, the majority of the new cases were in children, then I would assume that the vaccine wasn't having much effect (because approx 97% of all children are fully vaccinated) and so I would carefully weigh my decision. What if I had us vaccinated but then we caught the disease anyway, because the vaccine was ineffective? We then would be barraged with not only polio but also the krap that is in the vaccine. And I'd always wonder whether the negative effect the vaccine had on our immune system was the actual reason we were susceptible to the polio.
For most non-vaxxers, the decision is about risk analysis. The risk of actually contracting the disease vs the risk posed by receiving the vaccine. If the first outweighed the second, then most non-vaxxers would have the vaccine (even if it seemed like an illogical thing to do).

[my_lot]

thanks queen.

I know we would hear it in the media if they were adult or child but would we know if they were vaxxed or not?

[the_queen]

Well considering the general statistic that around 97% of children are currently fully vaccinated, if the media was reporting an epidemic of polio in children, I would assume that the children were nearly all vaccinated against the disease.
And polio vaccine has been around for long enough for most young adults to have been vaccinated against it (I know I had the OPV and I'm nearly 29) My parents didn't have the vaccine and they're in their early 50's so I would just make my assumptions based on the ages of the polio sufferers. And as I said before, I'd absolutely go see our doctor to get his opinion on it. Our doctor is quite vehemently pro-informed choice (which is what I am) so if he was to say "it is worth having the vaccine" that would be a strong recommendation to me.

[ShadyCharacter]

yes and if they dont work "as effectively as is claimed" then there is an outbreak, what use would it be getting the vax done then?
Well obviously my initial comment was a tongue in cheek one. That said, the reason I don't vax now is that the risk outweighs the benefit in my perception. One of the risks for me is that its not that they *don't* work, just that they don't work AS effectively as people think. I may inject my son with **** for no good reason.

*If* there were an outbreak of polio, that would change the risk vs benefit ratio. The vax may or may not work, but there is a good chance it will.... so when faced with there also being a good chance of him getting the disease, the risk is worth taking :)

[Ange&Seth]

I'm glad this question has been asked because I've been curious for awhile too :D


Well considering the general statistic that around 97% of children are currently fully vaccinated

So let's say that the trend changes, like it has with circ's (don't want a circ debate, just using it to point out the changing trends), and say 50% are vaxxed and 50% aren't and there's an outbreak among the non-vaxxed kids - would you have your kids vaxxed straight away?

Call me uneducated ( cos I haven't done the research, this is true :)) but it seems to me that the reason it's such a low chance of kids getting these diseases is cos we've eradicated them due to vax'ing - so to me, it stands to reason that if we stop vax'ing then we open the door for the diseases to come back and take hold again...

[prideNJoy]

I'm glad this question has been asked because I've been curious for awhile too :D



So let's say that the trend changes, like it has with circ's (don't want a circ debate, just using it to point out the changing trends), and say 50% are vaxxed and 50% aren't and there's an outbreak among the non-vaxxed kids - would you have your kids vaxxed straight away?

Call me uneducated ( cos I haven't done the research, this is true :)) but it seems to me that the reason it's such a low chance of kids getting these diseases is cos we've eradicated them due to vax'ing - so to me, it stands to reason that if we stop vax'ing then we open the door for the diseases to come back and take hold again...

IMO, from what i have read. I don't believe the above to be the reason why most of these diseases were eradicated. They were already on the delcine before vax's were introduced.

As for your Q., i probably would. And it would only be if there was a particularly nasty disease on the loose. (one that i would consider nasty anyway, as most IMO don't even warrant a vax) :)

[Duchessa]

Would you then consider immunising your children for the disease.. or would you stand by your long-standing beliefs.

Like I said, no judgement here... I'm just curious.

While the judgement is implicit in your question, as you assume my long standing belief is that vax is bad period, I will attempt to answer what I think your question is meant to mean, by ignoring the bit at the end.

I would take my child to be vaccinated in the scenario you outlined. Contrary to your belief, this would constitute "standing by my long standing beliefs" rather than being contrary to "my long standing beliefs", as my long standing belief is that any medication is best given once the risk/benefit equation has been done. If that equation changed and there was a higher risk of my child being harmed by polio than by the polio vaccine, I would have her immunised. Tis pretty simple.

[prideNJoy]

I would take my child to be vaccinated in the scenario you outlined. Contrary to your belief, this would constitute "standing by my long standing beliefs" rather than being contrary to "my long standing beliefs", as my long standing belief is that any medication is best given once the risk/benefit equation has been done. If that equation changed and there was a higher risk of my child being harmed by polio than by the polio vaccine, I would have her immunised. Tis pretty simple.

:yelclap: Well said, Duchessa. Couldn't agree more...oh :iagree: :D

[ShadyCharacter]

I would take my child to be vaccinated in the scenario you outlined. Contrary to your belief, this would constitute "standing by my long standing beliefs" rather than being contrary to "my long standing beliefs", as my long standing belief is that.....

