Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.electronics.design > #446532 > unrolled thread

Vaccinations

Back to article view | Back to sci.electronics.design

Contents

  Vaccinations Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-06 17:50 -0700
    Re: Vaccinations bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-06 16:55 -0800
      Re: Vaccinations rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 21:26 -0500
    Re: Vaccinations Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-02-06 17:56 -0700
      Re: Vaccinations "dcaster@krl.org" <dcaster@krl.org> - 2017-02-06 17:01 -0800
      Re: Vaccinations Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-06 18:04 -0700
      Re: Vaccinations Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-07 12:21 +1100
        Re: Vaccinations Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-02-06 18:57 -0700
          Re: Vaccinations Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-07 13:17 +1100
            Re: Vaccinations Rheilly Phoull <rheilly@bigslong.com> - 2017-02-07 10:22 +0800
            Re: Vaccinations rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 21:35 -0500
              Re: Vaccinations Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-07 13:39 +1100
                Re: Vaccinations rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 23:31 -0500
            Re: Vaccinations Martin Riddle <martin_ridd@verizon.net> - 2017-02-06 22:47 -0500
            Re: Vaccinations John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-06 20:46 -0800
              Re: Vaccinations bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com - 2017-02-07 02:20 -0800
              Re: Vaccinations dplatt@coop.radagast.org (Dave Platt) - 2017-02-07 11:30 -0800
                Re: Vaccinations John Larkin <jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-07 12:03 -0800
                  Re: Vaccinations Reinhardt Behm <rbehm@hushmail.com> - 2017-02-08 18:22 +0800
                    Re: Vaccinations rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 05:23 -0500
                      Re: Vaccinations Reinhardt Behm <rbehm@hushmail.com> - 2017-02-08 18:39 +0800
                        Re: Vaccinations bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-08 06:12 -0800
                          Re: Vaccinations David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-08 15:38 +0100
                          Re: Vaccinations M Philbrook <jamie_ka1lpa@charter.net> - 2017-02-09 19:27 -0500
                            Re: Vaccinations bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-09 16:59 -0800
                    Re: Vaccinations bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-08 06:09 -0800
                      Re: Vaccinations David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-08 15:39 +0100
                        Re: Vaccinations rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 17:05 -0500
          Re: Vaccinations Martin Riddle <martin_ridd@verizon.net> - 2017-02-06 22:45 -0500
          Re: Vaccinations Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-02-07 08:21 +0000
      Re: Vaccinations Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-02-07 08:19 +0000
        Re: Vaccinations rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 04:20 -0500
          Re: Vaccinations Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-02-07 09:42 +0000
      Re: Vaccinations Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> - 2017-02-07 17:57 +0000
        Re: Vaccinations Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-02-07 11:12 -0700
          Re: Vaccinations "tom" <tmiller11147@verizon.net> - 2017-02-07 15:43 -0500
            Re: Vaccinations krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-07 21:15 -0500
              Re: Vaccinations amdx <nojunk@knology.net> - 2017-02-08 07:46 -0600
                Re: Vaccinations krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-08 12:45 -0500
                Re: Vaccinations dplatt@coop.radagast.org (Dave Platt) - 2017-02-08 11:33 -0800
                  Re: Vaccinations rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 17:19 -0500
              Re: Vaccinations Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> - 2017-02-08 17:57 +0000
                Re: Vaccinations krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-08 13:16 -0500
                  Re: Vaccinations Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2017-02-08 18:32 +0000
                    Re: Vaccinations Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-08 12:09 -0700
          Re: Vaccinations John Devereux <john@devereux.me.uk> - 2017-02-07 21:08 +0000
            Re: Vaccinations David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-08 12:45 +0100
              Re: Vaccinations Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> - 2017-02-08 18:00 +0000
                Re: Vaccinations krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-08 13:16 -0500
                  Re: Vaccinations Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-02-08 11:28 -0700
                    Re: Vaccinations krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-08 20:33 -0500
                Re: Vaccinations rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 17:26 -0500
                  Re: Vaccinations Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> - 2017-02-08 23:09 +0000
                    Re: Vaccinations Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-02-08 15:33 -0800
                    Re: Vaccinations bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-08 15:42 -0800
                    Re: Vaccinations Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-02-08 23:43 +0000
                    Re: Vaccinations rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 20:56 -0500
                  Re: Vaccinations David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-09 10:58 +0100
                    Re: Vaccinations rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 05:35 -0500
                      Re: Vaccinations David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-09 12:54 +0100
                        Re: Vaccinations rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 07:20 -0500
                          Re: Vaccinations Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-02-09 13:38 +0000
                          Re: Vaccinations David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-09 14:56 +0100
                            Re: Vaccinations rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 17:47 -0500
                              Re: Vaccinations bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-09 17:16 -0800
                          Re: Vaccinations Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-02-09 16:40 +0000
                            Re: Vaccinations amdx <nojunk@knology.net> - 2017-02-09 11:04 -0600
                            Re: Vaccinations rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 17:46 -0500
                      Re: Vaccinations amdx <nojunk@knology.net> - 2017-02-09 09:15 -0600
                      Re: Vaccinations Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> - 2017-02-10 16:36 +0000
                        Re: Vaccinations bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-10 16:41 -0800
            Re: Vaccinations John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-08 09:12 -0800
              Re: Vaccinations Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-02-08 09:36 -0800
                Re: Vaccinations John Larkin <jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-08 12:40 -0800
              Re: Vaccinations Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-08 11:51 -0700
              Re: Vaccinations John Devereux <john@devereux.me.uk> - 2017-02-09 15:02 +0000
                Re: Vaccinations rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 17:46 -0500
                  Re: Vaccinations Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> - 2017-02-10 16:52 +0000
                    Re: Vaccinations bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-10 16:46 -0800
                Re: Vaccinations krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-09 21:12 -0500
                  Re: Vaccinations bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-09 19:01 -0800
                  Re: Vaccinations John Devereux <john@devereux.me.uk> - 2017-02-10 08:23 +0000
                    Re: Vaccinations krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-10 12:23 -0500
                      Re: Vaccinations John Devereux <john@devereux.me.uk> - 2017-02-10 18:09 +0000
        Re: Vaccinations rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 16:31 -0500
    Re: Vaccinations artie <artie.m@gNOSPAMmail.com> - 2017-02-06 17:28 -0800
      Re: Vaccinations Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-06 19:11 -0700
        Re: Vaccinations rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 21:34 -0500
    Re: Vaccinations Frank Miles <fpm@u.washington.edu> - 2017-02-07 01:52 +0000

Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5  Next page →

#446999

On 2/9/2017 6:54 AM, David Brown wrote:
> On 09/02/17 11:35, rickman wrote:
>> On 2/9/2017 4:58 AM, David Brown wrote:
>>> On 08/02/17 23:26, rickman wrote:
>>>> On 2/8/2017 1:00 PM, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 08 Feb 2017 12:45:35 +0100, David Brown wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Chicken pox is almost always mild if you get it as a kid - the younger
>>>>>> the better (but not babies - you need to have a more developed immune
>>>>>> system).  The people who suffer badly from chicken pox are usually
>>>>>> teenagers or adults.  It is common that when a kindergarten kid gets
>>>>>> chicken pox, the parents hold a "chicken pox party" so that lots of
>>>>>> other kindergarten kids can come and get it at an early age where all
>>>>>> they get is a few spots and possibly a night of mild fever.
>>>>>
>>>>> In the good old days when sanity reined, yes. But I would imagine that
>>>>> today Big Pharma and the CDC would have something to say about such
>>>>> practices.
>>>>
>>>> Chickenpox is not always innocuous, being downright dangerous to others
>>>> around the infected child such as a pregnant woman, and a vaccine is
>>>> available.  Why on earth would anyone want to be infected with a disease
>>>> rather than take a vaccine?  Being vaccinated against chickenpox also
>>>> helps to protect you from shingles later in life.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Chickenpox is very rarely a serious problem, and usually high-risk
>>> people (such as pregnant women who have not had it themselves, or
>>> parents with very young babies, or older or otherwise high-risk people
>>> who have not already had it) are aware of that.  Certainly in Norway
>>> people are informed about that.  So if kids in a kindergarten have
>>> chickenpox, the kindergarten puts up notices warning people.
>>
>> That caution.  Exposing children to a disease which can have serious
>> effects is reckless.  It is amazing that some people fear vaccines more
>> than they fear disease.
>
> I agree it is amazing - I am not one of these people.
>
>> "Rare" is not non-existent.
>
> As is the case with rare side-effects or adverse reactions with
> vaccines.  I don't know much about what the rate of side-effects is with
> the chickenpox vaccine - it is not in widespread use here, or at least
> was not when my kids were young enough for it to be relevant.  My
> understanding is that it is a weakened live virus, and thus carries its
> own risk of causing outbreaks late in life, and that it is only about
> 85% effective (though 95% effective at stopping serious cases).  If you
> want to worry about rare problems with the disease, you must apply the
> same reasoning to the vaccine.  Chickenpox is /not/ like measles.
>
> It is all a balance - a tradeoff.  What are the risks with the disease?
>  What are the risks with the vaccines?  What are the costs to society
> that we live with the disease?  What are the costs of vaccinating?  Are
> there alternative methods of reducing the risks and complications?  Is
> it possible to identify high-risk candidates and deal with them separately?
>
> With chickenpox, many countries have a balance where they give the
> vaccine to people at higher risk (such as compromised immune systems),
> older teenage girls who haven't had the disease (to protect them during
> pregnancy), and perhaps to adults who haven't had the disease (since it
> hits adults harder).  They do not see it as being worthwhile or
> cost-effective as part of mainstream vaccinations - after all, some
> 80-90% of the population are already immune.
>
>>  Pregnant women
>> often don't know they are pregnant for some time.  The fetus is *very*
>> vulnerable to infections when it is very young.
>
> Not with chickenpox - the serious problems arise if you get it in the
> third trimester.  But it is absolutely a good idea to vaccinate women
> who have not had the disease, in good time before they get pregnant.
>
>> This is no different
>> than drinking alcohol which no responsible adult will do when there is a
>> chance of being pregnant.
>
> Yeah, right.  Have you any idea what proportion of pregnancies occur
> under the influence of alcohol?  Or perhaps you just think that a large
> proportion of mothers in the western world are irresponsible.

Lol!  Being drunk at conception is not the same thing...


> Of course most responsible people will limit their alcohol intake if
> they think it is likely that they will get pregnant, and stop drinking
> if they think they /are/ pregnant.
>
>>
>>
>>> Chickenpox is not in the same category as diseases like measles, or
>>> mumps.  In the vast majority of cases, it has extremely low risk of
>>> complications, serious lasting effects, or even much discomfort.
>>
>> "Vast majority"... yet the serious side effects exist.
>>
>
> The vast majority of people survive crossing the road without serious
> side effects - but some don't.  There are alternatives - we could build
> more bridges, put up more traffic lights, ban cars.  But on balance,
> society chooses rather to deal with the biggest risk cases (crack down
> on drunk driving, put up crossings at key spots) while accepting that
> bad things occasionally happen.

And we *do* have crosswalks and jaywalking is illegal!


>>> The chickenpox vaccine is relatively recent, or at least it is
>>> relatively recent that it has become widespread.  My kids have all had
>>> chickenpox, and the vaccine was never an option when they were young.
>>>
>>> Because chickenpox is only a serious risk for a few people - the very
>>> young, and the small percentage of the adult population who did not have
>>> it as a kid - chicken pox parties work well as a method of herd
>>> immunisation.
>>
>> If a vaccine harms one person in 100,000 it is considered dangerous.
>> This is from the CDC web page...
>>
>> Before the vaccine, about 100 people died each year as a result of
>> chickenpox in the United States.
>>
>> So you are ok with that many deaths from Chickenpox?
>
> Vaccinate the people who have a serious risk of dying - in the case of
> chickenpox, that means people with compromised immune systems and the
> small proportion of adults who have not had the disease.  Widespread
> vaccination of all children will have little effect on this number (not
> /no/ effect, but little effect).

We were talking about the "chickenpox parties".


>>> Now, if the vaccine has become common enough to be cheap and simple, and
>>> gives long-term immunity, then I fully agree that it is a better
>>> alternative to getting chicken pox.  That was not the case when my kids
>>> were at that age, at least not here in Norway, but if it is the case
>>> now, then great - I'd vaccinate myself and my kids if we had not already
>>> had the disease.
>>
>> That statement is just so ill-informed.  Chickenpox is a disease that
>> harms people, then later in life can cause great discomfort or injury,
>> even blindness.  Being vaccinated to the disease can't even be compared
>> to "chickenpox parties".  This is the talk of the truly ignorant.
>>
>
> No, it is not ill-informed - it is just not blowing things out of
> proportion.  I am a strong vaccine supporter.  I expect that eventually
> the chickenpox vaccine will become part of the standard vaccination
> routines in most western countries, including Norway.  I agree that it
> is better to be vaccinated against it than to get it.  And I have
> absolutely nothing against vaccines.

Ok, then you agree with me.  Your other statements don't sound like that.


> But I don't see chickenpox as a serious problem here.  The prime reason
> for vaccinating against chickenpox is economic - it is cheaper to
> vaccinate kids than to have a parent stay home for a week looking after
> a spotty but otherwise healthy child.

Who's saying chickenpox is a serious problem.  We are talking about an 
irresponsible act of infecting children with chickenpox so they will "be 
done with it" rather than getting the vaccine.


> There are plenty of other diseases that are much more of an issue, and
> cause more suffering and death.  Put the effort into stopping malaria,
> or dengue fever, or something else that is /really/ a problem disease.
> There are plenty of other problems in society that cause more suffering
> and death.  If the money spend on chickenpox vaccines were spent on
> installing alcohol locks on car ignitions, you'd save a thousand times
> as many lives per dollar spent.

Irrelevant.  Alcohol locks is a political issue.  There is no reason why 
you can't get all the vaccines needed.  There is plenty of money for it. 
  You wouldn't be downplaying chickenpox if you had shingles right now.


> By overstating the risks of a minor disease like chickenpox, you also
> lose ground in the /real/ battle about vaccinations, especially in the
> USA.  The problem is not about vaccinating against every minor childhood
> disease - it is making sure that all children are vaccinated against the
> /major/ ones.  When you fuss about wanting vaccines for something as
> minor as chickenpox, you will be viewed as categorising it together with
> serious diseases like measles.  When you tell the vaccine sceptic that
> their kids should be vaccinated against chickenpox and measles, they say
> "our kid has had chickenpox - he had spots for a couple of days.  I
> guess measles is much the same, so no need for a vaccine there either".
>  (Yes, you are dealing with irrational people there.)

There you go again.  I had a friend who nearly died of shingles.  Yes, 
nearly died.  You just don't get it.


