Shut up and get vaccinated you sheep!

Glaucus said:
Ya, from what I can tell the US manufacturers found a proper way to screen for SV40 at which point they were able to eliminate it from vaccines. It was mostly the Eastern communists who kept it going until the 1980s.

Also, discussing the safety of vaccines based on 1950s technology is like discussing car safety based on cars from the same era. Not really useful.
Click to expand...

Not to mention that medical science was still very much more about working in the national interest under the watchful eye of government, rather than the captured government we have now that serves the medical INDUSTRY.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
Not to mention that medical science was still very much more about working in the national interest under the watchful eye of government, rather than the captured government we have now that serves the medical INDUSTRY.
Click to expand...
Sounds like you're romanticizing the past.
 
faethor said:
Malaria vaccine tested to 100% effectiveness ...

Worldwide Malaria killed 660K people in 2010.
Click to expand...

And those people are concentrated in particular areas, especially where there are large populations of poor people. Malaria is a scourge that also effects the young robbing them of decades of productive life. The difficulty of extending food and clean water infrastructure and the difficulty of controlling the vector population makes vaccination particularly attractive and the dire situation for those in malaria areas makes the requirements for safety and effectiveness far lower than for wealthy diseases to beat break even.
 
Glaucus said:
This should stir the pot quite nicely...

The case for suing parents who don’t vaccinate their kids
Click to expand...

And who knows, this might get traction. It turns out that the trend amongst the wealthy is to avoid the vaccines. Vaccines are for poor people it seems. Of course, that also makes the wealthy prime targets for litigation.

Why Do Rich People Refuse to Vaccinate Their Kids?

So what's going on? Seitz-Wald interviews some experts like Nina Shapiro, a professor at UCLA, who notes that anti-vaxx sentiment is "a little bit of a trend." She describes it as "I’m going to be pure and I want to keep my child pure." But that doesn't quite get at why there's such class differences here, since presumably people of all stripes object to the notion of poisoning their children and therefore are vulnerable to propaganda that paints vaccinations as poisonous. I'd posit that refusing vaccination has become something of a status symbol, a way to distinguish your special snowflake from the herd. It's in line with other trends of varied inherent value, such as putting your kid in a private school, not allowing him to ever eat trashy "kid" food like hot dogs or macaroni and cheese, or forbidding her from engaging with pop culture.
Click to expand...

The article also states that Republican voters are actually more likely to avoid the vaccine than Democrat voters.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
And those people are concentrated in particular areas, especially where there are large populations of poor people. Malaria is a scourge that also effects the young robbing them of decades of productive life. The difficulty of extending food and clean water infrastructure and the difficulty of controlling the vector population makes vaccination particularly attractive and the dire situation for those in malaria areas makes the requirements for safety and effectiveness far lower than for wealthy diseases to beat break even.
Click to expand...
Thanks Fluffy, that's the best case for globalization and capitalism that I've read in a long time.
 
cecilia said:
science provides an answer

http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/kite-patch
Click to expand...
and
Glaucus said:
And who knows, this might get traction. It turns out that the trend amongst the wealthy is to avoid the vaccines. Vaccines are for poor people it seems. Of course, that also makes the wealthy prime targets for litigation.

Why Do Rich People Refuse to Vaccinate Their Kids?
Click to expand...
Are kind of related. The reason I say this is I checked out the 'kite-patch'. I found the initial price will be $35 for 2 patches. Each patch lasts about 2 days. It appears if you order 10 or $350 worth you'll get a price break. Now the Kite-Patch isn't fully tested so who knows how well it'll work. But, let's say is does who in Africa can afford $4,200 per year per person for coverage? Now, we don't know how much the Malaria vaccine will cost. But, what we do know is the Gates Foundation is pushing it forward to save lives around the world. Certainly, it's going to be a more cost effective option. But, again the Malaria vaccine is still going through testing. So the details around effective timeframes and overall effectiveness are still being determined. But, for that poor family of 6 that can't spend $25K/year on a patch the much lessor vaccine expense would seem easily justified in comparison.

The article also states that Republican voters are actually more likely to avoid the vaccine than Democrat voters.
Click to expand...
Republicans tend to larger demographic of people that don't trust science. Republicans, also, tend to have a larger demographic that don't trust the Gov. Add those up and I'd predict what we're seeing - Republicans vaccinate less frequently. Eventually what'll happen is that Republican anti-vaccine stronghold is going to be hit by a disease. We've seen it hit the MN Amish with Polio. We've seen it hit the NYC Hassidic population with MMR. We've seen it hit the richer areas of Cali, again with MMR. It really is a question of when and what the results will be.

