Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

In Australia, Immunize Or Lose Benefits

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the get-healthy-or-else dept.

Australia 680

An anonymous reader writes with news of a plan from the Australian government to cut down on the number of kids who aren't vaccinated. The new scheme will deny family tax benefits to parents whose children don't pass immunization checks. Quoting: "The FTB supplement, worth $726 per child each year, will now only be paid once a child is fully immunized at these checks. Families are already required to have their child fully immunized to receive Child Care Benefit and the Child Care Rebate. Children will also be required for the first time to be vaccinated against meningococcal C, pneumococcal and chicken pox. Children will also be immunized against measles, mumps and rubella earlier, at 18 months instead of the current four years of age."

cancel ×

680 comments

So (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38168390)

So the next super bug will come from Australia?

Re:So (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38168420)

I don't think you understand how immunization is supposed to work.

Re:So (2, Insightful)

beelsebob (529313) | more than 2 years ago | (#38168634)

Actually, it's you who doesn't understand how evolution works... While it's currently antibiotics that are producing the most problems from superbugs, ultimately, anything we do to try to kill off diseases will only cause evolution to produce better bugs.

We are actively changing the fitness function for diseases to include "must be resistant to antibiotics, must be resistant to antivirals, must be able to infect even immunised people, etc", this will inevitably lead to bugs that fulfil these criteria... eventually.

Re:So (5, Funny)

pedantic bore (740196) | more than 2 years ago | (#38168658)

We are actively changing the fitness function for diseases to include "must be resistant to antibiotics, must be resistant to antivirals, must be able to infect even immunised people, etc", this will inevitably lead to bugs that fulfil these criteria... eventually.

By this logic, we should be expecting bullet-proof cattle and thresher-proof wheat any day now, not to mention hook-resistant fish and armored potatoes...

Re:So (2)

bentcd (690786) | more than 2 years ago | (#38168710)

By this logic, we should be expecting bullet-proof cattle and thresher-proof wheat any day now, not to mention hook-resistant fish and armored potatoes...

Cattle, wheat and potatoes are selected for being easily harvestable, among other things. Fish, now, well that there could be the beginning of a very nice disaster movie plot! :D

Re:So (4, Insightful)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#38168890)

Fish are being influenced by selective pressure from fishing... it's pushing them to spawn younger, grow faster and die sooner. Not much can be done evolutionwise to become net-resistant, so they are evolving to breed faster.

Re:So (2)

beelsebob (529313) | more than 2 years ago | (#38168718)

Sure... but evolution takes longer in species that reproduce at much lower rates and exist in much smaller numbers.

Re:So (1)

beelsebob (529313) | more than 2 years ago | (#38168768)

Aside –re bullet proof cattle and thresher proof wheat... actually... no... we may be killing individuals, but we are also enabling the survival of the species in doing so. We change the fitness function not to not like being killed by us, but instead to enjoy us carrying out intensive breeding programs/planting lots.

Remember – evolution cares not for individuals, only the mass.

Re:So (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38168832)

Okay, Dr. Bob.

Re:So (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38168806)

We are actively changing the fitness function for diseases to include "must be resistant to antibiotics, must be resistant to antivirals, must be able to infect even immunised people, etc", this will inevitably lead to bugs that fulfil these criteria... eventually.

By this logic, we should be expecting bullet-proof cattle and thresher-proof wheat any day now, not to mention hook-resistant fish and armored potatoes...

Domestic animals and plants have indeed changed a lot, but in the opposite direction you suggest. In theses cases, individuals that are more apt for human consumption reproduce *more* than their peers, not less, because they are selected for breeding by farmers. This is the reason, for example, we have fatter cows that grow faster, produce more milk and are more docile than their wild ancestors.

Re:So (4, Insightful)

Sir_Sri (199544) | more than 2 years ago | (#38168678)

which doesn't necessarily make them all that important. A virus/bacteria/etc that is resistant to all of those things but only gives you a runny nose for 2 days isn't really a big problem.

