health

Global measles cases three times higher than last year: WHO

45 Comments
By Stephanie Nebehay

Every region in the world, except the Americas, is experiencing an increase in the number of cases of measles, a vaccine-preventable disease that can kill or disable children, the World Health Organization (WHO) reports.

The WHO's Kate O'Brien put the blame on weak health systems and misinformation about vaccines, and called on social media outlets and communities to make sure information about preventing the highly contagious disease was accurate.

"We are backsliding, we are on the wrong track," O'Brien, director of WHO's department of immunisation, vaccines and biologicals, told a news briefing. "We have a worrying trend that all regions are experiencing an increase in measles except for the region of the Americas, which has seen a small decline."

Nearly three times as many cases were reported from January to July this year than in the same period in 2018, the WHO said.

Nearly 365,000 cases have been reported globally this year, the highest figure since 2006, it said, noting that they represent only a fraction of the 6.7 million suspected cases. Measles caused an estimated 109,000 deaths in 2017, its most recent figures show.

The biggest outbreaks are raging in the Democratic Republic of Congo (155,460 cases), Madagascar (127,454) and Ukraine (54,246), it said.

Europe has also lost ground, with four countries stripped of their "measles-free" status in 2018 - Albania, Czech Republic, Greece and Britain, it said.

The WHO figures did not include a specific breakdown of numbers for the Americas region.

The United States has recorded 1,215 measles cases across 30 states in its worst outbreak since 1992, federal health officials said on Monday.

Health experts say the virus has spread among school-age children whose parents declined to give them the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine, which confers immunity to the disease.

Trust in vaccines - among the world's most effective and widely used medical products - is highest in poorer countries but weaker in wealthier ones where skepticism has allowed outbreaks of diseases such as measles to persist, a global study found in June.

"We do see misinformation as an increasing threat," O'Brien said. "We are calling on social media providers, communities, leaders, people who speak out, to be sure you are communicating accurate, valid, scientifically credible information."

In the 53 countries of Europe, 90,000 measles cases were recorded in the first half of this year, already more than that for all of 2018, said Siddhartha Datta, from the WHO's regional office for Europe.

Ukraine, which accounts for more than half of the cases, is implementing a robust response, he said. "The ministry of health is doing targeted immunisation campaigns ... They are also doing school-based vaccination, high-risk vaccination of military recruits and health care workers."

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2019.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

45 Comments
Login to comment

More big pharma for profit propaganda.

The reasons for scepticism re vaccines:

We don't know exactly what's in them.

Big pharma and govts have been known to lie and cover up re negative/lethal side effects.

Big pharma refuses to compensate victims and makes life hell for claimants.

Please address these problems honestly so that we can make informed decisions based on trust.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

The best prevention against diseases and quick recovery IF affected:

High standards of hygiene and sanitation.

Regular hand washing.

Healthy diet and regular exercise.

Healthy emotional and mental well being.

None of this is mentioned in this article and you'll rarely hear it from big pharma. There's no money in it.

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

The vaccine regimen is vastly more comprehensive than when I was a child. Where is this all going? I predict that in the future they will demand that all children be pumped with a massive plethora of vaccines for every disease/condition imaginable. What will that do to the poor kids? I shudder to think.

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

More big pharma for profit propaganda.

Thatis false, companies makes more money from a single case than hundreds of vaccine doses, if profit was the reason they would be the first ones to stop vaccination.

Also, where is your proof that this information is not true?

The reasons for scepticism re vaccines:

We don't know exactly what's in them.

You don't know what is in the lawn, is that enough to never let a child be outside of the house?

And if you had enough interest you could know exactly what is in the vaccines, every professional that deals with them have the information openly available, wilfully ignoring this information is very different from it being hidden.

Big pharma and govts have been known to lie and cover up re negative/lethal side effects.

And for not doing it, if you have objective evidence of a cover up present it and let it be judged, as the important increase in the quantity and quality of life that vaccination has brought to human civilization, that is also very easy to corroborate and proves that all recommended vaccines are safe and effective.

Big pharma refuses to compensate victims and makes life hell for claimants.

