Chris Christie supports a "balanced" approach to vaccination

[Fubart Solman]

I agree (can't believe I'm saying this) with Dr. Ben Carson:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I would never vote for him, but I'm glad to see that he has at least some sense.

[longtimelurker]

I agree (can't believe I'm saying this) with Dr. Ben Carson:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I would never vote for him, but I'm glad to see that he has at least some sense.

1. You know you're in trouble when the only sane person in your party is Dr. Ben Carson, who has insisted that Obamacare is the worst thing to happen to the USA since slavery.

2. Apparently Republicans do like to preserve some endangered species.  Such as measles, whooping cough, diptheria, etc. etc.

[Averroës Nix]

Ben Carson has some amusingly heterodox views. He strikes me as more comparable to someone like our own DC al Fine than to the typical talk radio listener - which is unusual for a "business plan" candidate.

[dmmidmi]

I agree (can't believe I'm saying this) with Dr. Ben Carson:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I would never vote for him, but I'm glad to see that he has at least some sense.

From what I've heard and seen in interviews, the impression that I get of Dr. Ben Carson is that he is a very talented, but dangerously insane individual.

With that being said, Dr. Carson is a thousand percent correct here.

[King]

In 2008, Hillary, Obama and McCain all pandered to the antivaxxers.

I give politicians in 2008 a pass. My memory of the timeline of this Jenny McCarthy-fueled hubbub is that it hadn't yet been pounded into the pavement that it was discredited hogwash until around 2010 or so.

[SPC]

People have such short memories

Yes, complications from vaccination are very rare, but so is the probability that I will contract measles. Ultimately, the parents are in the best position to determine which risk they feel is of greater relevance to them. Obviously the former would be a greater risk for smallpox, and influenza is generally innocuous and mutable enough that the former would usually be a greater risk as well (as the article demonstrates). This is not to say that the anti-vaccine crowd isn't populated by peddlers of pseudoscientific drivel that exaggerates the former risk with fictitious causality, but as Deus pointed out, it is preferable to the alternative of using such poor risk assessments as justification for having their spawn forcibly placed under the custodianship of foster parents (who have 0 genetic investment in the child as opposed to 50%).

At any rate, I fail to see a logical reason why such PC outrage is leveled at parents in the Western world who fail to inoculate their children against rare diseases, and not the much more obvious threat to public safety of allowing unknown numbers of migrants in unaccounted for from places where rare illnesses in the Western world are much more common. In fact, such a measure to control disease is considered discriminatory.

[bedstuy]

Yes, complications from vaccination are very rare, but so is the probability that I will contract measles.  Ultimately, the parents are in the best position to determine which risk they feel is of greater relevance to them.

You say that like there's no connection between vaccinating and the lack of danger.  Parents who can choose not to vaccinate, in the knowledge that almost everyone else will, are free-riders.  That's blatantly taking advantage of the fact that everyone else will take care in order to both put others at risk and expose yourself to needless danger.  It's anti-social behavior.

It's like opting out of traffic laws because you're a libertarian. 

At any rate, I fail to see a logical reason why such PC outrage is leveled at parents in the Western world who fail to inoculate their children against rare diseases, and not the much more obvious threat to public safety of allowing unknown numbers of migrants in unaccounted for from places where rare illnesses in the Western world are much more common. In fact, such a measure to control disease is considered discriminatory.

What are you talking about?

[dmmidmi]

People have such short memories

Yes, complications from vaccination are very rare, but so is the probability that I will contract measles. Ultimately, the parents are in the best position to determine which risk they feel is of greater relevance to them. Obviously the former would be a greater risk for smallpox, and influenza is generally innocuous and mutable enough that the former would usually be a greater risk as well (as the article demonstrates). This is not to say that the anti-vaccine crowd isn't populated by peddlers of pseudoscientific drivel that exaggerates the former risk with fictitious causality, but as Deus pointed out, it is preferable to the alternative of using such poor risk assessments as justification for having their spawn forcibly placed under the custodianship of foster parents (who have 0 genetic investment in the child as opposed to 50%).

At any rate, I fail to see a logical reason why such PC outrage is leveled at parents in the Western world who fail to inoculate their children against rare diseases, and not the much more obvious threat to public safety of allowing unknown numbers of migrants in unaccounted for from places where rare illnesses in the Western world are much more common. In fact, such a measure to control disease is considered discriminatory.

Most parents are not public health professionals or epidemiologists. How is someone who isn't one of these things in a position to determine whether or not vaccination is good for public health?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I give politicians in 2008 a pass

You shouldn't. The vaccines-cause-autism nonsense had been thoroughly discredited for years by that point.

[Antonio the Sixth]

"Genetic investment"?