> In the meantime, in countries like Norway where there is no mass
> vaccination against chickenpox, the simplest, cheapest, most reliable
> and least unpleasant alternative is to accept that your (otherwise
> healthy) kids /will/ get chickenpox, and the earlier they get it, the
> better.

More bullshit.  Get the vaccine.  You don't have to wait for someone to 
shove it down your throats.

-- 

Rick C

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#447003

On 09/02/17 12:20, rickman wrote:
> On 2/9/2017 6:54 AM, David Brown wrote:
>> On 09/02/17 11:35, rickman wrote:
>>> On 2/9/2017 4:58 AM, David Brown wrote:
>>>> On 08/02/17 23:26, rickman wrote:
>>>>> On 2/8/2017 1:00 PM, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 08 Feb 2017 12:45:35 +0100, David Brown wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Chicken pox is almost always mild if you get it as a kid - the younger
>>>>>>> the better (but not babies - you need to have a more developed immune
>>>>>>> system).  The people who suffer badly from chicken pox are usually
>>>>>>> teenagers or adults.  It is common that when a kindergarten kid gets
>>>>>>> chicken pox, the parents hold a "chicken pox party" so that lots of
>>>>>>> other kindergarten kids can come and get it at an early age where all
>>>>>>> they get is a few spots and possibly a night of mild fever.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the good old days when sanity reined, yes. But I would imagine that
>>>>>> today Big Pharma and the CDC would have something to say about such
>>>>>> practices.
>>>>>
>>>>> Chickenpox is not always innocuous, being downright dangerous to others
>>>>> around the infected child such as a pregnant woman, and a vaccine is
>>>>> available.  Why on earth would anyone want to be infected with a disease
>>>>> rather than take a vaccine?  Being vaccinated against chickenpox also
>>>>> helps to protect you from shingles later in life.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Chickenpox is very rarely a serious problem, and usually high-risk
>>>> people (such as pregnant women who have not had it themselves, or
>>>> parents with very young babies, or older or otherwise high-risk people
>>>> who have not already had it) are aware of that.  Certainly in Norway
>>>> people are informed about that.  So if kids in a kindergarten have
>>>> chickenpox, the kindergarten puts up notices warning people.
>>>
>>> That caution.  Exposing children to a disease which can have serious
>>> effects is reckless.  It is amazing that some people fear vaccines more
>>> than they fear disease.
>>
>> I agree it is amazing - I am not one of these people.
>>
>>> "Rare" is not non-existent.
>>
>> As is the case with rare side-effects or adverse reactions with
>> vaccines.  I don't know much about what the rate of side-effects is with
>> the chickenpox vaccine - it is not in widespread use here, or at least
>> was not when my kids were young enough for it to be relevant.  My
>> understanding is that it is a weakened live virus, and thus carries its
>> own risk of causing outbreaks late in life, and that it is only about
>> 85% effective (though 95% effective at stopping serious cases).  If you
>> want to worry about rare problems with the disease, you must apply the
>> same reasoning to the vaccine.  Chickenpox is /not/ like measles.
>>
>> It is all a balance - a tradeoff.  What are the risks with the disease?
>>  What are the risks with the vaccines?  What are the costs to society
>> that we live with the disease?  What are the costs of vaccinating?  Are
>> there alternative methods of reducing the risks and complications?  Is
>> it possible to identify high-risk candidates and deal with them separately?
>>
>> With chickenpox, many countries have a balance where they give the
>> vaccine to people at higher risk (such as compromised immune systems),
>> older teenage girls who haven't had the disease (to protect them during
>> pregnancy), and perhaps to adults who haven't had the disease (since it
>> hits adults harder).  They do not see it as being worthwhile or
>> cost-effective as part of mainstream vaccinations - after all, some
>> 80-90% of the population are already immune.
>>
>>>  Pregnant women
>>> often don't know they are pregnant for some time.  The fetus is *very*
>>> vulnerable to infections when it is very young.
>>
>> Not with chickenpox - the serious problems arise if you get it in the
>> third trimester.  But it is absolutely a good idea to vaccinate women
>> who have not had the disease, in good time before they get pregnant.
>>
>>> This is no different
>>> than drinking alcohol which no responsible adult will do when there is a
>>> chance of being pregnant.
>>
>> Yeah, right.  Have you any idea what proportion of pregnancies occur
>> under the influence of alcohol?  Or perhaps you just think that a large
>> proportion of mothers in the western world are irresponsible.
>
> Lol!  Being drunk at conception is not the same thing...
>
>
>> Of course most responsible people will limit their alcohol intake if
>> they think it is likely that they will get pregnant, and stop drinking
>> if they think they /are/ pregnant.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Chickenpox is not in the same category as diseases like measles, or
>>>> mumps.  In the vast majority of cases, it has extremely low risk of
>>>> complications, serious lasting effects, or even much discomfort.
>>>
>>> "Vast majority"... yet the serious side effects exist.
>>>
>>
>> The vast majority of people survive crossing the road without serious
>> side effects - but some don't.  There are alternatives - we could build
>> more bridges, put up more traffic lights, ban cars.  But on balance,
>> society chooses rather to deal with the biggest risk cases (crack down
>> on drunk driving, put up crossings at key spots) while accepting that
>> bad things occasionally happen.
>
> And we *do* have crosswalks and jaywalking is illegal!
>
>
>>>> The chickenpox vaccine is relatively recent, or at least it is
>>>> relatively recent that it has become widespread.  My kids have all had
>>>> chickenpox, and the vaccine was never an option when they were young.
>>>>
>>>> Because chickenpox is only a serious risk for a few people - the very
>>>> young, and the small percentage of the adult population who did not have
>>>> it as a kid - chicken pox parties work well as a method of herd
>>>> immunisation.
>>>
>>> If a vaccine harms one person in 100,000 it is considered dangerous.
>>> This is from the CDC web page...
>>>
>>> Before the vaccine, about 100 people died each year as a result of
>>> chickenpox in the United States.
>>>
>>> So you are ok with that many deaths from Chickenpox?
>>
>> Vaccinate the people who have a serious risk of dying - in the case of
>> chickenpox, that means people with compromised immune systems and the
>> small proportion of adults who have not had the disease.  Widespread
>> vaccination of all children will have little effect on this number (not
>> /no/ effect, but little effect).
>
> We were talking about the "chickenpox parties".
>
>
>>>> Now, if the vaccine has become common enough to be cheap and simple, and
>>>> gives long-term immunity, then I fully agree that it is a better
>>>> alternative to getting chicken pox.  That was not the case when my kids
>>>> were at that age, at least not here in Norway, but if it is the case
>>>> now, then great - I'd vaccinate myself and my kids if we had not already
>>>> had the disease.
>>>
>>> That statement is just so ill-informed.  Chickenpox is a disease that
>>> harms people, then later in life can cause great discomfort or injury,
>>> even blindness.  Being vaccinated to the disease can't even be compared
>>> to "chickenpox parties".  This is the talk of the truly ignorant.
>>>
>>
>> No, it is not ill-informed - it is just not blowing things out of
>> proportion.  I am a strong vaccine supporter.  I expect that eventually
>> the chickenpox vaccine will become part of the standard vaccination
>> routines in most western countries, including Norway.  I agree that it
>> is better to be vaccinated against it than to get it.  And I have
>> absolutely nothing against vaccines.
>
> Ok, then you agree with me.  Your other statements don't sound like that.
>
>
>> But I don't see chickenpox as a serious problem here.  The prime reason
>> for vaccinating against chickenpox is economic - it is cheaper to
>> vaccinate kids than to have a parent stay home for a week looking after
>> a spotty but otherwise healthy child.
>
> Who's saying chickenpox is a serious problem.  We are talking about an
> irresponsible act of infecting children with chickenpox so they will "be done
> with it" rather than getting the vaccine.
>
>
>> There are plenty of other diseases that are much more of an issue, and
>> cause more suffering and death.  Put the effort into stopping malaria,
>> or dengue fever, or something else that is /really/ a problem disease.
>> There are plenty of other problems in society that cause more suffering
>> and death.  If the money spend on chickenpox vaccines were spent on
>> installing alcohol locks on car ignitions, you'd save a thousand times
>> as many lives per dollar spent.
>
> Irrelevant.  Alcohol locks is a political issue.  There is no reason why you
> can't get all the vaccines needed.  There is plenty of money for it.  You
> wouldn't be downplaying chickenpox if you had shingles right now.
>
>
>> By overstating the risks of a minor disease like chickenpox, you also
>> lose ground in the /real/ battle about vaccinations, especially in the
>> USA.  The problem is not about vaccinating against every minor childhood
>> disease - it is making sure that all children are vaccinated against the
>> /major/ ones.  When you fuss about wanting vaccines for something as
>> minor as chickenpox, you will be viewed as categorising it together with
>> serious diseases like measles.  When you tell the vaccine sceptic that
>> their kids should be vaccinated against chickenpox and measles, they say
>> "our kid has had chickenpox - he had spots for a couple of days.  I
>> guess measles is much the same, so no need for a vaccine there either".
>>  (Yes, you are dealing with irrational people there.)
>
> There you go again.  I had a friend who nearly died of shingles.  Yes, nearly
> died.  You just don't get it.
>
>
>> In the meantime, in countries like Norway where there is no mass
>> vaccination against chickenpox, the simplest, cheapest, most reliable
>> and least unpleasant alternative is to accept that your (otherwise
>> healthy) kids /will/ get chickenpox, and the earlier they get it, the
>> better.
>
> More bullshit.  Get the vaccine.  You don't have to wait for someone to shove it
> down your throats.

