Italy makes 12 vaccinations compulsory for children

[KipIngram]

You missed my example above - obviously no proven vaccine should fall into that category. But one of our recent governors here in Texas opposed a proven vaccine on the grounds that administering it to teen-age girls would "encourage promiscuity." Never mind that bad stuff could happen worst case if a girl didn't have that vaccination. So he was basing his policy on personal morals. I certainly didn't mean to endorse such behavior.

[dimreepr]

You missed my example above - obviously no proven vaccine should fall into that category. But one of our recent governors here in Texas opposed a proven vaccine on the grounds that administering it to teen-age girls would "encourage promiscuity." Never mind that bad stuff could happen worst case if a girl didn't have that vaccination. So he was basing his policy on personal morals. I certainly didn't mean to endorse such behavior.

 

I'm confused, is this an argument to my post or an excuse for yours?

[KipIngram]

It was an explanation for my post. I didn't see anything you posted that should be "argued with" - it just seemed like you misinterpreted my post. As far as I can tell now we're generally in agreement. Proven valuable vaccines should be administered, independent of any sort of "moral side issues."

Earlier in the thread I someone mentioned that vaccination programs were generally subjected to some sort of planning and "benefit analysis," and I concurred with that as a good idea, provided that the discourse was objective and oriented toward valid health and welfare related points. I cited the HPV episode in Texas as an example where the discourse was not driven by the right sort of thinking. That's all.

[dimreepr]

It was an explanation for my post. I didn't see anything you posted that should be "argued with" - it just seemed like you misinterpreted my post. As far as I can tell now we're generally in agreement. Proven valuable vaccines should be administered, independent of any sort of "moral side issues."

Earlier in the thread I someone mentioned that vaccination programs were generally subjected to some sort of planning and "benefit analysis," and I concurred with that as a good idea, provided that the discourse was objective and oriented toward valid health and welfare related points. I cited the HPV episode in Texas as an example where the discourse was not driven by the right sort of thinking. That's all.

 

Fair enough.

[HB of CJ]

It would appear we do not fully understand how naturally acquired immunity works. So another way of asking would be to inquire why the human species did so well for many years and generations with no artificially acquired disease immunity at all? Before ANY inoculations at all which only go back a couple hundred years?

 

This might be more of a philosophical question. Are we better off as a species relying only on the course of human events including the disease process or are we better off relying completely on a technological artificial shot process that might for any number of reasons fail? Imagined short term benefits vs long term harm?

 

Respectfully. ex RN

[Phi for All]

It would appear we do not fully understand how naturally acquired immunity works. So another way of asking would be to inquire why the human species did so well for many years and generations with no artificially acquired disease immunity at all? Before ANY inoculations at all which only go back a couple hundred years?

 

What do you base "did so well" on? It's certainly not based on mortality rates. Do you really think vaccinations make no difference to the quality of life, as well as its length?

[CharonY]

It would appear we do not fully understand how naturally acquired immunity works.

 

Actually, we do (for all intents and purposes, there are certainly some mechanisms that are not quite clear, but there is far more known than yo assume). In fact there is a whole branch in biology looking into the mechanisms. One of the core mechanism is that it generally requires direct exposure to the respective antigen(s). As such, it does not translate between generations (other than through natural selection those that are unable to develop resistance just die or otherwise do not produce offspring). There is the exception of transgenerational priming, but it is a rather specific phenomenon and is not really relevant to the overall discussion of vaccinations.

 

 

So another way of asking would be to inquire why the human species did so well for many years and generations with no artificially acquired disease immunity at all? Before ANY inoculations at all which only go back a couple hundred years?

 

Compared to now humans were not doing well. An infection often meant that you had a significant chance of harm or death. Infectious diseases were among the top reasons for mortality before vaccinations were developed. Whole areas were depopulated by diseases throughout human history. Thinking that we were better off without them is preposterous.

 

To put in some numbers, measles were responsible for ~2.6 million deaths every year. Now the rate has dropped to ~130k. Smallpox claimed ~3 million deaths a year and was virtually eradicated by vaccines. And yes, vaccines are the only weapon in our arsenal to actually eradicate a disease. Rather unfortunately the rise of anti-vaccination groups have resulted in almost eradicated diseases to rise again.