And of course we know that doing nothing killed people. A lot of them. For centuries. Or have we all forgotten that infant mortality rates used to be over 10%, and deaths by what are now preventable diseases killed millions at a young age?

Ok, so maybe we create diseases that are immune to whatever we're doing, that's why we keep doing drug research. It might be a cat and mouse game, but I prefer being on the side of people who have very fortunately lived through all of these things. And I'm sure so do you, even if you don't realize it.

Re:So (0)

beelsebob (529313) | more than 2 years ago | (#38168728)

Sure, I'm not trying to assert that immunisation is a bad thing... just that we should also acknowledge that it's likely to lead to a prevalence of bugs that can get around said immunisation eventually.

Re:So (4, Informative)

Jibekn (1975348) | more than 2 years ago | (#38168948)

Except it doesn't. The only viruses that successfully 'get around' immunization are the ones that do it naturally(See Influenza), because that's the way they are, not as some defense mechanism.

We are seeing anti-biotic resistant bacteria because anti-biotics dont kill all the bacteria, some survive the treatment, and very occasionally then take hold elsewhere to become resistant strains.

We don't see this problem in our immunological response, because our white cells don't exactly leave bacteria and viruses half dead, or survivors for that matter. Once those antibodies attach, your done. No passing go, no collecting 200$, no passing on your genes so that the next generation can evolve to fight back. That white cell there is going to annihilate you.

Re:So (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 2 years ago | (#38168874)

Infant mortality rates 2000 years ago were more like 70%.

Re:So (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38168682)

I'm waiting for that super small pox virus to emerge. Any day now...

Say what? (2)

overshoot (39700) | more than 2 years ago | (#38168826)

If millions of years of mammalian immune systems getting infected haven't done it yet, a few decades of a few billion humans reducing the number of pathogens which are exposed to them isn't going to.

first (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38168402)

first beotches

Re:first (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38168444)

you fail

Hurray! (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38168408)

Rational social interest trumps irrational "self" interest, for once. The USA could learn a thing or two from Australia.

Re:Hurray! (-1, Troll)

dbc (135354) | more than 2 years ago | (#38168466)

This is Slashdot, you collectivists are safe here. No need to hide your leftist opinion behind Anonymous Coward posting.

Re:Hurray! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38168754)

I didn't realize that the defense department was an arm of leftist activism

Re:Hurray! (2)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 2 years ago | (#38168820)

He was just excited to use the word "collectivists", as "statists" was getting worn out.

Re:Hurray! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38168496)

+1

The US society is too individualistic to appreciate this truth.
Sometimes the good of the many outweight the good of the few, or the one. Take Spock's lesson to heart.

Re:Hurray! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38168538)

is that why Spock is autistic? or is it all the vaccinations?

Re:Hurray! (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38168762)

Sometimes the good of the many outweight the good of the few, or the one. Take Spock's lesson to heart.

But the good of the many should never be used to outweigh the rights of the few, or the one. Oh, and Spock is make-believe.

Re:Hurray! (3, Insightful)

walkerp1 (523460) | more than 2 years ago | (#38168520)

I think America knows very well how to marginalize the socioeconomic status of its inhabitants as a means for stripping away basic personal freedoms.

Re:Hurray! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38168746)

Go gargle some more jism.

Yep, go on welfare, lose your rights (1)

Quila (201335) | more than 2 years ago | (#38168908)

It's already happened.

As usual, the rich don't have to bother.

Re:Hurray! (1)

KumquatOfSolace (1412203) | more than 2 years ago | (#38168950)

I disagree with it being self-interest (I guess that's why "self" is in quotes) or purely social interest. Your child is definitely not yourself, and there should be limits to what potentially harmful decisions you can make on your child's behalf.

Seems fair... (4, Insightful)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#38168414)

...considering that they have socialized medicine. To libertarians this probably looks like a communist nightmare, I'll admit that to me it only seems OK because I don't believe in the Right to Put Everyone In Danger By Being a Total Moron.