That is also untrue, that would be like saying that the government refuses to put in jail anybody that has been accused of any crime, first because its extremely easy to prove that people are getting compensation including for things that have no realistic posibility to be related to vaccines, and secondly because one thing is to accuse a vaccine to be the one responsible for a negative effect, another that is much more difficult to do is to prove that actually this accusation is true.

Please address these problems honestly so that we can make informed decisions based on trust.

Everything has been addressed satisfactorily for anyone with real interest on truth, but if obviously not for people that knowing it choose to pretend blindness.

The best prevention against diseases and quick recovery IF affected:

High standards of hygiene and sanitation.

Regular hand washing.

Healthy diet and regular exercise.

Healthy emotional and mental well being.

None of this is mentioned in this article and you'll rarely hear it from big pharma. There's no money in it.

Present your data and methodology that proves that vaccination is incompatible with common sense and that makes no difference on top of all that. The scientific consensus is that this is NOT enough to prevent infections, complications and death from preventable diseases and that vaccination has a protective effect that keeps being important even if you do everything listed.

If you don't have the data, how can you know it?

 I predict that in the future they will demand that all children be pumped with a massive plethora of vaccines for every disease/condition imaginable.

Again, vague predictions without information that would lead anybody else to share them are just imagination running wild. As long as the net effect on the health is positive. What is wrong with having lots and lots of vaccinations? is not like you have been able to prove that vaccines are not safe and effective.

That is without mentioning that a simple scratch on the knee exposes a child to orders of magnitude more antigens and adjuvants (both in variety and quantity) that all the vaccines a person could recieve in all his life, and most of these antigens and adjuvants from the scratch are not even known.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

I find it amazing that big pharma and governments expect us to blindly believe that vaccines are safe simply because they say so. Yet, they themselves would never buy anything or enter into any business agreement simply on a seller or potential business partner saying "It's safe!" Who do they think we are? Dumb sheep?

I'm not totally against vaccines in principle, but I reccomended doing due diligence, making informed decisions and politely declining if not convinced.

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

'Herd immunity' =round up all the dumb cattle, inject them with God knows what and walk away with a truck load of profit.

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

There's no doubt that big pharmas are in it for the profit.

But the sheer misinformation being spread by anti-vaxxers is alarming.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

I find it amazing that big pharma and governments expect us to blindly believe that vaccines are safe simply because they say so

That is not correct, the data is there for you to examine and say where is it wrong or false.

Have you done it? please share your analysis and the methodology you used. Or you are expecting us to blindly believe that what you say is true?

 Yet, they themselves would never buy anything or enter into any business agreement simply on a seller or potential business partner saying "It's safe!" 

Again, if they had the same evidence than they share on the safety and efficacy of the vaccines it would be the safest deal ever.

They of course do it with the vaccines, or please share with us the evidence you have that they don't vaccinate their own families. That has never been reported anywhere and many make a big effort to show they do it the same as any other health related measure that has been proved safe and effective.

I'm not totally against vaccines in principle, but I reccomended doing due diligence, making informed decisions and politely declining if not convinced.

That is something many antivaxxers say, but when somebody ask them what vaccine they actually recomend from the literally hundreds that are being used around the world they cannot answer even a single one. So it becomes obvious they are actually against vaccines in principle, but they don't want to accept it.

'Herd immunity' =round up all the dumb cattle, inject them with God knows what and walk away with a truck load of profit.

As said before, and it is something you accepted as true since you did not made any effort to falsify it, companies actually lose profits with vaccination. There is no point in insisting in something that you have accepted as false.

Also, all the other points that were demonstrated as false in your previous comment remain unchallenged by you, is it then OK to assume you have accepted them as mistaken? I mean since you could not support them with any arguments it would be the logical thing to conclude.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

What will that do to the poor kids? I shudder to think.

Keep them alive and healthy?

3 ( +4 / -1 )

@concerned citizen

I vaccinate my kids. But I thumbs up your first comment because i agree with all those points. No wonder people have doubts! Can’t blame them!

But to those people, please, vaccinate your kids and stop dropping turds on a manicured lawn!

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

@that person

I vaccinate my kids. But I thumbs up your first comment because i agree with all those points. No wonder people have doubts! Can’t blame them!