[RogueBeaver]

The antivaxx movement did start as an investment... by trial lawyers into a get-rich-quick scam.

Rand in 2009: vaccination could lead to martial law.

Pubs on the sane side of this issue: Rubio, Walker, Perry, Carson, Huck.

[IceSpear]

Hillary continues to be an FF.

[All Along The Watchtower]

SPC does realize that the one researcher who actually claimed that vaccines cause autism was a fraud, yes?

[King]

SPC does realize that the one researcher who actually claimed that vaccines cause autism was a fraud, yes?

DO YOU TRUST THE LIBERAL ACADEMIA TO TREAT INFORMATION THAT CONTRADICTS THEIR BIG GOVERNMENT NARRATIVE FAIRLY!?!?!

[IceSpear]

Breitbart isn't very happy about Ben Carson's take on vaccines. Apparently he is officially a RINO now.

[SPC]

Yes, complications from vaccination are very rare, but so is the probability that I will contract measles.  Ultimately, the parents are in the best position to determine which risk they feel is of greater relevance to them.

You say that like there's no connection between vaccinating and the lack of danger.  Parents who can choose not to vaccinate, in the knowledge that almost everyone else will, are free-riders.  That's blatantly taking advantage of the fact that everyone else will take care in order to both put others at risk and expose yourself to needless danger.  It's anti-social behavior.

It's like opting out of traffic laws because you're a libertarian.

I am not denying the possibility of negative externalities to parental decisions. However, it is ludicrous to imply that there are no risks whatsoever to any medical procedure, including vaccines, and certainly the parent should have the right to discriminate in their child's vaccine schedule based on their child's risk of coming into contact with those pathogens. For instance, unless your child is a sex worker, it is silly to have a hepatitis B vaccine requirement.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What are you talking about?
[/quote]

Measles had been eradicated in the United States, so obviously it was carried here by individuals from nations where it had not been eradicated. While a critical number of parents failing to vaccinate their children could bear responsibility for the proliferation of a disease, the real culprit in this instance seems to be allowing a porous border enabling the entry of individuals from countries with greater proliferation of these diseases.

People have such short memories

Yes, complications from vaccination are very rare, but so is the probability that I will contract measles. Ultimately, the parents are in the best position to determine which risk they feel is of greater relevance to them. Obviously the former would be a greater risk for smallpox, and influenza is generally innocuous and mutable enough that the former would usually be a greater risk as well (as the article demonstrates). This is not to say that the anti-vaccine crowd isn't populated by peddlers of pseudoscientific drivel that exaggerates the former risk with fictitious causality, but as Deus pointed out, it is preferable to the alternative of using such poor risk assessments as justification for having their spawn forcibly placed under the custodianship of foster parents (who have 0 genetic investment in the child as opposed to 50%).

At any rate, I fail to see a logical reason why such PC outrage is leveled at parents in the Western world who fail to inoculate their children against rare diseases, and not the much more obvious threat to public safety of allowing unknown numbers of migrants in unaccounted for from places where rare illnesses in the Western world are much more common. In fact, such a measure to control disease is considered discriminatory.

Most parents are not public health professionals or epidemiologists. How is someone who isn't one of these things in a position to determine whether or not vaccination is good for public health?

I should disclose that I am the son of a physician. In any case, where do you draw the line as to which decisions a parent can make for their child and which ones have to be mandated by their local health professional? Is it child abuse for a parent to drive their child to school, given the possibility of a car accident (which, of course, has negative externalities) as well as the greater cardiovascular health that would come from walking?

Keep in mind that I am not opposed to either private institutions or public institutions usurping the duties of private instutitings mandating vaccinations as a precondition to entering their premise. If I were Disneyland or a primary school, I would not allow a child unvaccinated for certain illnesses into the park or the campus, simply due to the Pandora's Box of liability issues that I could be opening. However, simply being honest with parents about which illnesses pose a serious risk to their child's and the public's health and which ones are innocuous or mostly affect IV drug users/sex workers would be very helpful to clearing the pseudoscientific nonsense from the public square.

SPC does realize that the one researcher who actually claimed that vaccines cause autism was a fraud, yes?

PR does realize that my only reference to a link between vaccines and autism was where I referred to it as "pseudoscientific drivel", yes?

If anyone had actually bothered to read my link, I was referencing the deaths from Guillain–Barré syndrome which may have been caused by the campaign for the swine flu vaccine of 1976. While  Guillain–Barré syndrome as a result of vaccination is incredibly rare, given the differential fatalities from Guillain–Barré syndrome that year compared to the total deaths from swine flu that year, I think it is safe to say that the risks of the 1976 swine flu vaccine outweighed the benefits, both for the goose and the gander.