Re:Seems fair... (5, Interesting)

eddy (18759) | more than 2 years ago | (#38168458)

How can it look communist? They're using money to incentivise desired behavior. What could be more capitalistic than that? :-p

Re:Seems fair... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38168490)

Well, letting the parents decide the best care for their children without an artificial disincentive regarding their taxes, would be how it could be more capitalistic.

Re:Seems fair... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38168536)

Could also repel child labor laws. That would also be more capitalistic.

Re:Seems fair... (1)

Vaphell (1489021) | more than 2 years ago | (#38168702)

if all parents think their children shouldn't work, what difference repelling such laws would make?

Re:Seems fair... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38168814)

I don't get your point. Not all parents think that and not all children have living parents. Ever heard of "orphanages"? Or how I like to call them, "The Greatest Untapped Source of Cheap Labor This Side of China". Child labor laws are an artificial disincentive that need to go.

Re:Seems fair... (5, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#38168688)

How does this have to do with capitalism, which is an economic model? Please don't pretend that Libertarianism and Capitalism are one and the same.

Requiring immunization is fundamentally no different than requiring people not dump their raw sewage on the curb. In both cases, they represent reasonable restrictions on behavior in the interest of public health. About the only people I know that disagree with it are either Libertarians, who, let's face it, are either morons or sociopaths, or anti-vaxxers, who are pretty much at the intellectual level of Creationists and Flat-Earthers.

Re:Seems fair... (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38168888)

And if you don't agree with him he will continue to call you names instead of making a logical argument to back up his viewpoint.

That is why I hate liberals, they think name calling is the key to winning debates.

Re:Seems fair... (-1, Troll)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#38168964)

Oh fuck off. It's not like conservatives don't name call. Jesus the hypocrisy like you just amazes me. Your type truly do believe that somehow you approach sainthood in your intellectual processes.

At any rate, I'm not a liberal. That's the other thing, conservatism and Libertarianism are not the same thing either.

But this does not require immunization (2)

Quila (201335) | more than 2 years ago | (#38168966)

It only cuts off benefits for not getting it. If you don't need the benefits, then you effectively are not required to get immunization.

The basic message is "Poor people need to be immunized, not rich people."

Re:Seems fair... (5, Insightful)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 2 years ago | (#38168628)

Because in modern society, the right-wing fascists have changed the definition of "communist" to "anything we don't like". It's a very effective means by which to control the large segment of the public who were brought up fearing nuclear war with an actual communist country.

Re:Seems fair... (2, Insightful)

Vaphell (1489021) | more than 2 years ago | (#38168738)

pot calling the kettle black - are you sure you haven't misused the word 'fascist'?

Re:Seems fair... (0)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 2 years ago | (#38168802)

It depends on if you read history books, or books written by Jonah Goldberg.

Re:Seems fair... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38168954)

Are you sure you know what it means?

The US looks an awful lot like it, and it's spreading the disease to until recently decent democracies. Maybe the US does need a shot in the arm, some IQ-vitamines and honest individual thinking hormones to help vaccinating against the fascistoid tendencies growing on the corruption, the ignorance, the admiration of the strong, the contempt of the weak, and the never-ending war-machine producing medal adorned heroes.

Amazing how how a group who constantly bleets about "individualism" still manage to show a behaviour so consistent with what you'd expect from sheep. Mustn't anger the man with the stick.

Re:Seems fair... (1)

danbob999 (2490674) | more than 2 years ago | (#38168480)

It would be fair even with private medicine, given that unvaccinated people can't be sued even if they are the cause of an epidemic

Re:Seems fair... (2)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#38168656)

True. Maybe it would be more capitalistic to require them to pay into an Epidemic Insurance Fund rather than to deny them a tax benefit. We do it for cars right?

Re:Seems fair... (5, Funny)

Tharsman (1364603) | more than 2 years ago | (#38168526)

NOOOO!!! I demand to be able to risk my children's lives due to my personal ignorance and FUD over retardation inducing vaccinations!!!

If any country forces parents to vaccinate their children, my personal freedom is violated!!! How can Obama allow this to happen in any country?! Why did we vote for him?!