The "best" response depends on
   - the available courses of action (vaccination,
     parties, ...)
   - the relative probability of different hazards occurring
     (chicken pox at different ages, shingles, ...)
   - the consequences of different hazards (time off work,
     scarring, blindness, pain, ...)

You seem to be concentrating on one combination of those, and
downplaying valid alternative actions/consequences.

The alternatives to your choice can be valid in different
circumstances, especially when lawyers aren't involved.

Not having anti-jaywalking laws is pleasant too :)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#447006

On 09/02/17 13:20, rickman wrote:
> On 2/9/2017 6:54 AM, David Brown wrote:

>> No, it is not ill-informed - it is just not blowing things out of
>> proportion.  I am a strong vaccine supporter.  I expect that eventually
>> the chickenpox vaccine will become part of the standard vaccination
>> routines in most western countries, including Norway.  I agree that it
>> is better to be vaccinated against it than to get it.  And I have
>> absolutely nothing against vaccines.
> 
> Ok, then you agree with me.  Your other statements don't sound like that.
> 
> 
>> But I don't see chickenpox as a serious problem here.  The prime reason
>> for vaccinating against chickenpox is economic - it is cheaper to
>> vaccinate kids than to have a parent stay home for a week looking after
>> a spotty but otherwise healthy child.
> 
> Who's saying chickenpox is a serious problem.  We are talking about an
> irresponsible act of infecting children with chickenpox so they will "be
> done with it" rather than getting the vaccine.

In America, and a couple of other countries (Germany and Lithuania, I
think), chickenpox vaccine is widespread, standardised, and free.  In
most other countries it is available for those that need it or
particularly ask for it, but otherwise it is not mainstream.  Maybe it
will become standard here too - but currently, it is not.  The
chickenpox vaccine is not an urgent matter, and it will take a good long
time before the various boards and committees decide to view it as
standard, and to implement it.

In the meantime, kids will get chickenpox here.  You can pretty much
guarantee it, unless you raise your family alone on a mountain
somewhere.  Once the child is no longer a small baby, getting chickenpox
is not a problem - and the younger they get it, the better.  So the
rational action is to get the matter over and done with as soon as
practically possible.  It is not "irresponsible" - it is practical and
sensible.  It is infecting the child with a mild disease (chickenpox
when young) to protect them from getting a serious disease (chickenpox
when older) - basically, it is the same concept as vaccination, just
that even mild chickenpox is more unpleasant than a vaccine.

When my youngest kid got chickenpox, the vaccine was not really an
option.  It was not something publicised, nor something offered or
recommend by doctors except for those with particular needs.  (And when
he was small, our youngest was given an extraordinarily expensive
vaccine against a relatively rare lung virus due to his weak lungs - if
his doctors felt that chickenpox was at all risky, he would have got the
vaccine.)

Now, the chickenpox vaccine is a bit more common here.  If my kids
hadn't had chickenpox, I would no doubt have had them vaccinated.  But
at the time, there were perhaps 200 people in the whole country that got
the vaccine.  I am not sure why the chickenpox vaccine has been standard
in the USA for 15 years or so, but it very rare in most European
countries, but that's the way it is.


> 
> 
>> By overstating the risks of a minor disease like chickenpox, you also
>> lose ground in the /real/ battle about vaccinations, especially in the
>> USA.  The problem is not about vaccinating against every minor childhood
>> disease - it is making sure that all children are vaccinated against the
>> /major/ ones.  When you fuss about wanting vaccines for something as
>> minor as chickenpox, you will be viewed as categorising it together with
>> serious diseases like measles.  When you tell the vaccine sceptic that
>> their kids should be vaccinated against chickenpox and measles, they say
>> "our kid has had chickenpox - he had spots for a couple of days.  I
>> guess measles is much the same, so no need for a vaccine there either".
>>  (Yes, you are dealing with irrational people there.)
> 
> There you go again.  I had a friend who nearly died of shingles.  Yes,
> nearly died.  You just don't get it.

People who get seriously ill from shingles are usually old or have
otherwise weakened immune systems.  They are mostly high risk for almost
any disease.  (There are always exceptions - but policy here should be
based on statistics, not individuals, no matter how unpleasant a disease
might be for a particularly unlucky person.)

The chickenpox vaccine, given as a child, does not protect fully against
shingles.  The weakened virus in the vaccine can hide in the nervous
system just like the normal virus, and can burst out as a variety of
shingles many decades later.  And there is currently no reason to
suppose that the immunity inferred by the vaccine as a child will
protect you against chickenpox and/or shingles in later life.