[bedstuy]

Yes, complications from vaccination are very rare, but so is the probability that I will contract measles.  Ultimately, the parents are in the best position to determine which risk they feel is of greater relevance to them.

You say that like there's no connection between vaccinating and the lack of danger.  Parents who can choose not to vaccinate, in the knowledge that almost everyone else will, are free-riders.  That's blatantly taking advantage of the fact that everyone else will take care in order to both put others at risk and expose yourself to needless danger.  It's anti-social behavior.

It's like opting out of traffic laws because you're a libertarian.

I am not denying the possibility of negative externalities to parental decisions. However, it is ludicrous to imply that there are no risks whatsoever to any medical procedure, including vaccines, and certainly the parent should have the right to discriminate in their child's vaccine schedule based on their child's risk of coming into contact with those pathogens. For instance, unless your child is a sex worker, it is silly to have a hepatitis B vaccine requirement.

Children don't need to get every FDA approved vaccine and they don't.  We don't give all children a plague vaccine.  But, if you're talking about the MMR vaccine, there's no argument to have.  Medical researchers have studied the issue and it's not a close call.  Whatever the risk of getting the MMR vaccine, in a health child the risk are way, way, way lower than the risks of being not getting the vaccine.

As for Hep B, that's a stupid thing to say.  The Hep B vaccine protects a child their entire life.  So, they're protected when they're going to be sexually active.  And, what's the problem with having a vaccine for a sexually transmitted disease?  Is the point that an STD is God's version of slut shaming?  What a disgusting idea, that we're going to let people get sick because they might have gotten an illness from dirty, dirty, shameful sex.

But, on top of that, Hep B is not just a sexually transmitted disease.  You can get it from bodily fluids, the same way many teens get Mononucleosis from kissing or sharing a drink.  Have you never kissed a girl at a party?  Shared a drink?  Do you think those are horrible shameful things that should consign someone to getting liver cancer?  And indeed, almost half of Hep B infections are during childhood and not from being a "sex worker."  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What are you talking about?
[/quote]

Measles had been eradicated in the United States, so obviously it was carried here by individuals from nations where it had not been eradicated. While a critical number of parents failing to vaccinate their children could bear responsibility for the proliferation of a disease, the real culprit in this instance seems to be allowing a porous border enabling the entry of individuals from countries with greater proliferation of these diseases.
[/quote]

I think people coming to the United States from other countries is just sort of non-negotiable.  Are we going to not allow foreign travel to the US or immigration so people don't need to get a vaccination?  Seriously, which is easier, eliminating immigration and tourism to the US, or taking your kids to the doctor a few times?  

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Oh great Moderators, can I at least say that the argument of a particular yellow avatared member indicates a need for a stiff dose of lithium on a regular basis?

[SPC]

Yes, complications from vaccination are very rare, but so is the probability that I will contract measles.  Ultimately, the parents are in the best position to determine which risk they feel is of greater relevance to them.

You say that like there's no connection between vaccinating and the lack of danger.  Parents who can choose not to vaccinate, in the knowledge that almost everyone else will, are free-riders.  That's blatantly taking advantage of the fact that everyone else will take care in order to both put others at risk and expose yourself to needless danger.  It's anti-social behavior.

It's like opting out of traffic laws because you're a libertarian.

I am not denying the possibility of negative externalities to parental decisions. However, it is ludicrous to imply that there are no risks whatsoever to any medical procedure, including vaccines, and certainly the parent should have the right to discriminate in their child's vaccine schedule based on their child's risk of coming into contact with those pathogens. For instance, unless your child is a sex worker, it is silly to have a hepatitis B vaccine requirement.

Children don't need to get every FDA approved vaccine and they don't.  We don't give all children a plague vaccine.  But, if you're talking about the MMR vaccine, there's no argument to have.  Medical researchers have studied the issue and it's not a close call.  Whatever the risk of getting the MMR vaccine, in a health child the risk are way, way, way lower than the risks of being not getting the vaccine.

Agreed. I simply object to compelling parents to give their children the vaccine (I don't even object to making it a precondition for public schools.)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, simply that an element of discrimination should play a role in determining which vaccinations are appropriate. Vaccinations for non-contact blood and semen-borne illnesses should be more highly recommended in those communities that are at higher risk.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What are you talking about?
[/quote]

Measles had been eradicated in the United States, so obviously it was carried here by individuals from nations where it had not been eradicated. While a critical number of parents failing to vaccinate their children could bear responsibility for the proliferation of a disease, the real culprit in this instance seems to be allowing a porous border enabling the entry of individuals from countries with greater proliferation of these diseases.
[/quote]

I think people coming to the United States from other countries is just sort of non-negotiable.  Are we going to not allow foreign travel to the US or immigration so people don't need to get a vaccination?  Seriously, which is easier, eliminating immigration and tourism to the US, or taking your kids to the doctor a few times?  
[/quote]

Screening people coming from areas with a high incidence of certain diseases is not equivalent to banning immigration or tourism. However, adopting a permissive attitude toward those who fail to come here through legitimate means (i.e. bypassing the screening process) is just as foolish as failing to give a child the MMR vaccine.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

He was asked "do you think Americans should vaccinate your kids? Is the measles vaccine safe?"

perhaps you have a link for your quotation (odd wording and all)?

