Beta
×

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!

Lack of Vaccination Sends Babies In Oregon To the Hospital

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the actually-it's-the-illness-that-does dept.

Medicine 1007

First time accepted submitter dmr001 writes "In its fortnightly Communicable Disease newsletter (PDF), Oregon Public Health officials note increasing cases of pertussis (whooping cough) in infants, with 146 hospitalizations noted in the 2 year period ending March 2011, and at least 4 deaths since 2003. Most cases are attributed to lack of vaccination, with 86% of those due to parents declining the vaccine. 'Most of our cases are occurring in under- or unvaccinated children, so getting these kids vaccinated seems to the most obvious approach to reducing illness. In principle... pertussis could be eradicated; but we have a long way to go.'"

cancel ×

1007 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Autism (5, Funny)

FadedTimes (581715) | more than 2 years ago | (#39658351)

but I don't want my kids to get Autism. So I will risk a deadly disease instead. /trolling

Re:Autism (5, Insightful)

nam37 (517083) | more than 2 years ago | (#39658435)

Unfortunately, if you asked "WHY???" to the soccer moms involved that's likely what you'd hear.

Re:Autism (1)

Davoid (5734) | more than 2 years ago | (#39658561)

You forgot the soccer dads. I doubt the moms have the only say in their kids healthcare.

Re:Autism (4, Funny)

Rich0 (548339) | more than 2 years ago | (#39658583)

Yeah, good luck with that...

Re:Autism (5, Insightful)

kidgenius (704962) | more than 2 years ago | (#39658853)

Are you a parent and married? Usually, "mom knows best" and gets her way when it comes to the kids. You can try to fight it, but it'll be a losing battle.

Re:Autism (4, Insightful)

Myopic (18616) | more than 2 years ago | (#39658493)

To be fair, if vaccines caused autism, I would probably opt out of most vaccines, because most kids don't die of whooping cough or scarlet fever, but autism is forever. It might be rational, depending on the prevalence and severity of the disease, to decline a vaccination.

But, vaccines don't cause autism, and we know that absolutely 100% for a fact. We don't even have to do fancy science to prove it (although we have done that fancy science), because we can simply look at autism rates between vaccinated and unvaccinated kids. If there is no correlation between vaccines and autism, then that precludes the possibility of causation; and there is no correlation, therefore there is no causation.

Vaccinate your children. If you don't, you are a douchebag.

Re:Autism (5, Insightful)

Kenja (541830) | more than 2 years ago | (#39658617)

Assuming the claims of the Playboy centerfold are true, the death rate from whooping cough is around 0.5% which is much higher then the rate of autism. In other words, even if there was a correlation between vacines and autism, the vacines are still safer.

Re:Autism (4, Insightful)

19thNervousBreakdown (768619) | more than 2 years ago | (#39658741)

If vaccines caused autism, most people would probably opt out of most vaccines, and the relative risk from disease would skyrocket.

Re:Autism (5, Informative)

jschmitz (607083) | more than 2 years ago | (#39658795)

You are 100% correct - the guy that did that study (autism linked to vaccinations) has been totally discredited - I guess some people didn't get the memo - but yea its really disturbing that some idiot parent that doesn't vaccinate their child put's my child at risk - its totally not cool

Re:Autism (0)

ClintJCL (264898) | more than 2 years ago | (#39658535)

but 14% had been vaccinated, so risking autism, whether real or not, is no guarantee to not get whooping cough.

Re:Autism (5, Informative)

Electricity Likes Me (1098643) | more than 2 years ago | (#39658651)

Actually the OP notes that 86% "opted out" of vaccination. That remaining 14% is going to include children who can't be vaccinated, or for whom the vaccine doesn't work (i.e. does not convey immunity, for whatever reason).

Both those two groups get no real choice in their vulnerability, but they are affected by the 86% who are being parented by idiots.

Re:Autism (5, Insightful)

Thanshin (1188877) | more than 2 years ago | (#39658711)

risking autism

If you're going to just ignore causality, you might as well be original and not vaccinate your kids to avoid the risk of unicorn abduction.

Re:Autism (2)

Atzanteol (99067) | more than 2 years ago | (#39658713)

Of course not. And no honest doctor or scientist ever claims vaccines work 100%. But they are *very* effective and your protection goes up dramatically if those around you are vaccinated (so even if it doesn't work for you there are few people around you for you to be infected from). This is all well known and understood by everyone with a medical degree. People who learned science as a pin-up girl and Playboy Bunny seem to have missed this class...

Re:Autism (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39658745)

I don't believe that your 14% is accurate. They said 86% were because of parents DECLINING the vaccine. We don't know from these reported facts how many children were unvaccinated due to factors other than the parents declining (for example low income and no access, allergy, etc.).