Thanks for your respectful feedback. All the best to you and your precious children.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

I would argue that while in the short term most vaccines are effective in preventing diseases (negative side effects and deaths aside) in the long run they may do more harm than good. Most of the childhood diseases come with mild symptoms and are probably natures way of kicking the child's immune system into gear which guarantees a strong immune system throughout life.

The end goal of 'eradicating disease' by pumping children with an arsenal of vaccines might backfire eventually by weakening their own natural immune systems causing greater susceptibility to diseases, cancer etc later in life.

I prefer to emphasise solid hygiene and health habits along with allowing thier natural immune systems to develop unimpeded by unnatural vaccines.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

I would argue that while in the short term most vaccines are effective in preventing diseases (negative side effects and deaths aside) in the long run they may do more harm than good. Most of the childhood diseases come with mild symptoms and are probably natures way of kicking the child's immune system into gear which guarantees a strong immune system throughout life

Yeah, Polio? Character building!

4 ( +5 / -1 )

@Strangerland

I said "*Most** of the childhood diseases come with mild symptoms" *

Polio is very serious and one vaccine that I'm favorable towards.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

I vaccinate my kids. But I thumbs up your first comment because i agree with all those points. No wonder people have doubts! Can’t blame them!

Except that all those points are moot, the effects of vaccines are well documented and clear so there is no motive to suspect some sinister global conspiracy (to make people healthier?) vaccine contents are easy to get and anybody can get a full list with the same information as the scientists that produce them, and compensation is readily and easily given to people EVEN when they cannot prove that the vaccine has anything to do with something negative that happened, as long as is not clearly impossible they get the money. Its a special system to avoid endless litigation stopping a safe and effective health intervention.

So yes, it people can be blamed if its easy to solve all those doubts with a tiny bit of effort, wondering why they choose to keep that doubts is a perfectly natural response.

in the long run they may do more harm than good.

That can also be studied scientifically, and it is not true, there is no negative effect in the short nor in the long term, people vaccinated live longer healthier lives than those that get infected naturally. Your theory can be demonstrated as false. The same as your previous ones.

Most of the childhood diseases come with mild symptoms and are probably natures way of kicking the child's immune system into gear which guarantees a strong immune system throughout life.

And you know that there is an EVEN safer way to do it? vaccines. Getting a much lower risk of serious complications and death and instead you have to get another safe shot many decades later? that is also a sure deal.

Also, the immune system is not better when it is "strong" as you think, that would mean natural infections would increase importantly the appearance of autoimmune diseases, fortunately there is no real differences between the "natural" but dangerous infection and a safe vaccine in respect with the efficacy of the immune response, It is still very efficacious.

The end goal of 'eradicating disease' by pumping children with an arsenal of vaccines might backfire eventually by weakening their own natural immune systems causing greater susceptibility to diseases, cancer etc later in life.

Well, guess what? that also can be studied and have been falsified, there is no greater susceptibility to diseases in general nor cancer in particular, you can calm down knowing that science have examined that possibility and it turned out your prediction is false.

But after all that is to be expected because, as mentioned before, a tiny scrap introduce to the body of a child dozens and dozens of times more antigens in greater variety and quantity, so the "arsenal" of vaccines that can be received during the life is a minuscule fraction in comparision (to ONE single superficial wound). If humans were so sensitive to such low doses of antigens everybody would die in their youths with a single scrap, something that obviously does not happen.

I prefer to emphasise solid hygiene and health habits along with allowing thier natural immune systems to develop unimpeded by unnatural vaccines.

The problem is that you choose to do it even after knowing that hygiene and habits without vaccines is a worse, more dangerous and inferior option (without any negative effect in the immune system ever being demonstrated as caused by the vaccines that are now recommended)

So, for a theoretical 100% of strength of protection using vaccines you prefer to recommend a much lower strength only because of some vague dangers that have been demonstrated as not existent. Your recommendation is to REDUCE the standard of care for no real reason. Which is not something a professional in the human health services can do ethically.

You may not have any responsibility to recommend things proved right, but doctors, nurses, scientists, etc. Do have it, so it is necessary to respond to all examples of misinformation that you have copied here. It is not only a civil duty but also a professional one.

Polio is very serious and one vaccine that I'm favorable towards.