[© tweed]

That's gibberish. States Rights over vaccination? Laughable.

everything here gets filtered through federalism

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

[Likely Voter]

He was asked "do you think Americans should vaccinate your kids? Is the measles vaccine safe?"

perhaps you have a link for your quotation (odd wording and all)?

actually the quote was 'their kids' not 'your kids', but yes he was clearly asked about measles.
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/chris-christie-clarifies-vaccine-remarks-n298386

He then suggested that parents should have a choice in the matter, even though his state mandates that they don't. I'm sure someone from his health department pointed that out to him, which is why he quickly sent out the second 'clarifying' statement

You seem to be the only one defending him. After he 'clarified' he cancelled all his press avails. He has been widely admonished by people on both sides, including those lefties at the Wall Street Journal editorial board who noted "The Governor panders amid an outbreak of preventable disease"
http://www.wsj.com/articles/christies-vaccine-stumble-1422924436

[dmmidmi]

People have such short memories

Yes, complications from vaccination are very rare, but so is the probability that I will contract measles. Ultimately, the parents are in the best position to determine which risk they feel is of greater relevance to them. Obviously the former would be a greater risk for smallpox, and influenza is generally innocuous and mutable enough that the former would usually be a greater risk as well (as the article demonstrates). This is not to say that the anti-vaccine crowd isn't populated by peddlers of pseudoscientific drivel that exaggerates the former risk with fictitious causality, but as Deus pointed out, it is preferable to the alternative of using such poor risk assessments as justification for having their spawn forcibly placed under the custodianship of foster parents (who have 0 genetic investment in the child as opposed to 50%).

At any rate, I fail to see a logical reason why such PC outrage is leveled at parents in the Western world who fail to inoculate their children against rare diseases, and not the much more obvious threat to public safety of allowing unknown numbers of migrants in unaccounted for from places where rare illnesses in the Western world are much more common. In fact, such a measure to control disease is considered discriminatory.

Most parents are not public health professionals or epidemiologists. How is someone who isn't one of these things in a position to determine whether or not vaccination is good for public health?

I should disclose that I am the son of a physician. In any case, where do you draw the line as to which decisions a parent can make for their child and which ones have to be mandated by their local health professional? Is it child abuse for a parent to drive their child to school, given the possibility of a car accident (which, of course, has negative externalities) as well as the greater cardiovascular health that would come from walking?

Keep in mind that I am not opposed to either private institutions or public institutions usurping the duties of private instutitings mandating vaccinations as a precondition to entering their premise. If I were Disneyland or a primary school, I would not allow a child unvaccinated for certain illnesses into the park or the campus, simply due to the Pandora's Box of liability issues that I could be opening. However, simply being honest with parents about which illnesses pose a serious risk to their child's and the public's health and which ones are innocuous or mostly affect IV drug users/sex workers would be very helpful to clearing the pseudoscientific nonsense from the public square.

My point wasn't that decisions about their children's health should be taken out of their hands. After all, there are potential risks in transporting, schooling, and feeding your child.

What I took exception to was the implication that vaccination is something that parents should be deciding upon for themselves--as if the arguments for and against vaccination are equally valid--because that is responsible parenting and the responsible course of action in the best interest of public health and safety. The benefits of vaccination are well-documented. This isn't something that most serious health care providers, public health professionals, and researchers debate.

[SPC]

My point wasn't that decisions about their children's health should be taken out of their hands. What I took exception to was the implication that vaccination is something that parents should be deciding upon for themselves

Did typing this result in any cognitive dissonance?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, you are distorting my position, and obfuscating the issue by referring to "vaccination" as a single issue rather than vaccinations for specific diseases. Given the possibility that illegal migrants or travelers will bring diseases long since eradicated in the United States into the country, the costs of not getting vaccinated for diseases like measles far outweigh the minute risk of having a poor reaction to the vaccine. However, if a disease almost exclusively affects certain high-risk groups whom young children are not especially likely to constitute, then I fail to see the harm in delaying the child's vaccination schedule for said disease until they can decide for themselves. Vaccinations as a precondition for entry into public facilities should be restricted to those diseases which are airborne or highly contagious, unless you think there is a high chance of kindergartners sharing their blood, semen, or IV needles with each other.