Edited May 22, 2017 by CharonY

[StringJunky]

It would appear we do not fully understand how naturally acquired immunity works. So another way of asking would be to inquire why the human species did so well for many years and generations with no artificially acquired disease immunity at all? Before ANY inoculations at all which only go back a couple hundred years?

 

This might be more of a philosophical question. Are we better off as a species relying only on the course of human events including the disease process or are we better off relying completely on a technological artificial shot process that might for any number of reasons fail? Imagined short term benefits vs long term harm?

 

Respectfully. ex RN

You must be quite young to have not seen the effects of naturally acquired immunity on some people.

 

It would appear we do not fully understand how naturally acquired immunity works. So another way of asking would be to inquire why the human species did so well for many years and generations with no artificially acquired disease immunity at all? Before ANY inoculations at all which only go back a couple hundred years?

 

This might be more of a philosophical question. Are we better off as a species relying only on the course of human events including the disease process or are we better off relying completely on a technological artificial shot process that might for any number of reasons fail? Imagined short term benefits vs long term harm?

 

Respectfully. ex RN

It is puzzling that you sign off with "ex RN" and yet ask or suggest these things.

 

 

Demographic impact of vaccination: a review.

 

Abstract

Vaccination is one of the most powerful means to save lives and to increase the level of health of mankind. However, the impact of immunization against the most threatening infectious agents on life expectancy has been the object of a still open debate. The main issues are: the relative influence of nutrition and infectious diseases on demographic patterns of populations; the possibility that lives saved thanks to vaccination are subsequently lost due to other competing causes of death; the positive indirect effect of immunization on other causes of death. With regard to past evidence, several data from the United Kingdom and Scandinavian countries show that the widespread use of smallpox vaccination starting at the beginning of the nineteenth century resulted in a marked and sustained decline not only of smallpox-related deaths, but also of the overall crude death rate, and contributed greatly to an unprecedented growth of European population. As to the present, it is estimated that 3 million children are saved annually by vaccination, but 2 million still die because they are not immunized. Tetanus, measles and pertussis are the main vaccine-preventable killers in the first years of life. Data from Bangladesh show that full implementation of EPI vaccines has the potential of reducing mortality by almost one half in children aged 1-4 years. Recent progress in the development of vaccines against agents responsible for much mortality in the developing countries make it possible to forecast a further substantial reduction of deaths for infectious diseases in the next century.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10559545

Edited May 22, 2017 by StringJunky

[Phi for All]

It is puzzling that you sign off with "ex RN" and yet ask or suggest these things.

 

What's to puzzle? RNs with those views become ex-RNs. The system works.

[StringJunky]

 

What's to puzzle? RNs with those views become ex-RNs. The system works.

True.

[John Cuthber]

 

What's to puzzle? RNs with those views become ex-RNs. The system works.

More likely common cause than direct causation.

 

This might be more of a philosophical question. Are we better off as a species relying only on the course of human events including the disease process or are we better off relying completely on a technological artificial shot process that might for any number of reasons fail? Imagined short term benefits vs long term harm?

 

It might be a "philosophical question".

It's definitely a false dichotomy.

We don't "rely completely" on the technology. And we don't "relying only on the course of human events "

I got lots of vaccinations; but if I come across a bug I have not met before (naturally or not), I can still rely on my immune system.

 

It is not an either/or thing.

[HB of CJ]

Again, more of a philosophical question? Or perhaps more of a understanding of human history which may, (may) be capable of being intelligently discussed here? Also, personal attacks upon the messenger regarding the proper long term historical advantage of specie naturally acquired immunity vs the political or economic pitfalls of human intervention may not be the most rational response regarding the question at hand.

 

Italy may be going the wrong way? There may be some expressed or implied temporary benefits of immunization policy today, but in the overall all scheme of things, is Italy doing the correct thing for Italy in the long run? Hundreds of years? How about the rest of Europe? For that matter the rest of the World Population? Is there enough doubt to question such national policy over a great period of time and distance? Oh yeah.

 

Again, more of a philosophical question. Perhaps anthropological. Disease is a natural process. Very much required. Time, numbers and distance. Also I might suggest that working or retired, (due to old age) registered USA nurses perhaps have a better practical understanding of the human disease process and the resulting patient care than most here? What is being explored is an alternate point of view which may be as correct.