All other preventable diseases can also be serious and produce permanent damage or even death, and since all vaccines have been proved safe and effective the only rational thing to do is to support all of them.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

The best prevention against diseases and quick recovery IF affected:

High standards of hygiene and sanitation.

Regular hand washing.

Healthy diet and regular exercise.

Healthy emotional and mental well being.

No, this is utter garbage.

Measles is highly contagious, and if you have no immunity through vaccination or through previously contracting the disease, the methods you describe do not prevent you from catching it.

And when you do catch it, you're not in control of how seriously it will affect you.

However, your post is informative in terms of demonstrating the absolute ignorance of the committed vaccine denier.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Measles ain't polio. Not even in the same ball park. Even so I recommend a measles vaccination.

Nearly 365,000 cases have been reported globally this year, the highest figure since 2006, it said, noting that they represent only a fraction of the 6.7 million suspected cases.

Sounds like reporting is up rather than measles cases.

"We have a worrying trend that all regions are experiencing an increase in measles except for the region of the Americas, which has seen a small decline."

Odd that, as I am pretty sure the anti-vaxx movement is strongest in the U.S.A. Yet we have this:

The WHO's Kate O'Brien put the blame on weak health systems and misinformation about vaccines

Throwing in the "misinformation" bit makes it sound like propaganda considering what I said above.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

From the Annual Summary of Vital Statistics: Trends in the Health of Americans During the 20th Century

Bernard Guyer, Mary Anne Freedman, Donna M. Strobino, Edward J. Sondik

[Between 1900 and 1998, the percentage of child deaths attributable to infectious diseases declined from 61.6% to 2%]

https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/106/6/1307?download=true

Why did the massive decline start from 1900, 60-70 years before vaccines became widespread?

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

I said "*Most** of the childhood diseases come with mild symptoms"

All the "childhood diseases" can result in life-altering complications. And all the childhood diseases are potentially fatal.

And the history of these diseases is indeed childhood deaths.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Why did the massive decline start from 1900, 60-70 years before vaccines became widespread?

For a start, because you're only considering deaths from disease as being worthy of consideration. That's an old failing of vaccine deniers.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

@wipeout

For a start, because you're only considering deaths from disease as being worthy of consideration. That's an old failing of vaccine deniers.

You haven't answered the question. So I'll answer it.

Increased awareness re hygiene and sanitation.

Higher living standards.

Clean water.

Antibiotics (widespread since the 40's) and better health care.

Better nutrition.

Etc.

All of this before vaccine administration programs became widespread.

Like I said, I'm not totally against vaccines in principle. They are an option worth considering. But they come with risks and are not the first or only line of defense.

Let the individuals decide without judgement from others.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

All the "childhood diseases" can result in life-altering complications. And all the childhood diseases are potentially fatal.

That's some real fear mongering right there. How many deaths from water warts in human history? Or tooth decay in baby teeth? Rickets ain't no fun, but if anyone ever died with rickets it probably wasn't the rickets but the same poor diet that caused the rickets that killed them. Osgood–Schlatter disease which is generally self-limiting and operable if necessary surely has killed no one. Could probably find more. Could probably also list some where death could usually have been avoided with decent diet, hydration and other simple things. But that sort of over-blown fear mongering is one of the pillars that holds up the anti-vaxx movement....stop with the hype please.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Measles kills. Handwashing and spouting nonsense about big pharma and eating properly doesn't stop this. Vaccines do though.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

@Luddite

Measles kills.

Very rarely

Vaccines kill as well. Very rarely.

So let's let people take thier pick without judgement please.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

That's some real fear mongering right there. How many deaths from water warts in human history? Or tooth decay in baby teeth? Rickets ain't no fun, but if anyone ever died with rickets it probably wasn't the rickets but the same poor diet that caused the rickets that killed them. 

My comment was in the context of someone else's words, right here:

"I would argue that while in the short term most vaccines are effective in preventing diseases (negative side effects and deaths aside) in the long run they may do more harm than good. Most of the childhood diseases come with mild symptoms and are probably natures way of kicking the child's immune system into gear which guarantees a strong immune system throughout life."