Re:Autism (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39658755)

No, read TFA: Those 14% were not vaccinated, but for reasons other than the parents declining the vaccine.

Re:Autism (5, Informative)

pheede (37918) | more than 2 years ago | (#39658771)

Read up on herd immunity [wikipedia.org] . A large part of the effectiveness of vaccines is that beyond the individual protection they confer on most recipients, they also protect the unvaccinated and the ones that the vaccine wasn't effective for if the overall rate of vaccination is high enough.

That's why the people who choose not to vaccinate their kids are also increasing the risk for the kids that did get the vaccine but for whom it wasn't effective for some reason, the kids that haven't been vaccinated yet because they're too young, and the kids that for some reason - e.g. compromised immune system - can't get the vaccine at all.

Reading the data correctly (4, Interesting)

waterbear (190559) | more than 2 years ago | (#39658857)

but 14% had been vaccinated

No, what the article actually said was, that among the _completely unvaccinated_, the _reason_ for lack of vaccination in 86% of cases was parental refusal. That doesn't say that 14% were vaccinated: it says that in 14% of unvaccinated cases the lack of vaccination was _not_
assigned to parental refusal as the cause.

I'm afraid this is how numerical data gets mashed into garble.

After considering the other numerical data the authors of the report concluded that "declining the vaccine carries a whopping risk for pertussis" (p.2).

-wb-

Re:Autism (2)

LateArthurDent (1403947) | more than 2 years ago | (#39658879)

but 14% had been vaccinated, so risking autism, whether real or not, is no guarantee to not get whooping cough.

If everyone else had been vaccinated as well, those 14% may not have caught the disease: Herd immunity [wikipedia.org]

Vermont. (5, Informative)

grub (11606) | more than 2 years ago | (#39658393)

Today Vermont state will be voting today on taking away the philosophical exemption for vaccination.

You can show your support for this smart idea by contacting
Patti Komline (802) 867-4232,pkomline@leg.state.vt.us
Paul Poirier (802) 476-7870 paulpoirier33@gmail.com

There is a massive anti-vax push here, be sure to show your support if you live in Vermont.

Re:Vermont. (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39658469)

Yes, it is smart to get your children vaccinated, however, the government has no right to mandate this. Keep the government out of this process, or they'll start regulating everything. Also remember that you have to *pay* for a vaccine. So this would be the government mandating that you purchase a product from another private seller. Just not a good thing for the government to get involved in. Please don't vote for this.

Re:Vermont. (5, Insightful)

Gr8Apes (679165) | more than 2 years ago | (#39658721)

Why doesn't the gov have the right to mandate it? It's a health issue. They can quarantine you in cases of epidemics. Actually, since unvaccinated people are effectively an epidemic waiting to happen, perhaps we should just quarantine them. I understand we have a lovely mostly vacant seaside facility available with a nice tropical climate.

Re:Vermont. (5, Insightful)

Rich0 (548339) | more than 2 years ago | (#39658791)

The problem with this argument is that your unvaccinated (due to your choice) kid can kill my unvaccinated (not due to my choice) kid, when otherwise my kid would live a normal life.

Kids under six months of age can't be vaccinated against pertussis, so those who opt out after that age increase the risk of death for kids younger than this. Some people have allergies that prevent vaccination.

So, this isn't a choice that parents make that subject only their own children to risk, but it affects everybody. That makes it everybody's business, and hence in the realm of government regulation.

And yes, I often lean libertarian, but a completely legitimate function of government is to protect individuals from bad choices that other people make.

Re:Vermont. (2, Insightful)

Volante3192 (953645) | more than 2 years ago | (#39658825)

By that logic, the government has no right to mandate the amount of lead in your water pipes or paint or the sanitary conditions of a processing plant.

Re:Vermont. (1)

thsths (31372) | more than 2 years ago | (#39658829)

> Yes, it is smart to get your children vaccinated, however, the government has no right to mandate this.

Why not? Herd immunity is the best way to eradicating a disease, and it only works if everybody (or most everybody) is on board.

Re:Vermont. (-1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39658503)

The government should not be able to force free citizens to inject chemicals into their body (or water; like fluoride). Once you give them the power to inject good things into sovereign persons' bodies, like vaccines, you also give them power to inject bad things, like sterilants.*

*
* Imagine some future distopia where the Vermont government limits parents to just 1 baby each. Like China does. The precedent has been set.

Re:Vermont. (5, Insightful)

Alranor (472986) | more than 2 years ago | (#39658545)

If the people refusing vaccinations were the only ones affected by that refusal, i'd agree with you.

Re:Vermont. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39658669)

If the government can violate an unborn child's right to life in the name of personal choice, then why is the government turning around and saying that you have no personal choice in whether or not your child is vaccinated with questionable substances?