Did anyone elses brain just fart? :confused:

But yeah, what she said.

[shed]

Call me uneducated ( cos I haven't done the research, this is true :)) but it seems to me that the reason it's such a low chance of kids getting these diseases is cos we've eradicated them due to vax'ing - so to me, it stands to reason that if we stop vax'ing then we open the door for the diseases to come back and take hold again...

Lets just say that is true for a minute:

That is what they refer to when they say Herd Immunity, and yes, it is something I have taken into consideration when I make the decision not to vax DS. That's why I think its great that other people vax their children. I think vaxing babies is risky which is why I don't want my child to be vaxed. I don't think vaxing itself is wrong, I think it's good. For the right people, which is currently not the case.

If the vaxing rate falls dramatically then I would have to rethink. I doubt it will happen until he is much older, and I don't mind him having needles when he is older anyway so its a moot point. It would have to happen practically overnight for it to affect us.

I only object to vaccinating my small baby who has an immature immune system and central nervous system, so I am not going to do it. If the schedule started just before they went to school then we would probably trot along and get it done with the rest of the herd. The reason they say they vax small babies is because they are more likely to die if they catch the disease so if this is the case then I think that if you can get your baby past the danger period then the needle becomes redundant so the 'just before school' schedule would be much lighter.


While the judgement is implicit in your question, as you assume my long standing belief is that vax is bad period, I will attempt to answer what I think your question is meant to mean, by ignoring the bit at the end.

I would take my child to be vaccinated in the scenario you outlined. Contrary to your belief, this would constitute "standing by my long standing beliefs" rather than being contrary to "my long standing beliefs", as my long standing belief is that any medication is best given once the risk/benefit equation has been done. If that equation changed and there was a higher risk of my child being harmed by polio than by the polio vaccine, I would have her immunised. Tis pretty simple.

My vaxing stance is not a long standing belief either. Its quite a short standing belief. I didn't even give vaxing a second thought until I started researching what they said they wanted to inject into my newborn baby and why. I signed the papers and then went and looked it all up and then asked for the consent form to be destroyed. No long standing beliefs here, I just thought it was ridiculous that they wanted to inject him with a Hep B vaccine and it all started from there.

I know a few non-vaxxers but I don't know one single anti-vaxxer. :detective:

[the_queen]

I'm glad this question has been asked because I've been curious for awhile too :D



So let's say that the trend changes, like it has with circ's (don't want a circ debate, just using it to point out the changing trends), and say 50% are vaxxed and 50% aren't and there's an outbreak among the non-vaxxed kids - would you have your kids vaxxed straight away?

Call me uneducated ( cos I haven't done the research, this is true :)) but it seems to me that the reason it's such a low chance of kids getting these diseases is cos we've eradicated them due to vax'ing - so to me, it stands to reason that if we stop vax'ing then we open the door for the diseases to come back and take hold again...


Great point :yes:

That myth gives people a lot of faith in vaccines. The diseases were already well on the way out before vaccination started. If you want more info, sing out, because there are links on here somewhere (I have a new computer and have lost all my old bookmarks) But think about all the huge steps forward our society has made in the 20th century in regards to our health (I'm talking about 'western' society): Clean drinking water; running hot and cold water to all homes; flushing toilets and education about hand-washing after toilet use; highly effective infrastructure (sewers, mains water, rubbish removal, readily accessible healthcare); fresh meat, milk, fruit and veg available to basically everyone;
And I could go on - but we're all intelligent people here, do you see where I'm going with my point? There are LOTS of things that have happened over the last 50-100 years which have improved our health immensely. Vaccines play a small (and some believe, important) role but they are definitely not the magic cure-all that they are made out to be.

Diseases like cholera and scarlett fever have also basically disappeared - without the use of vaccines.

Let me know if you want more info :thumbsup:

[faery]

interesting question......

my decision not to vax is not based on a risk assessment so given the scenario, i would NOT be banging down the door to get my kid vaxed.

besides, vaxed kids get the diseases they are vaxed for so if an epidemic came to the country, you couldn't be assured that you or your kid wouldn't get it anyway. I wouldn't mess up his immune system on a chance and a potential problem.

[kymmy]

As always I would evaluate the risk to my child. So if I thought it worth vaxxing I would. If I thought the vaxx was as risky as the disease I would be weary.

[icugal]

Thanks guys for your responses. Just to clarify again... I am not judging you guys, just purely curious as to what you may or may not do in a 'perceived crisis'. I'm the sort of person that likes to know what makes people tick... and being as your beliefs probably are different to mine, I only want to try to understand your perspective a little better.

(I'm also not a wordsmith... so please don't read anything more into my original post. I know what I want to say.. I just can't get my head around HOW to say it without sounding offensive or condascending... so I hope I haven't done either).