That commenter was evidently talking about vaccine preventable diseases; in addition, "childhood diseases" in vaccine debates tends to be referring to those. You may consider my own comment to have been framed in that context.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Measles kills and causes life changing disabilities such as blindness, deafness and brain impairment. Vaccines can prevent that.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

@Luddite

Measles kills and causes life changing disabilities such as blindness, deafness and brain impairment.

So can vaccines. Even big pharma has admitted that. So.......as I said before, let's let people take thier pick without judgement please.

Fair?

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

So can vaccines. Even big pharma has admitted that.

In a much less probability, seat belts can also kill, do you defend people not wanting to use them?

You have not defended any of the mistaken arguments you used before, does that mean that you accept them as false? it is then reasonable to expect then you not to use them again because of that? I mean, it is only honest to discuss using only things you know are true, and not things that you have accepted as false.

as I said before, let's let people take thier pick without judgement please.

Why is that? if it can be easily demonstrated that people are being lied to and decide very important measures based on those lies It is everybody responsibility to at least make an effort to falsify those lies. If people insist on believing in something that has been proven false it is unfortunate but they have the right to put in risk their children's health, but only that. Part of the consequences of insisting in falsehoods is that the objective scientific knowledge can be used to restrict their rights for the benefit of the community. Homeschooling and restriction to access to public spaces is a perfectly reasonable (and fair) consequence for this.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Question for pro vaxxers:

How about letting everyone decide for themselves without judgement from others? It's a free world right?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

I have a good friend with a few doctorates who works in pharma research (not one of the major firms). I believe and trust him when he says anti-vaxxers are idiots.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

How about letting everyone decide for themselves without judgement from others? It's a free world right?

Once again, if decide on something that can be demonstrated as mistaken that is of course your mistake to make, and unfortunately your children will have to deal with the consequences. But since it is also perfectly possible to demonstrate that this action also increase the risk for the rest of the population part of those consequences are that the children will not have access to public spaces or schools as the vaccinated children do. As long as you are fine with this consequences you are free to choose.

The problem is that most antivaxxers want to have the cake and eat it too. Get the benefits of the scientific progress without accepting also the responsibility that come with those. Make an irrational choice but dodge the consequences.

Its like driving and alcohol. It does not matter how much one person insist that drinking makes him drive better, that still means he cannot do it on a public road because scientifically it can be proved that this is not true, choosing to drink have the consequences of not being able to drive, as simple as that.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

@virusrex

HIV/AIDS sufferers are not refusing a proven safe and effective measure that eliminates the risk2 HIV/AIDS sufferers are not choosing to be sick and specially are not given the option of being cured.

What about those who refused to or didn't wear condoms? Those who practiced unsafe sex? How about intravenous drug users? All of these would have ignored warnings regarding their behaviour. Will you advocate that society excludes them as well?

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Let me put here then an exaggerated analogy.

Somebody believe firmly, without any possibility of changing his opinion, that the best action to prevent infections is to use daily an ointment with high levels of radioactive materials so the germs gets killed by radiation before entering the body.

Scientifically it can be of course proved that doing this is hugely more dangerous to his health and the health of the people that are near him, but he insist that this is just scare mongering (big pharma trying to sell antibiotics) and that he is convinced that his way is better and more healthy even if he cannot prove it.

So, in this situation.

Would you be fine if the children of this person (treated in the same way) go to school and sit next to yours? play with them? let some radioactive materials enter their bodies?

Would you accept the position that scientific proof that he is wrong can be simply discarded as long as he don't want to listen?

Would you be ok letting him do it to his own children? even if it can be proved their lives will be shorter?

Would it be Nazi to make him choose between stop doing this or get close to other people?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

@virusrex

Please answer my question first then I'll gladly answer yours.

HIV/AIDS sufferers are not refusing a proven safe and effective measure that eliminates the risk2 HIV/AIDS sufferers are not choosing to be sick and specially are not given the option of being cured.

What about those who refused to or didn't wear condoms? Those who practiced unsafe sex? How about intravenous drug users? All of these would have ignored warnings regarding their behaviour. Will you advocate that society excludes them as well?

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

All of these would have ignored warnings regarding their behaviour. Will you advocate that society excludes them as well?

With the verbs in past form? of course not, because those are things already done, from the point of view of public health is simply more productive to solve the situation for example with antiviral medication, education, etc. That is beneficial for both them and others.