Re:Vermont. (2)

Electricity Likes Me (1098643) | more than 2 years ago | (#39658701)

I don't know. I despise anti-vaxxers, but I'm not sure it should be expressly illegal for many of the reasons listed above. Conversely, it is in no way comparable to population control policies (which it should be noted, are largely implemented via the absence of tax breaks for the second and third child etc.)

As a society, we should be getting vaccines because we collectively agree its the right thing to do - not because we force people too. Down that path when it comes to medicine is nothing good.

Conversely: just because it's not a legal requirement, doesn't make you not an idiot for not doing something.

Re:Vermont. (1)

spiffmastercow (1001386) | more than 2 years ago | (#39658833)

Wait until your infant who is too young to get the immunization gets whooping cough from some kid whose idiot parents decided not to vaccinate. Without full buy-in, we don't get herd immunity.

Re:Vermont. (-1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39658775)

So you think the government should have absolute control over injecting ANY chemicals they desire for citizens age 0-18? Hmmm. Yeah that's never caused any problems in the past (unless you were black and the government experimented upon your children) (see the PBS documentary). I'm sorry but I don't trust the government anymore than I trust Microsoft or any other megacorp.

Re:Vermont. (3, Insightful)

19thNervousBreakdown (768619) | more than 2 years ago | (#39658811)

Instead of mandating vaccinations, make spreading a preventable disease a crime.

Re:Vermont. (0)

geekoid (135745) | more than 2 years ago | (#39658537)

Mod parent up.

Re:Vermont. (0)

Vectronic (1221470) | more than 2 years ago | (#39658609)

Good for you, wasn't planning on ever living in Vermont anyways.

I'm not really "anti-vax", but I'm sure as hell not pro-forced vaccinations, especially one size fits all type ones.

Re:Vermont. (5, Insightful)

durrr (1316311) | more than 2 years ago | (#39658863)

I hope you're for being thrown out of hospitals with sick your child(ren) too.

Because that's starting to happen when they show up with their unvaccinated little plaguebearer that sends everyone immunocompromised(which are quite a lot, including pretty much everyone elderly) scrambing for the emergncy exits.

Re:Vermont. (0)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39658903)

Better not move to Texas either, where the governor overruled the Legislature and issued an executive order forcing girls to get Gardasil shots (even though Gardasil doesn't do anything useful). He was repaying Merck who helped get him elected.

Re:Vermont. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39658729)

No, this is a terrible idea. Don't conflate wanting parents smart enough to see vaccinations don't cause autism with wanting government control.

Re:Vermont. (1)

jdgeorge (18767) | more than 2 years ago | (#39658855)

Aren't they only voting to remove philosophical exemption from vaccination for children who will be in school?

In other words, isn't it true that the government wouldn't be "forcing" anyone, but only protecting those students and teachers who are using and providing services that the tax-paying public is paying for?

I trust parents more than government (-1, Troll)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39658399)

While I don't agree that vaccinations are dangerous, I'd still rather leave the decision to the parents of the child rather than same unnamed bureaucrat. I don't trust the people inside the DC Beltway. They are sick (control freaks).

Re:I trust parents more than government (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39658497)

Right, because figuring out how to squirt his jizz into her snatch makes them better qualified than anyone else to make this decision.

Re:I trust parents more than government (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39658699)

Considering that most Slashdotters can't even manage a date, let alone sexual relations with a woman, I find the comment sadly ironic.

Re:I trust parents more than government (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39658519)

While I don't agree that vaccinations are dangerous, I'd still rather leave the decision to the parents of the child rather than same unnamed bureaucrat. I don't trust the people inside the DC Beltway. They are sick (control freaks).

Typically I would agree with you, but there is a problem as some cannot get vaccinated and if someone does not get vaccinated by choice then that decision can affect the person who cannot. I believe this has something to do with "the herd".

Granted I have a cousin who is not vaccinated in any way and I told them point blank I feel that if she does get sick or disabled due to this they should go to jail for child abuse. It seems ridiculous to me to risk your child's life on bad research which is constantly kept in the media.

Re:I trust parents more than government (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39658635)

It's more than that, in a certain percentage of vaccinated people the vaccine doesn't "take", i.e. these vaccinated folks are still vulnerable to the disease, that's why you have vaccinate everyone, these people aren't an effective vector for most diseases by themselves, if you add in conscientious objectors/abstainers, though, the combination of the two often is.

Re:I trust parents more than government (5, Interesting)

samkass (174571) | more than 2 years ago | (#39658521)

I trust Government regulation based on scientific research more than other kids' parents' rumors, religion and pop culture when it comes to my kids health.

Re:I trust parents more than government (5, Interesting)

Beryllium Sphere(tm) (193358) | more than 2 years ago | (#39658889)

There was a time when that was the mainstream belief.

The odd thing about the anti-vaccination movement is that nobody benefits from it. It's happening without eccentric billionaires funding doublethink tanks to push their economic interests.

Unless it's part of the general anti-science movement, which benefits people who owe their leadership to the ignorance of their followers.

Re:I trust parents more than government (3, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | more than 2 years ago | (#39658527)

Parents are not give some magic ability to know science, or understand medicine.
Mom aren't magic and there gut feelings are wrong more then right. Fortunately on most matters there isn't an immediate effect.

That parents decision is killing children. When it comes to vaccines, I would welcome back the days where all the children got there shots at the school.

Don't confuse politicians with the agency doing the science.

Re:I trust parents more than government (5, Insightful)

Myopic (18616) | more than 2 years ago | (#39658577)

The only people I trust less than qualified, vetted, officials is uneducated jackasses pretending to understand the world around them when really they are just ignorant twits. There is a mantra from conservatives "They think they know better than you!". Um, yep. I think the scientists and knowledgeable health professionals "know better" than the backward backwater assholes who raise their children as if it were the year 1512. Obviously that isn't a general rule -- bureaucrats make all sorts of boneheaded decisions -- but I basically reject the notion that only you can know what is best for you in all circumstances. No; no, no, no; often, others know what is best for you, and people should be open to that possibility.

If we lived in a perfect world, then parents would be rational, intelligent, and informed. Yes, we would all "rather" live in that world. But we don't, we live in a world full of hysterical ignoramuses. (Same basic argument against libertarianism.)

Public Health (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39658599)

Public Health is a funny thing -- individual actions impact the health of our entire society.

The libertarian in me says that you should be able to make health decisions for your own [and kids] body, including unbelievably stupid things like declining vaccines. However, disease is hard to track -- if your action or negligence causes me physical injury, the libertarian philosophy suggests that you pay the bills. It's hard to employ that tactic for communicable disease. If it's very difficult to measure who is giving the disease to whom, how do we apply libertarian philosophy?

I'd remind you that
  (a) this is by and large a state issue, not federal. You're blindly attacking the wrong people, and
  (b) this is a generally a bureaucratic and technocratic issue, not a political issue. Public health experts recommend policies, not politicians seeking votes, and
  (c) most government folks working for government are civil servants, not politicians. They're just interested in doing their job well, earning a fair wage, and leading a comfortable middle class lifestyle, just like nearly all of us. This idea that "they are sick (control freaks)" is really nonsensical and based on absolutely nothing but your bias. Are individuals troublesome in any organization? To be sure. But you're painting with a remarkably broad brush.

From where I sit, failing to vaccinate a child is reckless endangerment, and social services should get involved. It's easy and inexpensive to reduce your kid's chances of dying from whooping cough to almost zero. Vaccinations. In fact, I submit that since every adult was once a kid, we ought to just cover everybody's vaccinations at childhood 100% by medicare. No insurance, no co-pay, no out of pocket, for both poor and middle class and rich Americans. Hell, I'd include non-citizens too, since the public health costs to citizens can be very high whereas prevention is relatively cheap. Since most parents do this anyway, the net cost for individuals is a wash. Yeah, some old folks end up cross-subsidizing young people, but its a relatively small expense for a good and sustainable public policy.

Re:I trust parents more than government (1)

elsurexiste (1758620) | more than 2 years ago | (#39658601)

I don't agree. After all, it was parents under/not vaccinating their kids what got them killed. Moreover, it'll have consequences for other kids if they can't be vaccinated for whatever reason, so it's not a personal/familiar issue. Refusing vaccination on principle is, therefore, negligent behaviour.

The government has many failures, but at least it can transcend individual's selfishness and ignorance.

Re:I trust me, not other parents (4, Insightful)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 2 years ago | (#39658603)

If I'm going to have my kids near your kids, you damned well better have them vaccinated. If you're willing to keep them out of public, vaccinated events and areas (stadia, soccer leagues, public schools, the private school _I_ go to, public parks, my private club, etc.), then have at it.

Just as I don't want you to come into work with the flu, or shake my hand if you've got an open wound on your palm, please don't force your kids to infect the rest of the world with your 19th century diseases.

Did you know that after 50 years, we were almost rid of Polio? The International Rotary Foundation, and now with the help and massive warchest of the Bill Gates Foundation (to the historical combines tune of something like a Billion dollars) is trying to get rid of the last pockets of Polio on this planet. All it takes is one small village, mostly isolated from everyone, to keep this stuff around - destroying lives and families.

Please excuse me if I take this opportunity to say a hearty "FUCK YOU, GET YOUR GOD DAMNED KIDS VACCINATED" and quit perpetuating these diseases. This doesn't come from the government, it's from your next door neighbor, a parent who cares about his kids. Trust me.

Re:I trust parents more than government (1)

alen (225700) | more than 2 years ago | (#39658611)

you don't have to get your kid vaccinated in a lot of places. only thing is that he/she won't be allowed into day care, school and some other places where kids are together

Re:I trust parents more than government (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39658661)

Vaccinations don't help just your child. Herd immunity. Diseases that were almost wiped out are now coming back. Yes, unnamed bureaucrats can make some pretty big blunders. Unnamed, anonymous bureaucrats can often be control freaks.

But, if you want to be general, unless I do the research and be proactive, those same unknown bureaucrats are also why we have traffic laws that include stop lights and guard rails. You can trace back our lack of news reports on burning rivers to some random person in the DC Beltway. Congress does wrong from time to time, but they can also do good if we pay attention.

Vaccines were a godsend to modern medical science. They've eradicated diseases. There are diseases that should have been eradicated by now if not for vaccine deniers. Yes, in general I agree with you, but this are times when not trusting them isn't an option unless you can put forward an alternative plan.

Re:I trust parents more than government (1)

Atzanteol (99067) | more than 2 years ago | (#39658797)

I agree in principle. But sometimes, mostly by mistake, the politicians do make good decisions. In this case being one of them (following the science). This behavior should be rewarded - perhaps over time we can train them to not be morons?

Here's an idea (1, Insightful)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#39658407)

If you get caught abusing your kids or putting them in unsafe or unhealthy conditions, some government worker is going to step in and take corrective action. Is denying vaccinations not a similar situation that warrants a similar response?

Stop coddling the nutters, let them get pissed off, call the country communist and seek refuge from government tyranny in Somalia. It's the only way the problem will correct itself.

Re:Here's an idea (1)

Myopic (18616) | more than 2 years ago | (#39658595)

We would miss that 40% of the country, though.

Re:Here's an idea (1)

infalliable (1239578) | more than 2 years ago | (#39658727)

This vaccine is not recommended for newborns/infants. It's not that people are saying "OMG, this will hurt my kid if they get the vaccine." ...At least not in all cases.

The disease however, is probably most dangerous to newborns/infants. There is the crux of the issue. It poses little risk to parents and adults...so few naturally get the vaccine.

Natural selection (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39658411)

Just let them die.

Re:Natural selection (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#39658443)

I would agree for adults but I don't think the innocent kids deserve to suffer for their parents' idiocy.

Re:Natural selection (2)

Thanshin (1188877) | more than 2 years ago | (#39658589)

I would agree for adults but I don't think the innocent kids deserve to suffer for their parents' idiocy.

They will in all cases. Unless they are really lucky and lose their sub-normal parents in an accident.

If your parents are retarded enough to risk your life based on superstition, you're playing life in hard mode.

Re:Natural selection (1)

Myopic (18616) | more than 2 years ago | (#39658641)

Unfortunately the ones making the bad decisions aren't the ones who die. Alas.

Evolution in Action? (4, Insightful)

grumling (94709) | more than 2 years ago | (#39658415)

Anyone who's more willing to listen to a centerfold model/actress for medical advice deserves what they get.

I do feel bad for their children.

Re:Evolution in Action? (4, Informative)

geekoid (135745) | more than 2 years ago | (#39658467)

It's the children that died, not the fuck twads that listen to Jenny and watched Oprah.

What the parent deserve to get is prison time.

Re:Evolution in Action? (1)

grumling (94709) | more than 2 years ago | (#39658847)

That's right, but the result (not continuing their genetic line due to weak immunity) is the same. It doesn't matter that the weakness was due high level brain functions.

Again, not saying it's right, and yes, the parents need to be tried for infanticide.

Re:Evolution in Action? (1)

Rich0 (548339) | more than 2 years ago | (#39658869)

And it isn't even just the children of those parents, but sometimes the children of other parents who want their kids to be vaccinated, but for any number of reasons it just hasn't happened (too young, allergies, etc).

This isn't unlike antibiotic abuse - your decisions affect my health, and that means that what you do with your life is my business in this domain.

Re:Evolution in Action? (1)

Kenja (541830) | more than 2 years ago | (#39658499)

This is the part I never understand. If Jenny McBigtits claims are to be believed, then not only do vacines cause autism, but vitamin C cures it. So what's the big deal? Just give your kids extra O.J. with their shots.

Re:Evolution in Action? (1)

Electricity Likes Me (1098643) | more than 2 years ago | (#39658747)

And then watch them get diabetes when the same people fail to realize that the difference between soft drink and fruit juice is the origin, not the sugar content.

Re:Evolution in Action? (1)

Kamiza Ikioi (893310) | more than 2 years ago | (#39658665)

Anyone who's more willing to listen to a centerfold model/actress for medical advice deserves what they get.

I do feel bad for their children.

And what they should get is prison if their child dies as a result.