I need people to know my child's retardation is inherited and not forced by a doctor's vaccines!!!!! AAAAERGGGGG!!! :P

Re:Seems fair... (4, Funny)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#38168562)

I need people to know my child's retardation is inherited and not forced by a doctor's vaccines!!!!!

Not a problem, amigo.

Re:Seems fair... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38168662)

I'm not certain the argument against "being a moron" would hold so much water with the families of the 41 people killed and 56 people paralyzed/crippled by the national forced vaccination against H1N1 in the United States under the Ford administration. (1976)

I always skip the flu vaccines because a) everyone who gets them gets sick and b) some people die or have life-altering complications from said vaccine every year. Thanks, but I'll take my chances on getting the sniffled or run over by a bus.

Re:Seems fair... (5, Insightful)

dmr001 (103373) | more than 2 years ago | (#38168944)

1. Why post anonymously?
2. About 1:1 000 000 people who got the 1976 H1N1 vaccine got Guillain Barre (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=20797646), and influenza itself is more likely to cause Guillain Barre than the vaccine.
3. The flu kills between about 3 000 and 49 000 people each year in the United States (http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/disease/us_flu-related_deaths.htm).
4. Your statements that "everyone who gets them [flu vaccines]" gets sick and "some people die... from said vaccine" each year demonstrates why schools would be better off teaching statistics and critical thinking than trigonometry.
5. I'd happy to have you take your chances if only to allow evolution to exert selective pressure on your ilk, except for the risk you present to those around you at high risk of dying from the flu (kids under 5, adults over 65).

Re:Seems fair... (1)

yuriyg (926419) | more than 2 years ago | (#38168676)

The problem here is that individuals already have paid for their coverage through taxes, and essentially have their money stolen by having this coverage taken away at the whim (no matter how justified) of the bureaucrats. I'm all for immunizing people, but this FAR from fair and sounds like extortion.

Re:Seems fair... (4, Insightful)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 2 years ago | (#38168708)

To libertarians this probably looks like a communist nightmare,

What doesn't look like a communist nightmare to them?

Half the people fear mongering about communism don't even know what the fuck it is outside of "HURR DURR CHINA AND NORTH KOREA." The sheer numbers of those same people that equate it with fascism alone is a good indicator that they have no fucking clue what they're talking about.

Income redistribution becomes coercion. (0)

dbc (135354) | more than 2 years ago | (#38168428)

Get all this crazy cruft out of the tax code and then the government can't use it as a lever/hammer against you.

For The Common Good (4, Insightful)

andersh (229403) | more than 2 years ago | (#38168654)

What "government"? Are you even Australian?

At least here in Scandinavia, the government is not the enemy, it represents us and our shared interests. Many Americans seem to think their negative view is the "universal" truth. It is most certainly not.

On the other hand we allow individuals to choose what immunizations they want their children to get. It just happens that most people actually trust our government, universal health care system and science; the majority of people choose to get all immunizations offered.

Re:For The Common Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38168740)

I live in "Scandinavia" and you certainly don't represent my views or the views of a good many of my peers. I can assure you that the government of my nation, certainly don't either.

Just because you and your circle of friends thinks something, doesn't mean we all do.

Re:For The Common Good (-1, Flamebait)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#38168770)

No. Some of you fashion yourselves Knights Templar and go out and shoot up a bunch of kids at a socialist political party's picnic, you know, to free the enslaved.

You And What Minority? (-1, Flamebait)

andersh (229403) | more than 2 years ago | (#38168866)

You are in the minority in Scandinavia and you know it. You clearly don't have the balls to discuss it openly, coward.

Re:Income redistribution becomes coercion. (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 2 years ago | (#38168818)

On this one the government should just take the kids from the parents.

So... (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 2 years ago | (#38168434)

You make sure the children who could get sick are forced into a living condition where they will get sick.

Yes they are a bunch of idiot parents who think these vaccines will hurt their child more then will help. But by cutting them off won't change their mind, while their logic is flawed their heart is in the right place, and a lot of parents who think these will hurt their children will just suffer with less, and probably putting their child at greater risk.