Cheers.

[the_queen]

icugal - I never thought you were judging 'us' :) :hugs: I in fact was thinking how great this particular thread has been - perhaps next year there should be a new bubhub award: "The best non-argumentative vaccination thread" :D

:thumbsup:

[kymmy]

:yes: Its good to have an open discussion about things.

[docker]

"
The best non-argumentative vaccination thread" :D

Yeaah ha

I believe now that will have all these different disease's or the old ones returning as i think we are over vaccinating on everyone!!

To OP I probably would weigh up risks on both sides for sure. :thumbsup:

[shed]

Thanks guys for your responses. Just to clarify again... I am not judging you guys, just purely curious as to what you may or may not do in a 'perceived crisis'. I'm the sort of person that likes to know what makes people tick... and being as your beliefs probably are different to mine, I only want to try to understand your perspective a little better.


Thanks for clarifying. I don't judge people who vax either.

[ShadyCharacter]

Thanks guys for your responses. Just to clarify again... I am not judging you guys, just purely curious as to what you may or may not do in a 'perceived crisis'. I'm the sort of person that likes to know what makes people tick... and being as your beliefs probably are different to mine, I only want to try to understand your perspective a little better.Cheers.
I actually think its fantastic when people go out of their way to try and understand what they don't necessarily agree with :)

[MummaBear03]

I actually think its fantastic when people go out of their way to try and understand what they don't necessarily agree with :)
:iagree:
I'm not anti-vaxing, I'm not pro-vaxing either, I just take DD for the shots I feel are necessary. And what's necessary for me may not be what's necessary for other people too. The only ones I totally cannot for the life of me understand are the Chicken Pox one, and that's because they can still get it anyway and also because boosters are necessary or they might get it as adults which is when it's really bad, and the Flu vaccine, and only because I believe this is the very reason the Flu is coming back bigger and badder every year. If vaccines don't "kill" the disease, it's going to make it stronger. Other than that I can see why people would have those shots and also why they wouldn't bother with it.

[2sweetgirls]

I actually think its fantastic when people go out of their way to try and understand what they don't necessarily agree with :)

hehe i thnk its great that you can see it that way too.

I always wonder these things but too scared to ask:o

very interesting thread.

[ShadyCharacter]

Me too. Unfortunately if I ask questions to understand things I don't agree with, majority of the time I get defensiveness and accused of 'judging' ;)

[kymmy]

I actually think its fantastic when people go out of their way to try and understand what they don't necessarily agree with :)
Absolutely. I know I need to try harder. Ignorance is born from misunderstanding isn't it?

[Duchessa]

(I'm also not a wordsmith... so please don't read anything more into my original post. I know what I want to say.. I just can't get my head around HOW to say it without sounding offensive or condascending... so I hope I haven't done either).

Thanks for clarifying that ICUgal :yes: It is great that you are interested. Many assumptions are made about nonvaccers. I objected to the implication that it is a belief system. It isn't. It is a numbers game (for me). There are, of course, those who don't vaccinate as part of a belief system, but I think you would find them the minority. For the most, it is a difficult decision based on thorough research of the stats and isn't set in stone.

[ShadyCharacter]

Damnit Duchessa, I logged on hoping to find you noticeably absent! ;)

[Duchessa]

Nah, everything firmed up... Now WTF are you doing around these parts though!? Go git busy :D

[Jo9999]

Interesting topic.
A curiosity question here - what do non vaxers do when they travel to countries with these diseases - polio being a good example. Or don't they travel? What about if their children want to travel when older?
One of our major reasons for vaxing is we travel to Southern Africa at least every 2-3 years, and I know these (and other) diseases are rife there, every bit of protection helps when it's my children's lives at stake.

[the_queen]

Not everyone has the ability to travel oversea's. If I did travel oversea's regularly, or even once, of course I would again research, weigh up the options and the risks, and I would make a decision based on the situation at hand.

When my children are older, I will discuss all health issues with them, to help them to be able to make their own good decisions about their own health. If they want to travel, we will make that decision when it needs to be made. I don't have a rigid view on this topic - things change and situations change and so choices have to change.

[kymmy]

What the queen said. We don't travel but if we did I would look into it. There are some places that it would be advisable to have protection.
My children should be free to know their health history and have the knowledge to do what they think is right.

[shed]

If the risk increased (due to travelling or epidemic or whatever) then the likelihood of vaccination would increase with it since the reason we don't vax is because he isn't at risk at the moment IMO.

Its a relatively simple equation, its not really a belief system or any kind of statement, its just the most sensible option that I can see.

[bindiloo]

I would just try to stay away from most people and become a hermit for awhile and keep up with the hygeine etc but i wouldnt be considering the vax that so obviously isnt working seen as everyone is catching it. ;)