Re:Evolution in Action? (1)

Myopic (18616) | more than 2 years ago | (#39658683)

I do feel bad for their children.

Right. Which is why this is a problem. Society doesn't get so worked up when, say, a bunch of kooks get together and kill themselves as adults, like with Heaven's Gate or something. Adults doing stupid shit to themselves might be an area where society would step in, or it might not; but adults doing stupid shit to children is a situation where society most often feels the need to act.

We avoided autism (0)

concealment (2447304) | more than 2 years ago | (#39658441)

As the children died, they were able to relate well to others and communicate their feelings.

I would like to take a moment (0, Troll)

geekoid (135745) | more than 2 years ago | (#39658453)

And say something to the women who made this possible:
Dear Jenny and Oprah:
Fuck you, I hope you both die in a fire.

Re:I would like to take a moment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39658539)

And say something to the women who made this possible:
Dear Jenny and Oprah:
Fuck you, I hope you both die in a fire.

And say something to the women who made this possible:
Dear Jenny and Oprah:
Fuck you, I hope you both die in a fire.

Don't forget Jim Carrey!

Re:I would like to take a moment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39658629)

What about the cocksucking Limey who made all this shit up so that he could get some more grant money?

Is this an argument for or against vaccination? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39658463)

4 deaths in 9 years with only "most" cases attributed to the lack of vaccination. That's not exactly a stellar case for vaccines considering they aren't always without side-effects.

Re:Is this an argument for or against vaccination? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39658815)

4 deaths in 9 years with only "most" cases attributed to the lack of vaccination. That's not exactly a stellar case for vaccines considering they aren't always without side-effects.

Did you miss the 146 hospitalizations?

Idiocracy (1)

Thanshin (1188877) | more than 2 years ago | (#39658471)

I've never studied this particular branch of stupidity. What are the arguments to leave the decision about which medical treatments to give a defenseless child to people without medical education? Are they religious?

I'm genuinely curious.

Does it apply to vaccination only? Or in America you can choose not to give other life saving treatments to your children. Seems a bit extreme as birth control system.

The murderer in question is British not American (5, Informative)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 2 years ago | (#39658613)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wakefield [wikipedia.org]

And he is a murderer. It was a fraud.

Being stupid is no defense, but preying on the stupid is something worse: it's evil.

Re:Idiocracy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39658671)

Parents have the right to choose treatments for their children under all circumstances. Fortunately most people take their physicians' advice most of the time, but we're all a little uncomfortable with the idea of government-mandated treatment.

Cases of parents declining treatment against a child's wishes are rare, and can be dealt with. We do have the concept of an emancipated minor, for instance.

Let the parents reap what they sow. (1)

bytestorm (1296659) | more than 2 years ago | (#39658477)

I think the parents, being ultimately responsible for the health and safety of their offspring, should be allowed to make whatever (possibly ignorant) choices they feel necessary, up to the point where it endangers public safety. The parents who lose children to preventable diseases are probably already miserable from their choices. If you think that's too light, charge the parents with negligence/child abuse/manslaughter for which they can spend some jail time.

Re:Let the parents reap what they sow. (1)

Electricity Likes Me (1098643) | more than 2 years ago | (#39658803)

However in any other walk of life, ignorance is not a defense for negligence. Your employer can't claim that they didn't realize people might fall into the steel cauldron even accidentally, nor should they be able to. Similarly, you can't argue that since your employees didn't realize the danger that you saw no need to mitigate it.

While parenting is somewhat a special issue, it's not that special. There's no magic wisdom or ability associated with it - it's a basic biological function. But it deals with very real human lives, in a very similar situation to the latter example above.

how many? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39658483)

I'd like to know the exact numbers of cases occurred in children w/o vaccination, and how many occurred in children who were already vaccinated.

Obvious question: (1)

gaspyy (514539) | more than 2 years ago | (#39658489)

How many babies were hospitalized or died because of the pertussis vaccination during the same period?

Personally I am not afraid of vaccines for me or my children. A clear comparison in health issues and risks between vaccinated vs. non-vaccinated children should (hopefully) clear the whole controversy.

Re:Obvious question: (1)

pz (113803) | more than 2 years ago | (#39658725)

How many babies were hospitalized or died because of the pertussis vaccination during the same period?

Personally I am not afraid of vaccines for me or my children. A clear comparison in health issues and risks between vaccinated vs. non-vaccinated children should (hopefully) clear the whole controversy.

Except that the vaccination issue plays on parental fears of unknown risk of harm to their child. You cannot overcome emotion with numbers.

Re:Obvious question: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39658821)

http://www.chop.edu/service/vaccine-education-center/a-look-at-each-vaccine/dtap-diphtheria-tetanus-and-pertussis-vaccine.html is the first decent link I found.