 

There are a few words describing the disease process directly affecting population pressures related to many factors, perhaps including technological. This deals also with Humans. It is called Die Back. Respectfully.

[KipIngram]

Also I might suggest that working or retired, (due to old age) registered USA nurses perhaps have a better practical understanding of the human disease process and the resulting patient care than most here?

 

One would think that, but evidently not.

[Delta1212]

 

One would think that, but evidently not.

I know enough people who work in the medical profession that I would not, in fact, think that.

[HB of CJ]

Closer to home every year it is recommended that this Old Coot get a flu shot. Sometimes highly recommended. Usually I decline. However, one year I declined and I caught the flu. Go figure. It was not fun. Imagine both ends at once. But I did get over it. Eventually something will kill me. Probably it will go hand in hand with heart failure.

 

Italy will probably do what it will do. It also greatly depends upon where one lives and what selected life style one accepts. Here in SW OR USA, (43N, 123W, kinda) we perhaps live on another planet. But as one who lives here by choice it might be suggested our standard of living is among the best in the world. Reverent? Nobody gets shots.

 

Respectfully.

[OldChemE]

If you don't like vaccination for childhood diseases, the least you can do is "old world" vaccination. I come from a family of four boys. Every time one of us came down with the standard childhood disease, my mom would fix a really nice breakfast for the sick one, and when he was finished she would feed the other three using the same spoon she used for the sick one (unwashed, of course). There was risk, yes, but at least she knew we were all sick and kept a close eye on us, and took us to the doctor if necessary.

[CharonY]

Obviously, for some diseases it may be a rather bad horrible idea. Sure, the advantage is that you know it is coming and at least you can ensure that the kids are in a healthy state when they get it. But then things can go wrong (as well as some of the viral diseases can break out once one is an adult...).

Edited May 23, 2017 by CharonY

[Phi for All]

Closer to home every year it is recommended that this Old Coot get a flu shot. Sometimes highly recommended. Usually I decline. However, one year I declined and I caught the flu. Go figure. It was not fun. Imagine both ends at once. But I did get over it. Eventually something will kill me. Probably it will go hand in hand with heart failure.

 

Italy will probably do what it will do. It also greatly depends upon where one lives and what selected life style one accepts. Here in SW OR USA, (43N, 123W, kinda) we perhaps live on another planet. But as one who lives here by choice it might be suggested our standard of living is among the best in the world. Reverent? Nobody gets shots.

 

Respectfully.

 

I arranged the experiment differently. After forgetting the shot one year and being sick for six days, I decided to get them every year, and haven't been sick with flu since. It costs nothing, and they couldn't make it any easier.

 

Incredulity is a poor place to start an argument, but I find it hard to give your experienced stance much weight when every medical professional in my life (oh yes, dentist too) tells me to get a flu shot. When even my profit-focused insurance company is happy to fork over some preventative coverage so there's not even a co-pay (if that's all I'm there for), the evidence seems overwhelmingly clear, when you look at it rationally and reasonably.

[KipIngram]

HB of CJ: Your arguments imply that our goal is the strengthening of the species over evolutionary time periods. In that context "just letting natural selection work" is indeed the right strategy. But I for one am very glad we aren't pursuing such a "eugenics like" approach to operating our civilization. Instead, we've chosen to have compassion for individuals of the species. I could not be more happy that I've had the opportunity to immunize my children against diseases that previously wracked our societies. The genetic fitness of humans living hundreds of thousands of years from now just does not matter to me as much as those five girls, and for that matter not as much as any living human.

[Delta1212]

HB of CJ: Your arguments imply that our goal is the strengthening of the species over evolutionary time periods. In that context "just letting natural selection work" is indeed the right strategy. But I for one am very glad we aren't pursuing such a "eugenics like" approach to operating our civilization. Instead, we've chosen to have compassion for individuals of the species. I could not be more happy that I've had the opportunity to immunize my children against diseases that previously wracked our societies. The genetic fitness of humans living hundreds of thousands of years from now just does not matter to me as much as those five girls, and for that matter not as much as any living human.

In actual fact, the best strategy for keeping a species evolutionarily strong is to keep as many individuals alive as possible, not to let them be weeded out by selection pressures.

 

Every individual that dies without reproducing represents the loss or reduction in frequency of some genetic information from the overall gene pool, and while the individual it was found in may not have been fit according to present conditions, they may have been extraordinarily if, or may have had some genes that confer major advantage in a future situation where a new pressure that we can't control presents itself.