If they insist in purposefully engaging in activities that endanger others, after being fully educated and informed about the risks that is of course a different situation. Any person in this case can be validly accused of deliberately trying to infringe on other people's health (Criminal transmission of an infectious disease), and if found guilty, some of his rights can be suspended for the benefit of the community.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

@virusrex

If they insist in purposefully engaging in activities that endanger others, after being fully educated and informed about the risks that is of course a different situation.

Education re how HIV/AIDS is spread has been thoroughly disseminated and known for decades. So.....past, present or future cases since this has been universally known.......

What about those who refused to or didn't wear condoms? Those who practiced unsafe sex? How about intravenous drug users? All of these would have ignored warnings regarding their behaviour. Will you advocate that society excludes them as well? If so, how?

Looking forward to your answer.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

So you answering after me was a lie? sad to see you dont put value on your own honesty, but I can't say its surprising.

Education re how HIV/AIDS is spread has been thoroughly disseminated and known for decades

That is unfortunately not true.

Would you think that the fact that vaccination is safer and more effective protection than natural infection is something universally known? surprisingly, not the case either.

Repeating my answer because that is another thing you choose to ignore. If it can be proved they willfully put others at risk and choose to keep doing it even with the option to avoid it there are of course laws that take care of this as criminal actions that will suspend their rights as necessary for the benefit of the community.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

@virusrex

Somebody believe firmly, without any possibility of changing his opinion, that the best action to prevent infections is to use daily an ointment with high levels of radioactive materials so the germs gets killed by radiation before entering the body.

That's far fetched. No, I wouldn't agree with a purposely radioactive person being allowed interaction with others.

How about the persons who past present or future, knew very well of the threat of HIV/AIDS, knew the risks of failure to use condoms, knew of the risks of intravenous drug use, but ignored them and have been diagnosed with HIV/AIDS. Upon diagnosis, should they be excluded from society in some way? If so, how?

Looking forward to your response.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

That's far fetched. No, I wouldn't agree with a purposely radioactive person being allowed interaction with others.

It is expected to be farfetched, if you read again the comment at the beginning it was clearly explained that it was exaggerated, this is done so there is no ambiguity.

Now, with your answer you express the rational thing to do with people that choose to be unvaccinated, it is the same rational.

Now, it would be very hypocritical to expect one standard to be used for other people that expose you and your family to risk and another much more lax standard when you do the same to others. If you think that ignorance and rejection of science is not an excuse, it means it is not an excuse in all cases.

How about the rest of the questions? Is is ok to assume your answer would be the same? That rejecting science is not an excuse to expose others etc.? That means that you accept that scientific knowledge can be used to restrict the freedom of someone even if that person disagrees (without any basis) with this knowledge.

Upon diagnosis, should they be excluded from society in some way? If so, how?

And for the third time, on diagnosis they have not exposed anybody but themselves, its perfectly reasonable to expect they will accept antiviral therapy that will increase their health and reduce the exposure to other people to the same levels than everybody else. Another completely different situation is someone infected purposefully and actively exposing other people to be infected according to the consensus of science, and their suspension of rights will be according to the actions that they take to expose other people. It will not matter if they believe they are not exposing others, since it can be proved scientifically they will be subjected to the appropriate penalties.

All this is perfectly included in laws that are being applied around the world, there is nothing theoretical about it so even if you keep repeating the question the answer is still the same, I know it is not the answer you want but it is the real answer so...

2 ( +2 / -0 )

@virusrex

Before proceeding I just wanna say that I consider this a friendly exchange of opinion. No animosity intended. Only respect.

And for the third time, on diagnosis they have not exposed anybody but themselves

Why should those who by willfully ignoring public health warnings already have a usually eventually deadly disease (HIV/AIDS) be free to interact with others thus putting society at risk, but unvaccinated children who don't have any disease ought to be separated?

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Why should those who by willfully ignoring public health warnings alreadyhave a usually eventually deadly disease (HIV/AIDS) be free to interact with others thus putting society at risk, but unvaccinated children who don't have any disease ought to be separated?