In the case of Cali when infected patients ended up in the hospital it cost over $10K/per person in care. Perhaps what should be done is follow the Libertarian pay your own way stance. Since we're moving to a more Universal Healthcare System we should encourage vaccinations. I'd say make it option so people are free to choose. But, if you choose to not vaccinate and your child gets sick that the $10K bill is not covered by insurance. Not only that we should charge a '% of care back to the family of people who are sick that were exposed to your unvaccinated disease ridden kid.
 
Glaucus said:
This should stir the pot quite nicely...

The case for suing parents who don’t vaccinate their kids
Click to expand...

Seems kind of unfair when you are prohibited from suing vaccine manufacturers or doctors if an FDA approved vaccine causes harm.

But lets look at the case a bit more. Why not sue the daycare? How come they let a kid with measles come to daycare? And don't the parents whose kid spread the measles also get to sue the people that gave their kid measles? And so on up the chain ... and who do you sue if it turns out that the source of the infection was a vaccinated kid who either caught wild measles but was asymptomatic, or was a case of vaccine failure themselves, or who was a chronic shedder from a live vaccine? Now who do you sue?

And why not sue the healthcare provider for failing to save the kid who died, or their parents, for a disease that is not usually fatal in well nourished children with healthy immunity?

Could the parents of a fatal mugging victim sue a bystander who failed to carry a gun which could have prevented the incident when they had the lawful right to carry a gun but chose not to for personal reasons?
 
Glaucus said:
Thanks Fluffy, that's the best case for globalization and capitalism that I've read in a long time.
Click to expand...


You don't seem to appreciate what globalization is all about. It's about allowing a few people to own more of the world, not making things better for the poor.
 
Glaucus said:
Why Do Rich People Refuse to Vaccinate Their Kids?
Click to expand...

I don't see much of a mystery here. If there is a remote possibility of injury from taking a vaccine then why risk it when instead you can have all the poor people get vaccinated. You can tell them it's 100% safe and 100% effective but ... it isn't so why should they let humans take the risk when the livestock can be vaccinated instead.
 
faethor said:
Eventually what'll happen is that Republican anti-vaccine stronghold is going to be hit by a disease. We've seen it hit the MN Amish with Polio. We've seen it hit the NYC Hassidic population with MMR. We've seen it hit the richer areas of Cali, again with MMR.
Click to expand...

What is this disease called MMR?
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
I don't see much of a mystery here. If there is a remote possibility of injury from taking a vaccine then why risk it when instead you can have all the poor people get vaccinated. You can tell them it's 100% safe and 100% effective but ... it isn't so why should they let humans take the risk when the livestock can be vaccinated instead.
Click to expand...
It's not like they hover above it all Fluffy. That's gotta be one of your dumbest posts ever. As the article pointed out, schools in wealthy areas have low vaccination rates. That means there's no herd protection at all, but there may be a bit of herd stupidity going on there. You are a 5 percenter aren't you?
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
You don't seem to appreciate what globalization is all about. It's about allowing a few people to own more of the world, not making things better for the poor.
Click to expand...
It's about opportunity. People in the poorest wastelands may have only one exportable good: cheap labor.
 
Glaucus said:
It's about opportunity. People in the poorest wastelands may have only one exportable good: cheap labor.
Click to expand...
And if that cheap labor doesn't die off from disease then there's even a greater amount of cheap labor. As we know when the ratio of supply is high and demand is much lower the result is a lower cost to move the supply. So, more cheap labor means even cheaper labor.
 
Death also leads to cheap labor, but it's not obvious perhaps. Poor nations have a high birth rate and for various reasons. They also have a high death rate for various reasons, but overall we see populations in poor areas growing much faster then in richer areas. Keeping them poor and unhealthy would be the best way to keep the labor cheap. A vaccine that eliminates a disease such as malaria will allow them to be more productive which may also lead to a reduction in the birth rate and fewer cheap laborers. Eventually the wages will go up. China won't be the epicentre of cheap labor for ever, that market will migrate elsewhere and China will become a net consumer if it isn't already.

Poor places with only cheap labor as an export will likely always be poor, but that's a relative thing. Being poorer than a rich person doesn't mean you have to live in horrible conditions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top