What /will/ help, of course, is for people who have a weak immune system
to get the vaccine.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#447093

On 2/9/2017 8:56 AM, David Brown wrote:
> On 09/02/17 13:20, rickman wrote:
>> On 2/9/2017 6:54 AM, David Brown wrote:
>
>>> No, it is not ill-informed - it is just not blowing things out of
>>> proportion.  I am a strong vaccine supporter.  I expect that eventually
>>> the chickenpox vaccine will become part of the standard vaccination
>>> routines in most western countries, including Norway.  I agree that it
>>> is better to be vaccinated against it than to get it.  And I have
>>> absolutely nothing against vaccines.
>>
>> Ok, then you agree with me.  Your other statements don't sound like that.
>>
>>
>>> But I don't see chickenpox as a serious problem here.  The prime reason
>>> for vaccinating against chickenpox is economic - it is cheaper to
>>> vaccinate kids than to have a parent stay home for a week looking after
>>> a spotty but otherwise healthy child.
>>
>> Who's saying chickenpox is a serious problem.  We are talking about an
>> irresponsible act of infecting children with chickenpox so they will "be
>> done with it" rather than getting the vaccine.
>
> In America, and a couple of other countries (Germany and Lithuania, I
> think), chickenpox vaccine is widespread, standardised, and free.  In
> most other countries it is available for those that need it or
> particularly ask for it, but otherwise it is not mainstream.  Maybe it
> will become standard here too - but currently, it is not.  The
> chickenpox vaccine is not an urgent matter, and it will take a good long
> time before the various boards and committees decide to view it as
> standard, and to implement it.
>
> In the meantime, kids will get chickenpox here.  You can pretty much
> guarantee it, unless you raise your family alone on a mountain
> somewhere.  Once the child is no longer a small baby, getting chickenpox
> is not a problem - and the younger they get it, the better.  So the
> rational action is to get the matter over and done with as soon as
> practically possible.  It is not "irresponsible" - it is practical and
> sensible.  It is infecting the child with a mild disease (chickenpox
> when young) to protect them from getting a serious disease (chickenpox
> when older) - basically, it is the same concept as vaccination, just
> that even mild chickenpox is more unpleasant than a vaccine.

You are ignoring the facts.  People are accustomed to chickenpox being 
of little consequence, but there *are* complications even if not common. 
  More importantly being infected with chickenpox is a lifelong 
condition which causes shingles.  My family had never heard of shingles 
when I was a kid or they didn't know it was caused by chickenpox.  We 
now know better.  If you persist in denying the facts you are being 
irresponsible.

I don't care what country you are in or if it is "standard" to get the 
vaccine or not, the facts are that the vaccine is much preferred over 
getting chickenpox and potentially shingles, both of which are diseases 
and can kill.


> When my youngest kid got chickenpox, the vaccine was not really an
> option.  It was not something publicised, nor something offered or
> recommend by doctors except for those with particular needs.  (And when
> he was small, our youngest was given an extraordinarily expensive
> vaccine against a relatively rare lung virus due to his weak lungs - if
> his doctors felt that chickenpox was at all risky, he would have got the
> vaccine.)

At one time doctors used leaches.  We now have vaccine available and it 
is much preferred over getting sick.


> Now, the chickenpox vaccine is a bit more common here.  If my kids
> hadn't had chickenpox, I would no doubt have had them vaccinated.  But
> at the time, there were perhaps 200 people in the whole country that got
> the vaccine.  I am not sure why the chickenpox vaccine has been standard
> in the USA for 15 years or so, but it very rare in most European
> countries, but that's the way it is.

Rare that people get it perhaps, but if you ask for it I expect it is 
available.  There is no reason to take even the small risk of 
complications from chickenpox and the much larger risk of the dangers of 
shingles.


>>> By overstating the risks of a minor disease like chickenpox, you also
>>> lose ground in the /real/ battle about vaccinations, especially in the
>>> USA.  The problem is not about vaccinating against every minor childhood
>>> disease - it is making sure that all children are vaccinated against the
>>> /major/ ones.  When you fuss about wanting vaccines for something as
>>> minor as chickenpox, you will be viewed as categorising it together with
>>> serious diseases like measles.  When you tell the vaccine sceptic that
>>> their kids should be vaccinated against chickenpox and measles, they say
>>> "our kid has had chickenpox - he had spots for a couple of days.  I
>>> guess measles is much the same, so no need for a vaccine there either".
>>>  (Yes, you are dealing with irrational people there.)
>>
>> There you go again.  I had a friend who nearly died of shingles.  Yes,
>> nearly died.  You just don't get it.
>
> People who get seriously ill from shingles are usually old or have
> otherwise weakened immune systems.  They are mostly high risk for almost
> any disease.  (There are always exceptions - but policy here should be
> based on statistics, not individuals, no matter how unpleasant a disease
> might be for a particularly unlucky person.)

Irrelevant.  Shingles can be prevented by not infecting every child with 
chickenpox.


> The chickenpox vaccine, given as a child, does not protect fully against
> shingles.  The weakened virus in the vaccine can hide in the nervous
> system just like the normal virus, and can burst out as a variety of
> shingles many decades later.  And there is currently no reason to
> suppose that the immunity inferred by the vaccine as a child will
> protect you against chickenpox and/or shingles in later life.

Now you are being silly.  No vaccine is 100%, is that a reason to not 
use it?

Argue this among yourselves.  I'm done with it.

-- 

Rick C

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#447123

On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 9:47:05 AM UTC+11, rickman wrote:
> On 2/9/2017 8:56 AM, David Brown wrote:
> > On 09/02/17 13:20, rickman wrote:
> >> On 2/9/2017 6:54 AM, David Brown wrote:

<snip>
 
> You are ignoring the facts.

Which you haven't cited. What - precisely - are the risks from getting chichpox, and getting vaccinated against chickenpox?

> People are accustomed to chickenpox being 
> of little consequence, but there *are* complications even if not common.

What are they? And how rare are they?
 
>   More importantly being infected with chickenpox is a lifelong 
> condition which causes shingles.

Can cause shingles. Not everybody who has chickenpox as a kid ends up with shingles.

>  My family had never heard of shingles 
> when I was a kid or they didn't know it was caused by chickenpox.  We 
> now know better.  If you persist in denying the facts you are being 
> irresponsible.

I don't think that he is denying anything. Pretty much everybody gets chickenpox as a kid, including people who get such a mild case that they don't notice it.

> I don't care what country you are in or if it is "standard" to get the 
> vaccine or not, the facts are that the vaccine is much preferred over 
> getting chickenpox and potentially shingles, both of which are diseases 
> and can kill.

Chickenpox vaccine is an attenuated live virus, and can cause shingles in later life, though this is relatively rare.

> When my youngest kid got chickenpox, the vaccine was not really an
> > option.  It was not something publicised, nor something offered or
> > recommend by doctors except for those with particular needs.  (And when
> > he was small, our youngest was given an extraordinarily expensive
> > vaccine against a relatively rare lung virus due to his weak lungs - if
> > his doctors felt that chickenpox was at all risky, he would have got the
> > vaccine.)
> 
> At one time doctors used leaches.  We now have vaccine available and it 
> is much preferred over getting sick.

Doctors still use leeches - they are great at getting blood out of serious bruises. They also use maggots, who are great at cleaning out dead tissue from wounds. Leeches aren't used as they were when balancing the humours was a medical doctrine, but they are still used.

<snip>

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#447026

On 09/02/17 12:20, rickman wrote:
> On 2/9/2017 6:54 AM, David Brown wrote:

...

> There you go again.  I had a friend who nearly died of shingles.  Yes, nearly
> died.  You just don't get it.

Anecdotes aren't epidemiology!

>> In the meantime, in countries like Norway where there is no mass
>> vaccination against chickenpox, the simplest, cheapest, most reliable
>> and least unpleasant alternative is to accept that your (otherwise
>> healthy) kids /will/ get chickenpox, and the earlier they get it, the
>> better.
>
> More bullshit.  Get the vaccine.  You don't have to wait for someone to shove it
> down your throats.

The UK experience and recommendations indicate that it
isn't as clear-cut as you believe.

The introduction of a mass chickenpox vaccination
programme in the UK and several other European
countries has been delayed due to concerns that
an increase in herpes zoster incidence would occur.
Some studies suggest that these concerns may be more
theoretical than real.[16]However, the phenomenon
has been seen in the USA since the introduction of
mass vaccination,and the increase in herpes zoster
has reduced the cost-effectiveness of the programme.[17]

  * A vaccine is available in the UK and is offered to
    healthcare workers who may come into contact with
    the disease whilst not immune. This appears to
    represent about 10% of the adult population.[18]
  * The Health Protection Agency (now part of Public Health
    England (PHE)) also states that the vaccine may be
    given to children aged 1-12 years who are close
    contacts of those people considered to be at high
    risk of severe chickenpox or shingles infection.
    It is also licensed for healthy adults and children
    over 13 years old who are not immune to chickenpox
    (indicated by blood tests). Women who are not
    immune but are actively trying to conceive, would
    be eligible and their vaccination is recommended
    by the Royal College of Obstetricians and
    Gynaecologists.[14]Therefore, whilst not going as
    far as endorsing a mass programme, public health
    advice gives GPs considerable leeway to give the
    vaccine to patients who fall within the broad criteria.
  * Two doses of vaccine are given 4-8 weeks apart
    and seroconversion is not routinely assessed. More
    information about the vaccine is available from the
    Department of Health's Green Book. The two-dose
    schedule affords 98% protection in children and
    75% protection in adolescents and adults.[19]

Crude mortality rates from chickenpox are 2-4 per 100,000.[2]

The references can be found in the source document
http://patient.info/doctor/chickenpox-pro

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#447030

On 2/9/2017 10:40 AM, Tom Gardner wrote:
> On 09/02/17 12:20, rickman wrote:
>> On 2/9/2017 6:54 AM, David Brown wrote:
>
> ...
>
>> There you go again.  I had a friend who nearly died of shingles.  Yes,
>> nearly
>> died.  You just don't get it.
>
> Anecdotes aren't epidemiology!
>
>>> In the meantime, in countries like Norway where there is no mass
>>> vaccination against chickenpox, the simplest, cheapest, most reliable
>>> and least unpleasant alternative is to accept that your (otherwise
>>> healthy) kids /will/ get chickenpox, and the earlier they get it, the
>>> better.
>>
>> More bullshit.  Get the vaccine.  You don't have to wait for someone
>> to shove it
>> down your throats.
>
> The UK experience and recommendations indicate that it
> isn't as clear-cut as you believe.
>
> The introduction of a mass chickenpox vaccination
> programme in the UK and several other European
> countries has been delayed due to concerns that
> an increase in herpes zoster incidence would occur.
> Some studies suggest that these concerns may be more
> theoretical than real.[16]However, the phenomenon
> has been seen in the USA since the introduction of
> mass vaccination,and the increase in herpes zoster
> has reduced the cost-effectiveness of the programme.[17]
>
>  * A vaccine is available in the UK and is offered to
>    healthcare workers who may come into contact with
>    the disease whilst not immune. This appears to
>    represent about 10% of the adult population.[18]
>  * The Health Protection Agency (now part of Public Health
>    England (PHE)) also states that the vaccine may be
>    given to children aged 1-12 years who are close
>    contacts of those people considered to be at high
>    risk of severe chickenpox or shingles infection.
>    It is also licensed for healthy adults and children
>    over 13 years old who are not immune to chickenpox
>    (indicated by blood tests). Women who are not
>    immune but are actively trying to conceive, would
>    be eligible and their vaccination is recommended
>    by the Royal College of Obstetricians and
>    Gynaecologists.[14]Therefore, whilst not going as
>    far as endorsing a mass programme, public health
>    advice gives GPs considerable leeway to give the
>    vaccine to patients who fall within the broad criteria.
>  * Two doses of vaccine are given 4-8 weeks apart
>    and seroconversion is not routinely assessed. More
>    information about the vaccine is available from the
>    Department of Health's Green Book. The two-dose
>    schedule affords 98% protection in children and
>    75% protection in adolescents and adults.[19]
>
> Crude mortality rates from chickenpox are 2-4 per 100,000.[2]
>
> The references can be found in the source document
> http://patient.info/doctor/chickenpox-pro
>
   And then the question remains, of those 2-4 per 100,000,
how many are say, under 9, and could have been at one of those 
chickenpox parties.

  And what's this with you introducing science into this!!

                              Mikek :-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#447090

On 2/9/2017 11:40 AM, Tom Gardner wrote:
> On 09/02/17 12:20, rickman wrote:
>> On 2/9/2017 6:54 AM, David Brown wrote:
>
> ....
>
>> There you go again.  I had a friend who nearly died of shingles.  Yes,
>> nearly
>> died.  You just don't get it.
>
> Anecdotes aren't epidemiology!
>
>>> In the meantime, in countries like Norway where there is no mass
>>> vaccination against chickenpox, the simplest, cheapest, most reliable
>>> and least unpleasant alternative is to accept that your (otherwise
>>> healthy) kids /will/ get chickenpox, and the earlier they get it, the
>>> better.
>>
>> More bullshit.  Get the vaccine.  You don't have to wait for someone
>> to shove it
>> down your throats.
>
> The UK experience and recommendations indicate that it
> isn't as clear-cut as you believe.
>
> The introduction of a mass chickenpox vaccination
> programme in the UK and several other European
> countries has been delayed due to concerns that
> an increase in herpes zoster incidence would occur.
> Some studies suggest that these concerns may be more
> theoretical than real.[16]However, the phenomenon
> has been seen in the USA since the introduction of
> mass vaccination,and the increase in herpes zoster
> has reduced the cost-effectiveness of the programme.[17]
>
>  * A vaccine is available in the UK and is offered to
>    healthcare workers who may come into contact with
>    the disease whilst not immune. This appears to
>    represent about 10% of the adult population.[18]
>  * The Health Protection Agency (now part of Public Health
>    England (PHE)) also states that the vaccine may be
>    given to children aged 1-12 years who are close
>    contacts of those people considered to be at high
>    risk of severe chickenpox or shingles infection.
>    It is also licensed for healthy adults and children
>    over 13 years old who are not immune to chickenpox
>    (indicated by blood tests). Women who are not
>    immune but are actively trying to conceive, would
>    be eligible and their vaccination is recommended
>    by the Royal College of Obstetricians and
>    Gynaecologists.[14]Therefore, whilst not going as
>    far as endorsing a mass programme, public health
>    advice gives GPs considerable leeway to give the
>    vaccine to patients who fall within the broad criteria.
>  * Two doses of vaccine are given 4-8 weeks apart
>    and seroconversion is not routinely assessed. More
>    information about the vaccine is available from the
>    Department of Health's Green Book. The two-dose
>    schedule affords 98% protection in children and
>    75% protection in adolescents and adults.[19]
>
> Crude mortality rates from chickenpox are 2-4 per 100,000.[2]
>
> The references can be found in the source document
> http://patient.info/doctor/chickenpox-pro

 From your references...

"If there is less chickenpox in children then there will be no boosting 
of immunity by exposure to chickenpox for middle and older aged people 
and thus there will be more shingles, at least until all the elderly 
have been vaccinated as children"

They are addressing the short term impacts, mostly the financial issues. 
  I would like to do everything I can to prevent shingles, but I've 
already been exposed to chickenpox.  I can still get the vaccine for 
shingles, but it is only 50% effective.  Too late for me.  Why expose 
your children to chickenpox and shingles if you don't need to?