Because the first ones can eliminate the risk to others, to the same levels as if they were uninfected with proper pharmacological treatment, this mean they can be infected WITHOUT putting society at risk, Unvaccinated children of course can also do it, when they are vaccinated.

You keep trying to force your example. It does not work as you want because people can be infected with HIV without increasing the risk to others (by being responsible about it), an unvaccinated kid is contagous by proximity long before it has symptoms, so the only practical way to reach the same degree of safety as an HIV infected patient is to be vaccinated.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

@virusrex

Because the first ones can eliminate the risk to others, to the same levels as if they were uninfected with proper pharmacological treatment, this mean they can be infected WITHOUT putting society at risk,

Do you think that those who behaved irresponsibility by ignoring public health warnings re HIV/AIDS are suddenly going to be responsible and compliant with medical treatment? Many refuse treatment, many don't take the medication given, many are at high risk of of infection but refuse testing.

Sorry, but your proposal to separate and collectively punish unvaccinated kids (who have no disease at all) is discriminatory and a denial of human rights to education and other services. If applied to HIV/AIDS carriers it would be equally discriminatory.

Your proposal has backed itself into a corner.

Please consider a fair arrangement which would be, mutual respect for other's decisions without judgement.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

How about letting everyone decide for themselves without judgement from others?

How about not.

Children don't decide for themselves, and they're the major group who are recommended for vaccination. Where children are concerned, the question is not one of freedom or of individual choice.

For those unvaccinated adults who can decide for themselves, the decision not to vaccinate is being made based on ignorance and lies. Further, you're implying that you should have a right to randomly infect others with vaccine-preventable diseases, even to set off outbreaks.

That's not a right, even if you were willing to accept financial responsibility for the consequences of your choice.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Do you think that those who behaved irresponsibility by ignoring public health warnings re HIV/AIDS are suddenly going to be responsible and compliant with medical treatment?

Because now their lives is on the line? it does not matter, they CAN do it, they have not exposed anybody.

Many refuse treatment, many don't take the medication given, many are at high risk of of infection but refuse testing.

And AFTER they refuse, then their freedoms may be restricted, not before, And since HIV is extremely more difficult to transmit than preventable childhood diseases they still can act relatively free without increasing the risk of others.

But of course, and for the fourth time, if after being infected it can be proved that by reckless actions or even on purpose expose other people to the infection THEN it can be treated as a criminal action and they can lose a lot of their freedoms.

Let me put is more simply because you seem to have a lot of trouble understanding this.

An HIV infected person do not increase risk to others just by being infected. It requires other actions.

An unvaccinated kid DO increase the risk to others just by being infected. It does not require other actions (above having a normal life).

Sorry, but your proposal to separate and collectively punish unvaccinated kids (who have no disease at all) is discriminatory and a denial of human rights to education and other services.

I don't know how to tell you this, but your opinion is wrong, and even more, this is not a proposal, is a description of laws that are already in place in cities like New York, No human right denial.

This is because it can be proved that unvaccinated kids increase the risk of the people that are around them, even if they are not yet infected because it does not matter how much hygiene and good diet, etc. they have they have a much greater risk of getting the disease (and transmit it) than vaccinated individuals.

Contrary to your opinion about human rights this is not just a belief but something that can be proved with scientific data, even if you don't want to accept this data yourself.

If applied to HIV/AIDS carriers it would be equally discriminatory.

Only if it was applied to people that act responsibly with their disease, which is the vast majority.

Parents of Unvaccinated kids can act responsibly by vaccinating or irresponsibly by choosing the most risky option, acting irresponsibly is what bring the limit of freedoms as a consequence.

Your proposal has backed itself into a corner.

Again, this is not a proposal, is a reality that has been ethically examined and found valid.

If you don't think is justified you can examine the rationale used and explain what parts are not valid with the proper authorities.

Please consider a fair arrangement which would be, mutual respect for other's decisions without judgement.

So you would not jugde the radioactive kid that touch your children's food? is this argument enough for you to accept this increased risk for your family and yourself? you have to respect that kid's family decisions right?

I though we were clear that you have to use the same standard or be validly accused of being hypocritical.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

I'll bow out of this discussion. it's been enlightening debating with you guys. No malice intended and none received. Thanks for your opinions. All the best to each of you.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites