1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice

Government considering compulsory vaccines

Discussion in 'Personal' started by Guest, Sep 29, 2019.

  1. Doglover

    Doglover Occasional commenter

    How do you know you have life-long immunity? I don’t understand what you mean about short-lived vaccine immunity?
     
  2. moscowbore

    moscowbore Star commenter

    Many countries will not allow children to attend school unless they have had vaccinations.
     
  3. Nellyfuf2

    Nellyfuf2 Senior commenter

    Vaccine immunity wanes. It gives immunity to children but with time it is not so robust. There are documented outbreaks where vaccinated students have caught diseases they should have been immune to - some evidence that the disease caught was not too bad so vaccination may have been useful. It is mumps that spreads in young males who have been vaccinated that is significant in the national statistics.
    In the fifties the whole population had herd immunity because most people had had the infectious diseases. It was young children who caught measles etc. Babies were protected via breast milk and their mother's immunity. This has changed.
    Also in the fifties, measles etc was on the wane like scarlet fever etc. The medical health officers debated the usefulness of a measles vaccine, noting that should vaccines be introduced then the population must be vaccinated forever and at 85% because her immunity would be lost. It was also noted that measles was usually a mild illness. It had become a monster because this is how the authorities manipulate us to continue the vaccine coverage. Vaccination must continue and at a higher rate because otherwise measles could take a hold and viruses being what they are, the disease could arrive as a more difficult infection variety.
    And if this was explained - instead of people warning about how dangerous measles is - if the above facts were highlighted, then it would make for more rational and less heated debate.
     
  4. nomad

    nomad Star commenter

    Measles virus shows marked genetic stability. The measles virus that causes disease today is the same virus that caused disease in the 1930s. Although viruses such as the influenza virus and HIV are constantly mutating in significant ways, measles virus doesn't change very much.

    The stability of the measles virus is also what makes its vaccine so effective.

    The surface proteins that the measles virus uses to enter cells are ineffective if they suffer any mutation, meaning that any changes to the virus come at a major cost.

    See https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/05/150521133628.htm for an explanation.
     
  5. Doglover

    Doglover Occasional commenter

    I’m not sure where you are getting this information from. It is not entirely accurate and really is not as simple as you make out.
    Take for example, measles. This vaccine offers active, long-lasting immunity. A small percentage of children may not convert to immunity after the first vaccine. Therefore the dose is repeated, pre-school. It is not because immunity has waned, rather because they didn’t convert to immune in the first instance.
    The only way to know who is immune after the first dose is to take titres. That’s not particularly easy to do, so it’s simpler to repeat the dose.
    With pertussis you may get waning of immunity as a child grows older. Again however, there is no way to tell without taking titres how many children this happens in, so the vaccine is repeated in secondary school for all children.
    Having a disease may produce long-lasting immunity - in many cases life-long. Again however, the only way to be sure would be to take titres. Unfortunately however, natural immunity brings with it an infectious period as well as the risk of complications. Artificial immunity from vaccines reduces the unknown period of infection and the possible complications.
     
    nomad likes this.
  6. physicsfanboy

    physicsfanboy Occasional commenter

    I find it obscene that parents are allowed to willingly expose children to preventable illnesses (some of them potentially fatal) as a result of ignorance.
    Yes, make them compulsory. It's in the same category as it is compulsory to feed your children.
     
  7. dumpty

    dumpty Star commenter

    I don't pretend to be an expert on vaccines and see it as a reasonable question a parent would ask.

    Which is of course why I ask. So people who don't know all the answers stop pretending they do and using over emotional language and statements like 'you are killing children'.

    We need to be able to ask questions and receive well argued answers - not the usual and very tiring 'thick and racist' nonsense.


    You have not offered any answers beyond:

    Which is an opinion.

    There has to be a scientific reason as to why vaccines cannot work alone or that we cannot seem to make vaccines for those with allergies and I would be interested to know why - or how close we are to doing that.
     
  8. dumpty

    dumpty Star commenter

    When you do not have children perhaps it is much more normal you will ask questions.

    I am not opposed to vaccines at all (I do question the amount that is recommended) but am very opposed to lovers of vaccines or a government dictating to others how to bring up their children.

    So yes, I do oppose compulsory vaccinations.
     
  9. Owennnn

    Owennnn Occasional commenter

    A vaccine works by exposing an individual to a weakened or dead version of a pathogen (disease causing agent).

    This allows their immune system (white blood cells) to learn to recognise the foreign pathogen and learn to fight it off. And, because the pathogen they are injected with is weak or dead, they don’t suffer any of the symptoms usually.

    Regarding the allergies, in order for the pathogen to stay attenuated it may need additives to the vaccine serum.