Why don't we just kill all the poor people. At least that way you not being hypocritical.

Re:So... (-1, Troll)

HornWumpus (783565) | more than 2 years ago | (#38168500)

You don't kill all the poor people, you kill all the stupid ones. Granted their is a 99% coincidence.

Re:So... (5, Funny)

hellkyng (1920978) | more than 2 years ago | (#38168518)

Things aren't looking good for you sir... their > there

Re:So... (1)

pauljlucas (529435) | more than 2 years ago | (#38168546)

[C]utting them off won't change their mind ... and probably putting their child at greater risk.

The Natural world is a harsh place. As callous as it may seem, I bet the death of their child will change their mind. But even if it doesn't, it means they're no longer passing along their genes. It's Natural Selection at work.

Re:So... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38168548)

it may hurt their child more, but it will be better for everybody else's because of herd immunity. At the end of the day the parent that doesn't vaccinate has made a bad choice for their child and their child suffers because of it..That's what happens people bring up children - they make choices that affect their child, good and bad, and their children are a product of those choices.

The best option is to make sure that only that child suffers for it not the rest of us. If it was up to me I'd go one step further and ban kids with vaccinations from state school.

Re:So... (2)

gdshaw (1015745) | more than 2 years ago | (#38168680)

At the end of the day the parent that doesn't vaccinate has made a bad choice for their child and their child suffers because of it.

Not necessarily. If vaccination rates are low then it is probably in everyone's self-interest to be vaccinated. If rates are high then the risk of infection should go down, in which case the risk of vaccination (which is unlikely to be zero) may become greater at some point on the curve.

You can argue that this is a selfish choice, and that the risk of vaccination has been greatly exaggerated by some commentators, but let's not try to pretend that there is only one rational outcome here.

Actually, there is. (3, Insightful)

khasim (1285) | more than 2 years ago | (#38168748)

You can argue that this is a selfish choice, and that the risk of vaccination has been greatly exaggerated by some commentators, but let's not try to pretend that there is only one rational outcome here.

Actually, there is only one rational outcome here. And the basis for that is in your previous statement.

If rates are high then the risk of infection should go down, in which case the risk of vaccination (which is unlikely to be zero) may become greater at some point on the curve.

Which means that in order for child A to avoid the vaccination "safely", someone must guarantee that children B - Z are vaccinated.

While it may be a correct mathematical statement reflecting the spread of infection, it is not a "rational" approach to immunization. If everyone followed that, then none of the children would be immunized. If 50% of the population followed that then the diseases would still be a problem. And so forth.

Poor != Stupid (1)

khasim (1285) | more than 2 years ago | (#38168568)

In this specific case just look at Michele Bachmann's PUBLIC statement about how some woman told her that an immunization caused "mental retardation".

Belief that there is a problem with immunizations is not an economic class issue. Bachmann certainly isn't poor.

Re:Poor != Stupid (3, Insightful)

sribe (304414) | more than 2 years ago | (#38168744)

Bachmann certainly isn't poor.

But she's definitely very willing to lie; and possible dumber than a box of rocks as well.

Re:Poor != Stupid (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38168850)

Hehe... Someone should tell that Bachmann character that correlation != causation.

(The joke is implying she's "mentally retarded")

Re:So... (1)

wiedzmin (1269816) | more than 2 years ago | (#38168616)

Or it could be the government's attempt to offset the costs associated with outbreaks of mumps amongst non-immunized children.

Re:So... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38168848)

Yes they are a bunch of idiot parents who think these vaccines will hurt their child more then will help. But by cutting them off won't change their mind,

I disagree. I bet my idiot sister-in-law would get her kids immunized if they threatened to take away her EITC.

Last year I went to Australia (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38168454)

And at the border they insisted that one had all the documentation for shots and what not, and this one woman said she didn't know that was a prerequisite for entering the country and started crying and saying she'd do anything to get in and the guards motioned to several australian citizens and they unzipped their pants and proceeded to bukkake her and claimed that through their immunizations, she was immunized too. I'd rather just get my shots.