They give the vaccine to healthcare workers.  Obviously it is a good 
thing and the pros outweigh the cons.

-- 

Rick C

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#447016

On 2/9/2017 4:35 AM, rickman wrote:
> On 2/9/2017 4:58 AM, David Brown wrote:
>> On 08/02/17 23:26, rickman wrote:
>>> On 2/8/2017 1:00 PM, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 08 Feb 2017 12:45:35 +0100, David Brown wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Chicken pox is almost always mild if you get it as a kid - the younger
>>>>> the better (but not babies - you need to have a more developed immune
>>>>> system).  The people who suffer badly from chicken pox are usually
>>>>> teenagers or adults.  It is common that when a kindergarten kid gets
>>>>> chicken pox, the parents hold a "chicken pox party" so that lots of
>>>>> other kindergarten kids can come and get it at an early age where all
>>>>> they get is a few spots and possibly a night of mild fever.
>>>>
>>>> In the good old days when sanity reined, yes. But I would imagine that
>>>> today Big Pharma and the CDC would have something to say about such
>>>> practices.
>>>
>>> Chickenpox is not always innocuous, being downright dangerous to others
>>> around the infected child such as a pregnant woman, and a vaccine is
>>> available.  Why on earth would anyone want to be infected with a disease
>>> rather than take a vaccine?  Being vaccinated against chickenpox also
>>> helps to protect you from shingles later in life.
>>>
>>
>> Chickenpox is very rarely a serious problem, and usually high-risk
>> people (such as pregnant women who have not had it themselves, or
>> parents with very young babies, or older or otherwise high-risk people
>> who have not already had it) are aware of that.  Certainly in Norway
>> people are informed about that.  So if kids in a kindergarten have
>> chickenpox, the kindergarten puts up notices warning people.
>
> That caution.  Exposing children to a disease which can have serious
> effects is reckless.  It is amazing that some people fear vaccines more
> than they fear disease.  "Rare" is not non-existent.  Pregnant women
> often don't know they are pregnant for some time.  The fetus is *very*
> vulnerable to infections when it is very young.  This is no different
> than drinking alcohol which no responsible adult will do when there is a
> chance of being pregnant.
>
>
>> Chickenpox is not in the same category as diseases like measles, or
>> mumps.  In the vast majority of cases, it has extremely low risk of
>> complications, serious lasting effects, or even much discomfort.
>
> "Vast majority"... yet the serious side effects exist.
>
>
>> The chickenpox vaccine is relatively recent, or at least it is
>> relatively recent that it has become widespread.  My kids have all had
>> chickenpox, and the vaccine was never an option when they were young.
>>
>> Because chickenpox is only a serious risk for a few people - the very
>> young, and the small percentage of the adult population who did not have
>> it as a kid - chicken pox parties work well as a method of herd
>> immunization.
>
> If a vaccine harms one person in 100,000 it is considered dangerous.
> This is from the CDC web page...
>
> Before the vaccine, about 100 people died each year as a result of
> chickenpox in the United States.

I would like to know how many of that 100 were under 9 years old.


> So you are ok with that many deaths from Chickenpox?

  Death is usually, best avoided, and in most cases as long as possible.
Although, I think what some call life, is a waste of the caregivers 
mental, physical and financial resources. But that's another topic.

                             Mikek

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#447167

On Thu, 09 Feb 2017 05:35:20 -0500, rickman wrote:

> That statement is just so ill-informed.  Chickenpox is a disease that
> harms people, then later in life can cause great discomfort or injury,
> even blindness.  Being vaccinated to the disease can't even be compared
> to "chickenpox parties".  This is the talk of the truly ignorant.

You're very fond of throwing this 'ignorant' tag around in your postings 
on this topic; must be projection I guess.
You seem to be *ignorant* of the fact that the chickenpox jab can cause 
Shingles decades later in people who never developed chickenpox and 
mistakenly thought the jab had done a great job of protecting them.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#447248

On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 3:38:00 AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Feb 2017 05:35:20 -0500, rickman wrote:
> 
> > That statement is just so ill-informed.  Chickenpox is a disease that
> > harms people, then later in life can cause great discomfort or injury,
> > even blindness.  Being vaccinated to the disease can't even be compared
> > to "chickenpox parties".  This is the talk of the truly ignorant.
> 
> You're very fond of throwing this 'ignorant' tag around in your postings 
> on this topic; must be projection I guess.

Cursitor Doom doesn't fully appreciate the depths of his own ignorance - one more area in which his startling ignorance manifests itself.

> You seem to be *ignorant* of the fact that the chickenpox jab can cause 
> shingles decades later in people who never developed chickenpox and 
> mistakenly thought the jab had done a great job of protecting them.

You are less likely to get shingles from the attenuated chickenpox virus in the chickenpox virus than you are from real chickenpox, but it does happen.

As with pretty much every side-effect of vaccination, vaccination is the safer choice - not totally safe, but nowhere near as risky as not getting vaccinated.

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#446798

On Tue, 07 Feb 2017 21:08:24 +0000, John Devereux
<john@devereux.me.uk> wrote:

>Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> writes:
>
>> On Tue, 7 Feb 2017 17:57:22 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
>> <curd@notformail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 06 Feb 2017 17:56:02 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:
>>>
>>>> I opted for the pneumonia one... all the rest, including flu, I avoid.
>>>> 
>>>> My father always got the annual flu vaccine... and always ended up with
>>>> the flu.  I haven't had the flu since 1964... knock on wood ;-)
>>>
>>>I've avoided the flu one too and haven't had flu for over 40 years - 
>>>until now. The flu I could have handled without too much hassle, BUT it 
>>>weakened my immune system and opened me up to Shingles, which I'm still 
>>>suffering the after-effects of. Shingles pain can be *excruciating* at 
>>>times, I won't forget it in a hurry. Consequently, out of fear of getting 
>>>shingles again, I plan to take care of my immune system in future and 
>>>that includes getting the flu jab from now on.
>>
>> I may succumb to taking the shingles vaccine... you're all scaring me
>> :-(
>
>Not to pile on but...
>
>My mother was very seriously ill from it this Christmas. VZV
>encephalitis.
>
>My daughter had chickenpox a couple of years ago, it is a horrible
>virus, big boils everywhere, inside and out. She is scarred for life,
>though not noticably on the face luckily.
>
>I have since learned that there is a vaccine for it but it is not
>routine in the UK (as I gather it is in the USA). It should be.

Yes. And old people get shingles, a reoccurrence of the same latent
infection.