    The issue isn’t just allergies to the vaccine though, it is those whose immune systems are weakened/compromised who even if the were given the vaccine, their white blood cells would not be able to learn to recognise the pathogen, so the vaccine simply would not work.

    I’m trying to make this reasonable to understand, I can go into more detail if you have further questions, or less detail if you need clarification.

    Source: I teach Level 4/5 HND Biology
     
  10. dumpty

    dumpty Star commenter

    Appreciate the information.

    My issue here is trying to find out what is being done to make vaccines successful beyond cries of herd immunity and 'you have to get you kid done because I said so'.

    No-one can tell me how many kids are in this super allergic group, nor what level of risk they are at with 1 or 2 kids in a class being not vaccinated.

    The language is often hysterical - the question is, is science choosing hysteria over real progress within its field?
     
  11. border_walker

    border_walker Lead commenter

    I assume that you mean food, not sure that feet contain unusual amounts of aluminium, unless artificial.
    I am curious what you think is produced when the element aluminium is digested. Don't believe that biology has produced a way of breaking down elements!
     
  12. Owennnn

    Owennnn Occasional commenter

    I don’t know of a huge amount of research being done to produce hypoallergenic vaccines.

    However, vaccines aren’t designed to just protect the really weak/vulnerable (flu being an exception). They are designed to protect everyone, from ultimately fatal illnesses. An illness that is uncomfortable or unpleasant but ultimately not regularly life threatening is not vaccinated against, the example being chicken pox, it’s very easy to become immune to chicken pox, just get it once and you’ll never get it again. And we could easily produce a vaccine for chicken pox, but we don’t because the money spent developing and administering one would be a waste compared to the cost of the treatment of the illness.

    The diseases we vaccinate against are lethal, life threatening, or debilitating to even the healthiest of people, which is why everyone who can be, should be vaccinated. We don’t vaccinate to protect others, we vaccinate to protect ourselves, the herd immunity is an added bonus.

    Herd immunity has two benefits, one is the protection of people who for whatever reason (allergies, immunocompromised etc) can’t be vaccinated. The second benefit is it decreases the size of the reservoir the pathogen can survive in, if it can’t fully infect a host/cause symptoms it’s unlikely to be passed on, if it’s not being passed on, it can’t spread, if it can’t spread it can’t increase in numbers and may even decrease, or eventually be wiped out/eradicated. The example there being smallpox. Now this doesn’t work for all diseases, but there are many that it could work for.
     
    dumpty likes this.
  13. Doglover

    Doglover Occasional commenter

    There are vaccines against chicken pox. I think some states in America routinely vaccinate against it. It is used here for susceptible individuals with compromised immune systems, for example.
     
  14. Owennnn

    Owennnn Occasional commenter

    Yes, but it’s not a mainstream/widely used vaccine. I could have picked a better example you’re right.
     
  15. Nellyfuf2

    Nellyfuf2 Senior commenter

    If they decide to use chicken pox vaccine in the UK.....chicken pox will be rated as severe......and people can get it more than once......as pox and as shingles too.....the

    There is a shingles vaccine out there too.
     
  16. Mangleworzle

    Mangleworzle Star commenter

    I suspect no-one here is an expert in vaccinations, why don't you google it?
    Do you know? or not? Are you able to google the answer to find out or is your intention to oppose those who object to your "freedom" being a curtailing of theirs?

    It is part of the MO of anti-vaxxers to ask the same questions over and over again and ignore the answers. Perhaps you could find out for yourself?

    My background is in science, by and large I trust scientists and doctors, I have no reason to imagine they might be able to do the things you want but are withholding it for some reason, any more than someone is hiding the magic cancer cure they have found.
     
    nomad likes this.
  17. chelsea2

    chelsea2 Star commenter

    Girls are vaccinated against rubella, which is a minor disease, but can have dreadful effects on an unborn child. So in that case, the vaccination IS to protect others, even hypothetical ones!
     
  18. Doglover

    Doglover Occasional commenter

    I’m really not sure I follow your logic.

    Also, you cannot get shingles unless you have had chicken pox - unless you are severely immuno-compromised.
    After you have chicken pox, the virus lies dormant within your immune system and can be reactivated in times of stress - physical or otherwise.
    People don’t normally get chicken pox more than once, but it is occasionally possible.
     
    nomad likes this.
  19. Doglover

    Doglover Occasional commenter

    Every child is now vaccinated against rubella.
     
    nomad and chelsea2 like this.
  20. Nellyfuf2

    Nellyfuf2 Senior commenter

    I was replying to Owennn who claimed you could not get chicken pox more than once. I have worked with kids who had it twice in nursery.
    There has been consideration of offering the vaccine for chickenpox. It it becomes widely recommended the consequences of chicken pox will be described as more dangerous.
    Now I am reading up what Chris Exley has said about aluminium. Drat.
     

Share This Page