The big issue is that you can't get vaccinated immediately at birth and pertussis can be fatal to infants while in adults it's an annoying persistent cough and the person typically doesn't even know they have it. Thus it is better for the infants if pertussis can be effectively eradicated which is only through vaccines.

I work in the NHS (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39658505)

I work in the NHS in the UK and it's amazing how some people don't want to get their kids vaccinated, solely because of the infamous Wakefield study and the subsequent media scare. I saddens me deeply to think that we could eradicate these diseases, but through ignorance and fear a minority of parents decline vaccination for their children. Children die of pertussis, children die of measles. These are achingly preventable, and no child ever asks for the disease. The parent is immune however.

Whooping cough was considered a non-issue (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39658547)

Even 10 years ago whooping cough was pretty much considered eradicated. No one vaccinated for it. It's a small surprise when they start offering petrussis (sp?) vaccinations (typically as part of a tetanus booster, at least to adults) most people wouldn't feel it's important. Yes, we have whooping cough up here now, but I doubt many people realize this or even know what it is (it's not like some diseases, everyone's heard of polio and knows at least something about it, whooping cough not so much). Plus, I think the names of diseases probably affects how worried folks tend to be about it (hey, we're basically clever primates, it's not unexpected), whooping cough sounds like a bad cough, nothing more. I doubt the average person knows it's dangerous and it's not like a lot of people have health insurance. Even the public program for uninsured kids up here has been radically scaled back.

Even unvaccinated for whooping cough, your kid is far more likely to land in the ER for a case of pneumonia stemming from the flu. Yes, you don't want to take stupid chances, but let's keep some perspective on the scale of this.

Strange version of "no one" (1)

overshoot (39700) | more than 2 years ago | (#39658841)

No one vaccinated for it.

Rates for pertussis vaccination nationally in the USA have not gone below 80% since the vaccine was introduced before I was born -- and I well predate both polio vaccines.

What's changed is that there is now an adult vaccine in addition to the childhood series.

Re:Whooping cough was considered a non-issue (1)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 2 years ago | (#39658877)

Even unvaccinated for whooping cough, your kid is far more likely to land in the ER for a case of pneumonia stemming from the flu. Yes, you don't want to take stupid chances, but let's keep some perspective on the scale of this."

Don't vaccinate anybody for 50 years, then get back to me and let me know how that's working for you.

Vaccinations are for the public welfare (0)

dietdew7 (1171613) | more than 2 years ago | (#39658571)

Vaccinations protect the individual and the herd. Not everyone can be vaccinated and no vaccine is 100% effective. That being said the government/medical complex is partially responsible by requiring so many vaccinations.

A little misleading (1)

infalliable (1239578) | more than 2 years ago | (#39658623)

This is somewhat misleading.

In general, the pertussis vaccine is not recommended for small infants. They need to be a few weeks/months old before receiving it. However, infants are probably the most succeptible group to complications from it.

It is recommended that adults get the vaccine to prevent them from passing it to their children. Again though, this vaccine is not always covered by insurance and the disease poses little threat to adults.

Re:A little misleading (2)

Sevorus (1754146) | more than 2 years ago | (#39658859)

I totally disagree - it's not at all misleading to blame these deaths on lack of immunization. These infants wouldn't have been vaccinated at this age, but the OLDER KIDS AROUND them who weren't vaccinated and were carriers for the disease should have been. Vaccines work via herd immunity -the entire group benefits when a disease can't spread through a community. These infants never should have been exposed to pertusis because all the people (children & adults) around them should have been immune. The hospital I work at requires every employee to be vaccinated for flu every year. Most of the working population of this hospital would not be at severe risk from flu. We don't get immunized to protect ourselves, we get immunized to protect the elderly and pediatric patients we come into contact constantly so we don't act as hosts to transfer the virus around the hospital. Immunizations should not be individual decisions - it places the whole population at risk, not just the unimmunized individual.

Spontaneous Generation? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39658693)

I thought we got rid of the idea of diseases arising from spontaneous generation a few centuries ago. Where are these unvaccinated people getting exposed to whooping cough? I'll tell you. The same thing is happening in California, except they sweep some important details under the rug. Virtually ALL of the cases of unvaccinated persons with whooping cough in California are immigrants, and most of them are undocumented immigrants. They are not Jenny McCarthy disciples as some would have you believe. Most of these people probably don't even have a television, let alone know who Jenny McCarthy is. This is one of the side-effects of allowing millions of people from third-world nations to come pouring into the United States. You can be for or against amnesty or whatever, but you can't ignore the facts that bringing in a couple million people a year from places with no health care system to speak of also brings disease.

a less totalitarian solution (-1)

tverbeek (457094) | more than 2 years ago | (#39658697)

Don't force parents to vaccinate their children against ___, but for them to opt out, require them to put a deposit in escrow to cover the child's future medical expenses up to the age of 18 in the event the child becomes ill with ___, the balance refundable only upon the death of the child or its 18th birthday. Make it clear to them that neither the government nor their health insurer should have to pay for their decision to deny their child preventative medical care.