 

Genetic diversity strengthens a species overall fitness and helps to "future proof" it against changes in the environment. You increase genetic diversity by pushing back against existing selection pressures that tend to whittle down the diversity of a population in order to make it fit the current environment better. Many species go extinct because pressures caused them to become overfit for environmental challenges that proved transitory at the cost of flexibility to handle future challenges.

 

Eugenics-like belief in allowing natural selection to "strengthen" the species is not just problematic morally in how it views inviduals in the present, but is also fundamentally mistaken about its central premise in terms of the overall long-term effects on the species.

[KipIngram]

Ok, I recognize that as a valid counter-argument, but I think the real right answer would be in the middle of the two extremes. Just a guess - this is certainly not my profession.

But your point is very valid - by failing to reproduce individuals because of "weakness X," we could altogether lose out on "new strength Y." So yes, very good point.

And I think it's also very reasonable to say that if it's as easy to defend against a threat as giving a shot, then that's really not that important of a threat anymore, is it? I.e., if it's that easy for us to protect ourselves, it's just not as necessary that we are born with the protection in place.

Edited May 23, 2017 by KipIngram

[dimreepr]

Ok, I recognize that as a valid counter-argument, but I think the real right answer would be in the middle of the two extremes. Just a guess - this is certainly not my profession.

 

Not every spectrum settles in the middle, history in this case would suggest otherwise.

Edited May 23, 2017 by dimreepr

[KipIngram]

Well, imagine the logical extreme. Imagine you counteract everything that ends lives prior to the opportunity to reproduce. In other words, you pass forward every genome your population ever produces. Just to make sure we're really at the logical extreme, let's say we do so in equal proportions. Now you've "switched off" natural selection completely. Are you arguing that the species will wind up fitter in that case than in the one where natural selection does operate?

[HB of CJ]

In short just let natural selection and the evolutionary process work. Accept the very short term hits in favor of long term saves. What MAY be happening in Italy and many other places nowadays is counter to the natural scheme of things? A natural scheme that appears to work very well over very long periods of time?

 

However ... that being said ... it is very difficult today as parents and adults for us to accept this. We choose to avoid the preventable deaths. Letting half of your family die when prevention, (immunizations) is available is unheard of today. Italy is making such prevention mandatory. Short term gain? Long term loss.

 

When so much of our modern civilization places so many valuable eggs into just one extremely fragile basket is it possible we are setting ourselves up for a catastrophic crash? So many different aspects of our society appear to be more and more dependent upon so many invisible hairs. Just me. Respectfully.

 

retired RN. Agnostic. Libertarian. Minimalist. Homesteader. Dinosaur. Old. 43N, 123W. Kinda.

Edited May 24, 2017 by HB of CJ

[StringJunky]

In short just let natural selection and the evolutionary process work. Accept the very short term hits in favor of long term saves. What MAY be happening in Italy and many other places nowadays is counter to the natural scheme of things? A natural scheme that appears to work very well over very long periods of time?

 

However ... that being said ... it is very difficult today as parents and adults for us to accept this. We choose to avoid the preventable deaths. Letting half of your family die when prevention, (immunizations) is available is unheard of today. Italy is making such prevention mandatory. Short term gain? Long term loss.

 

When so much of our modern civilization places so many valuable eggs into just one extremely fragile basket is it possible we are setting ourselves up for a catastrophic crash? So many different aspects of our society appear to be more and more dependent upon so many invisible hairs. Just me. Respectfully.

 

retired RN. Agnostic. Libertarian. Minimalist. Homesteader. Dinosaur. Old. 43N, 123W. Kinda.

We are not distinct from Nature. What we do are acts of Nature. We are reducing the laws of chance in our favour. Somewhat science fiction at the moment but we may one day lift critical species, including ourselves, off this ultimately doomed planet to a safer haven and hence allow this particular strand of evolution to continue. Through humans, nature is becoming less probabilistic and more deterministic. That's the way it is. We don't know what genes are favourable in any given future environment , so, the more the better. The more genes available for combination, the more permutations are available to produce individuals that can best cope with that potentially hostile future environment; this is the definition of fitness.Variation is insurance against adversity. Vaccination aids that.

Edited May 24, 2017 by StringJunky