Bennies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38168468)

Child Care Benefit ... Child Care Rebate

Bunch of parents voting themselves more bennies. Comes with strings. Obey your owners.

Kinda Risky.... (1, Informative)

RobinEggs (1453925) | more than 2 years ago | (#38168482)

Vaccines may not cause autism, but the hygiene hypothesis remains a scientifically valid concern (so far as I know). This sounds like Australians are vaccinating children for everything they possibly can. Couple the heavy vaccination schedule with advances in food safety and constant household cleaning; these kids might have little besides flu and rhinovirus to train their immune systems, and that doesn't seem like a sustainable course.

Re:Kinda Risky.... (4, Insightful)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#38168596)

Do you realize intersection between the 'hygiene hypothesis' (exposure to many different infectious vectors helps prime the immune system in useful ways) and immunizations (attempting to decrease the incidence of a few, serious infections) is very, very, very small?

Basically it's a non sequitor.

Re:Kinda Risky.... (1)

RobinEggs (1453925) | more than 2 years ago | (#38168724)

Great. I say something "might" be a concern and I get 'flamebait'. You state unequivocally that it "is" no concern at all, but do not provide evidence, and you get 'insightful'.

Way to stand up for good science, slashdot! How dare I raise a specific and scientifically valid question when I should have just done what Coldwetdog did and dismiss my own concerns by drawing a statistical certainty with absolutely no evidence?!

Not like I'm an evolutionary biologist or anything...oh wait! I am!

Re:Kinda Risky.... (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38168778)

This is SlashDot. Vaccination is Science. Though shall not question.

Re:Kinda Risky.... (1)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 2 years ago | (#38168914)

Thou shall question your spelling, and logic.

Re:Kinda Risky.... (2)

RobinEggs (1453925) | more than 2 years ago | (#38168798)

Do you realize intersection between the 'hygiene hypothesis' (exposure to many different infectious vectors helps prime the immune system in useful ways) and immunizations (attempting to decrease the incidence of a few, serious infections) is very, very, very small?

Even if I accept your certain statement, with absolutely no evidence behind it, you've missed the point. You either didn't read my entire post or you didn't read the article and look into which vaccines the Australians are giving. My point is that Australia doesn't appear to be "decreasing the incidence of a few, serious infections"; they seem to be vaccinating against every single thing they possibly can. If a vaccine exists and there's more than a one in a hundred thousand chance of a child getting the disease, they'll give the vaccine.

I understand that slashdot is flat-out rabid in their favor of vaccines, but just because vaccines don't cause autism or any other direct health concern doesn't mean it's healthy from an evolutionary standpoint to vaccinate every single child against every single infinitesimal threat.

Re:Kinda Risky.... (3, Informative)

westlake (615356) | more than 2 years ago | (#38168648)

Couple the heavy vaccination schedule with advances in food safety and constant household cleaning; these kids might have little besides flu and rhinovirus to train their immune systems

The vaccine trains the immune system. That it's job.

Tell me why it doesn't make sense to build resistance to diseases like bacterial pneumonia under controlled conditions.

Re:Kinda Risky.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38168672)

Vaccines work by excercising the immune system - giving it something to fight against that is similar to, but not as dangerous as the real disease. The hygiene hypothosis doesn't apply.

Re:Kinda Risky.... (1)

pedantic bore (740196) | more than 2 years ago | (#38168686)

Couple the heavy vaccination schedule with advances in food safety and constant household cleaning; these kids might have little besides flu and rhinovirus to train their immune systems, and that doesn't seem like a sustainable course.

You don't seem to understand that "training their immune systems" is exactly what immunizations do.

Re:Kinda Risky.... (1)

wagnerrp (1305589) | more than 2 years ago | (#38168730)

Except... vaccines train their immune system. That's what they do. That's all they do. That is their entire purpose for being invented in the first place. You expose your child to an inert or approximate form of the virus, so they develop antibodies to it and their immune system can there after fight it off should it ever be exposed to it.