Not a problem (1)

gstrickler (920733) | more than 2 years ago | (#39658715)

While I personally am in favor of vaccination (the autism connection theory is too weak [time.com] ), I agree that parents should have the right to refuse to have their children vaccinated.

When more than X% of a population is vaccinated against a disease, the chance of an epidemic or wide spread outbreak is low. As you increase the percentage of the population that has been vaccinated, the risks from the disease continue to decrease. At some point, the risk from the disease (risk of contagion times risk of significant impairment from contagion) becomes lower than the risks of the vaccine. The exact percentage necessary varies based upon the communicability of the disease, and the risks of the disease. The point at which the vaccine becomes more or a risk than the disease depends upon those, and the risks of the specific vaccine. So, as long as a significant majority of the population chooses to get the vaccine, everyone is better off.

Herd Immunity vs. Individual Vaccination (1)

Sevorus (1754146) | more than 2 years ago | (#39658723)

What most people don't understand is that that immunization largely works through herd immunity. If a disease can't be transmitted through most of the hosts in a community it can't get a foothold and spread. Because of this, the un-immunized members of the herd nevertheless benefit because they are shielded by the immunized individuals around them. This leads to the, "I don't want my child immunized because it's unnecessary" mentality. Well at some point if enough of the herd is susceptible again that herd immunity breaks down and all of sudden the unimmunized are no longer shielded from the disease. So while the babies here are younger than the age of immunization, they are suffering because the other kids around them are not vaccinated. The hippies next door who don't believe in immunizations are putting your kids at risk. It's too bad it's going to take outbreaks of totally preventable diseases to remind people why immunizations are a pillar of public health.

Misleading Summary Title (3, Informative)

MarioMax (907837) | more than 2 years ago | (#39658731)

For those that want to give the anti-vaccinators something to argue about, the summary title is misleading. From TFA:

"Diphtheria-Tetanus-acellular-Pertussis vaccine (DTaP) is recommended for all children at 2, 4, 6 and 15–18 months of age, with a pre-school booster between 4 years of age and entry into kindergarten."
"Infants too young to have completed the primary vaccine series account for the lion’s share of pertussis-related complications, hospitalizations and deaths (at least four in Oregon since 2003). We reviewed data on infants hospitalized with pertussis during a two-year period from March 2009 through February 2011. One hundred forty-six infants with pertussis were reported during this time, and 62 (43%) of them were hospitalized for a median of 3 (range, 0–32) days. The median age at onset for hospitalized cases was 8 (range, 2–25) weeks."

So in other words, many children hospitalized for whooping cough were too young to have been fully vaccinated.

Re:Misleading Summary Title (1)

infalliable (1239578) | more than 2 years ago | (#39658773)

Exactly, this topic is very misleading.

Wow it's almost as if we knew this would happen. (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39658737)

It's pretty scary how quickly these diseases pop backup.

Still, it's well outside the foresight of the selfish and dangerous ant-vac morns. Yes, dangerous. Real harm has been caused and here is proof. I'm not one for frivolous lawsuits but I'd love to see some celebrity vac deniers drug in to civil suits to bring attention to these dangerous lunatics.

Not being vaccinated was once a social taboo and for some reason it's not anymore. We need to bring that back. Why are these kids allowed to attend school? Allowed to be at daycare? Those who are able to be vaccinated, but are not, need to be excluded from the general population because they are a danger to the general public. Even if they aren't' actively infected, they're a vector.

Vaccines are a population wide tool and need to be used as such. They don't work if people get to pick and choose and make a dangerous situation for others out of ignorance.

Microbiology (3, Informative)

overshoot (39700) | more than 2 years ago | (#39658761)

In principle... pertussis could be eradicated; but we have a long way to go.

Ummm .... no. Unlike measles or polio, pertussis is a bacterial disease. Bordatella Pertussis can live without humans. The only way to eradicate it is to sterilize all of its potential habitats (unlike viruses, bacteria don't need hosts per se) and clear the disease from any human carriers.

Ain't gonna happen.

Re:Microbiology (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39658885)

Also the vaccine isn't to the bacteria itself, but to the toxin it produces. The immunity fades every 10 years or so, but whooping cough generally does not kill adults, so no one really bothers getting vaccinated as an adult.

Biggest shock of the day (3, Funny)

bulldog060 (992160) | more than 2 years ago | (#39658805)

This far into a post about sickness in Oregon and there have been no comments about dysentery or loss of oxen ... thought it was just an odd day in the office, not on /. too.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?