Sooner or later (0, Flamebait)

Vinegar Joe (998110) | more than 2 years ago | (#38168484)

People are going to learn to do what they are fucking told when the government fucking tells them.

Foced Immunization vs Darwin (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38168552)

I am confused as to why there is this fetish for forced immunization (other than the obvious benefit to the pharma making the immunization shots)? Surely evolution will take care of everything when the epidemic hits, if those shots are worthwhile?

Re:Foced Immunization vs Darwin (0)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#38168712)

Look up herd immunity. The victims when diseases get out of hand are the small group of people who for a number of reasons can't be vaccinated. If everyone around them is vaccinated, the odds of them contracting the disease are small, but the moment you break that herd immunity, those individuals are put at extreme risk.

On a personal note, are you just playing devil's advocate or are you really a sociopath?

Re:Foced Immunization vs Darwin (5, Insightful)

Daniel_Staal (609844) | more than 2 years ago | (#38168800)

1. No vaccine is 100% effective. You can be immunized and still get sick. Less likely, and it's likely to be milder, but it could still be fatal.

2. Not being immunized raises the chance you will get sick, and expose those around you to the disease.

For many of these major diseases, if less than a certain percentage of the population gets immunized, the disease still runs fairly rampant through the population - including the immunized population. You need basically everybody to be immunized so that when the disease strikes one person, it doesn't have any convenient vectors to other people, and stays contained.

Besides, we have a certain hesitancy to allow survival of the fittest to take it's course where humans are concerned. Partly out of fellow-feeling, and partly because we've found that 'fittest' can have multiple meanings, and that someone who can barely talk and can't get out of their wheelchair can still give humanity as a whole great value in understanding the how the universe works. (Through their own work.)

Re:Foced Immunization vs Darwin (5, Insightful)

wagnerrp (1305589) | more than 2 years ago | (#38168822)

Immunization doesn't take for everyone. Immunizations can't be used on everyone due to things like allergies. Immunization can wear off and become ineffective over time, or in between booster shots. When everyone is vaccinated according to schedule, you only have a small percentage of the population that is at risk to those diseases. Since there are only a couple percent that will become infected when exposed, the likelihood of the virus being passed between two of these people is very low. It is a condition called "herd immunity" that makes unchecked spread of the virus unlikely.

When people are willingly forgoing vaccinations, you aren't just putting yourself at risk, you are dropping the total percent of the population that is at risk. As that number drops further and further, the easier it is for the virus to spread into an outbreak. The more a virus spreads, the higher likelihood it will have a chance to mutate into a form the existing vaccine does not protect against. In other words, when they chose not to get vaccinated, they are putting all the rest of us at risk out of their own stupidity.

Score one for eugenics. (1)

Tastecicles (1153671) | more than 2 years ago | (#38168674)

That is all.

Re:Score one for eugenics. (1)

robot256 (1635039) | more than 2 years ago | (#38168840)

Unfortunately, most of the stupid people haven't gotten this far by being weak to disease. They're children will survive, but they will likely transmit the disease to others who can't be vaccinated or did not respond to the vaccine. If vaccination only affected the individual getting the vaccine, they would not have enacted this rule.

The "freedom" to "choose" (5, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 2 years ago | (#38168716)

that which puts me and my children in danger- not getting vaccinated, is not a natural freedom.

The problem with the definition of freedom, as defined by teenagers (not chronological teenagers, but psychological teenagers) is that it does not take into account how some "freedoms" naturally and automatically impinge on the freedoms of others.

For example: your freedom to play your music as loud as you want, my freedom to get a good night's sleep. Your freedom to consume nicotine, my freedom to breathe clean air when I walk down the sidewalk. You freedom to talk on your cellphone, my freedom to enjoy a movie. Etc.

If you claim as a right or freedom that which impinges on someone else's rights or freedoms, without even considering the possibility, you aren't selfish. You're just stupid: you don't know what freedom really is. To you, it is "let me do whatever I want without consideration of effects or consequences." That is "freedom" as defined by an ignorant teenager (again, not a chronological teenager, a psychological one, who could be of any age), and has absolutely nothing to do with the real fight for freedom in this world by real freedom fighters, who are often quoted by people who don't even know what freedom really is.

Re:The "freedom" to "choose" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38168868)

By the same token, that which makes (by your judgement) you and your children safe from danger - me and my kids getting vaccinated - is not a natural right. Both our judgements potentially affect each other, but there is in fact an asymmetry here: your position requires me to do something I do not wish to do, while my position does not stop you from doing something you want to do.

Re:The "freedom" to "choose" (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 2 years ago | (#38168970)

it is a natural right to pursue freedom from disease

the MEANS to pursue, vaccination, is not natural, but the ENDS, the pursuit of freedom from disease, is indeed a natural right

Re:The "freedom" to "choose" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38168872)

That is the smartest thing I've read so far.

still your choice (3)

pbjones (315127) | more than 2 years ago | (#38168766)

if you want the free benefits from society then you have to live up to expectations. It's your choice as to immunisation or not, but you are making a decision for your child, not for yourself, and so it is reasonable to want to protect your child from potentially fatal diseases, and teach them to swim, and to look before crossing the road. As many of these diseases can be passed on to others, it's also a community issue.

Meryl Dorey (2)

overshoot (39700) | more than 2 years ago | (#38168792)

If she didn't already go around foaming at the mouth, this would certainly light her off. I've got to check on Peter Bowditch [ratbags.com] more often; he's going to have a blast covering this.

I completely disagree with "child benefits" as is. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38168796)

If people cannot afford to have offspring, DON'T FUCKING FUCK.

I'm sick of it when I''m just sitting there reading some stuff, then I see about benefits abuse by families who have like 10 damn kids or some other extreme.
Seriously, the first person to make androids that simulate babies and all their learning, but never grows up, they will be trillionaires.
So many people out their are so messed up in the head that they just want a cute little baby, then it grows up, "oh, bored of it now, unf", out comes another baby, rinse and repeat. It is absolutely sickening behaviour that is enforced by governments all around the world.
Worse still, benefits abuse for the sake of the money and NOT for the children. Poor kids sitting there without a decent standard of living because the corrupt parent is taking all their money for drugs, alcohol or some other wasteful crap.

I hate society sometimes. I really do. Sometimes I'd welcome an asteroid collision. Sometimes.

in other news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38168844)

good idea. as long as disease carriers (not "tax paying humans" that is) are eradicated also.
the goal should be a healthy world, free of disease .. not a filthy pharmaceutical paradise?

rich have more freedoms (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38168846)

So if you have enough money to not need government healthcare you have more freedoms then a poorer person? Makes great sense to me!

Vaccines don't work. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38168958)

"up to 90% of the total decline in the death rate of children between 1860-1965 because of whooping cough, scarlet fever, diphtheria, and measels occurred before the introduction of immunisations and antibiotics." DR. ARCHIE KALOKERINOS, M.D. PhD

Scarlet fever was in existence at the same time and at the same levels as whooping cough, measels, and polio. Incidents of scarlet fever interestingly dropped off at the same rate as the others and we never vaccinated for scarlet fever. Dr. Robyn Cosford

It was the improved standard of living, increased sanition, better nutrition that caused the drop in disease. Not vaccinations.

There are many vaccine related deaths every year. "In 1978 a childhood immunisation initiative was begun. Individual states passed legislation requiring proof of immunisation for school entry at 5 and 6 years of age. They mandated vaccination and it resulted in a three fold increase in the reported incident of whooping cough and indeed children developed whooping cough from the vaccines." Dr. Vera Schiebner

The CDC reported a measles outbreak in a 100% documented vaccinated population. Studies show that children who recieved vaccinations were 14 times more likely to become learning disabled and develop asthma. There is virtually no asthma in unvaccinated children. Unvaccinated people are healthier, have higher disease resistance , and recover more rapidly from illness. There have never been any safety studies done on vaccines that would meet the appropriate criteria. Donald Meserlian P.E. VOSI Chairman, & ASTM Member

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...