-- 

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#446807

Den onsdag den 8. februar 2017 kl. 18.12.50 UTC+1 skrev John Larkin:
> On Tue, 07 Feb 2017 21:08:24 +0000, John Devereux
> <john@devereux.me.uk> wrote:
> 
> >Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> writes:
> >
> >> On Tue, 7 Feb 2017 17:57:22 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
> >> <curd@notformail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Mon, 06 Feb 2017 17:56:02 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I opted for the pneumonia one... all the rest, including flu, I avoid.
> >>>> 
> >>>> My father always got the annual flu vaccine... and always ended up with
> >>>> the flu.  I haven't had the flu since 1964... knock on wood ;-)
> >>>
> >>>I've avoided the flu one too and haven't had flu for over 40 years - 
> >>>until now. The flu I could have handled without too much hassle, BUT it 
> >>>weakened my immune system and opened me up to Shingles, which I'm still 
> >>>suffering the after-effects of. Shingles pain can be *excruciating* at 
> >>>times, I won't forget it in a hurry. Consequently, out of fear of getting 
> >>>shingles again, I plan to take care of my immune system in future and 
> >>>that includes getting the flu jab from now on.
> >>
> >> I may succumb to taking the shingles vaccine... you're all scaring me
> >> :-(
> >
> >Not to pile on but...
> >
> >My mother was very seriously ill from it this Christmas. VZV
> >encephalitis.
> >
> >My daughter had chickenpox a couple of years ago, it is a horrible
> >virus, big boils everywhere, inside and out. She is scarred for life,
> >though not noticably on the face luckily.
> >
> >I have since learned that there is a vaccine for it but it is not
> >routine in the UK (as I gather it is in the USA). It should be.
> 
> Yes. And old people get shingles, a reoccurrence of the same latent
> infection.
> 

it is a type of herpes, once you get it you it stays for life, hopefully 
dormant  

the Danish name for shingles is "Hell's fire"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#446850

On Wed, 8 Feb 2017 09:36:26 -0800 (PST), Lasse Langwadt Christensen
<langwadt@fonz.dk> wrote:

>Den onsdag den 8. februar 2017 kl. 18.12.50 UTC+1 skrev John Larkin:
>> On Tue, 07 Feb 2017 21:08:24 +0000, John Devereux
>> <john@devereux.me.uk> wrote:
>> 
>> >Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> writes:
>> >
>> >> On Tue, 7 Feb 2017 17:57:22 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
>> >> <curd@notformail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>On Mon, 06 Feb 2017 17:56:02 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> I opted for the pneumonia one... all the rest, including flu, I avoid.
>> >>>> 
>> >>>> My father always got the annual flu vaccine... and always ended up with
>> >>>> the flu.  I haven't had the flu since 1964... knock on wood ;-)
>> >>>
>> >>>I've avoided the flu one too and haven't had flu for over 40 years - 
>> >>>until now. The flu I could have handled without too much hassle, BUT it 
>> >>>weakened my immune system and opened me up to Shingles, which I'm still 
>> >>>suffering the after-effects of. Shingles pain can be *excruciating* at 
>> >>>times, I won't forget it in a hurry. Consequently, out of fear of getting 
>> >>>shingles again, I plan to take care of my immune system in future and 
>> >>>that includes getting the flu jab from now on.
>> >>
>> >> I may succumb to taking the shingles vaccine... you're all scaring me
>> >> :-(
>> >
>> >Not to pile on but...
>> >
>> >My mother was very seriously ill from it this Christmas. VZV
>> >encephalitis.
>> >
>> >My daughter had chickenpox a couple of years ago, it is a horrible
>> >virus, big boils everywhere, inside and out. She is scarred for life,
>> >though not noticably on the face luckily.
>> >
>> >I have since learned that there is a vaccine for it but it is not
>> >routine in the UK (as I gather it is in the USA). It should be.
>> 
>> Yes. And old people get shingles, a reoccurrence of the same latent
>> infection.
>> 
>
>it is a type of herpes, once you get it you it stays for life, hopefully 
>dormant  
>
>the Danish name for shingles is "Hell's fire"
>

I've been vaccinated against shingles.


-- 

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing   precision measurement 

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#446831

On 2/8/2017 10:12 AM, John Larkin wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Feb 2017 21:08:24 +0000, John Devereux
> <john@devereux.me.uk> wrote:
>
>> Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Tue, 7 Feb 2017 17:57:22 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
>>> <curd@notformail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 06 Feb 2017 17:56:02 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I opted for the pneumonia one... all the rest, including flu, I avoid.
>>>>>
>>>>> My father always got the annual flu vaccine... and always ended up with
>>>>> the flu.  I haven't had the flu since 1964... knock on wood ;-)
>>>>
>>>> I've avoided the flu one too and haven't had flu for over 40 years -
>>>> until now. The flu I could have handled without too much hassle, BUT it
>>>> weakened my immune system and opened me up to Shingles, which I'm still
>>>> suffering the after-effects of. Shingles pain can be *excruciating* at
>>>> times, I won't forget it in a hurry. Consequently, out of fear of getting
>>>> shingles again, I plan to take care of my immune system in future and
>>>> that includes getting the flu jab from now on.
>>>
>>> I may succumb to taking the shingles vaccine... you're all scaring me
>>> :-(
>>
>> Not to pile on but...
>>
>> My mother was very seriously ill from it this Christmas. VZV
>> encephalitis.

Often, the complications from many of these infectious diseases
are more threatening than the infections themselves.  E.g., VZV
attacking any of the cranial dermatomes poses risks for brain,
eyes, etc.  Pneumonia is also a big concern.

And, INITIAL onset later in life can be significantly more of a
challenge than dealing with it as a child.

It is highly contagious and a "reportable" disease, here (US).

>> My daughter had chickenpox a couple of years ago, it is a horrible
>> virus, big boils everywhere, inside and out. She is scarred for life,
>> though not noticably on the face luckily.
>>
>> I have since learned that there is a vaccine for it but it is not
>> routine in the UK (as I gather it is in the USA). It should be.

Vaccination requirements vary by state, here.  The majority of states
require HepB, DTP (diptheria/tetanus/pertussis), Polio, Measles/Mumps/Rubella
(MMR) and Varicella.  But, this is typically only checked on admission to
a (public) school system.

Most folks neglect to receive boosters (e.g., DTP is suggested every 10 years)
esp later in life.

And, the effectiveness of vaccines fades over time.

Despite having chickenpox as a child, I managed to 'catch' it, again,
a couple of years ago.  Much milder case that my body dispensed with
promptly.

OTOH, much more memorable (as a kid, you have someone to attend to your
discomfort; as an adult, "suck it up"  :> )

[In my case, both hands were affected.  Ever try to scratch your palm?
Amazing how far down (in?) the infection is, there!  :<  Thankfully,
other than the inability to "satisfy the itch", I was largely symptom
free -- and no of no one who caught the virus from my infection
(perhaps another measure of its non-virulence?)]

> Yes. And old people get shingles, a reoccurrence of the same latent
> infection.

Like other herpes-family viruses, it hides out in the sensory ganglia
once infected (and symptoms appear to abate).  There is some question as to
whether it is a *continuing* infection or a resurgence.

To my dismay, it's hard to get authoritative answers on:
- will this increase/decrease my susceptibility to a "shingles" infection?
- will the location of the primary symptoms from this "infection" be a good
   indicator of the likely targeted dermatome in a subsequent shingles
   infection?
- which other childhood diseases that you *thought* afforded "immunity for
   life" don't?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#447014

John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> writes:

> On Tue, 07 Feb 2017 21:08:24 +0000, John Devereux
> <john@devereux.me.uk> wrote:
>
>>Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Tue, 7 Feb 2017 17:57:22 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
>>> <curd@notformail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 06 Feb 2017 17:56:02 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I opted for the pneumonia one... all the rest, including flu, I avoid.
>>>>> 
>>>>> My father always got the annual flu vaccine... and always ended up with
>>>>> the flu.  I haven't had the flu since 1964... knock on wood ;-)
>>>>
>>>>I've avoided the flu one too and haven't had flu for over 40 years - 
>>>>until now. The flu I could have handled without too much hassle, BUT it 
>>>>weakened my immune system and opened me up to Shingles, which I'm still 
>>>>suffering the after-effects of. Shingles pain can be *excruciating* at 
>>>>times, I won't forget it in a hurry. Consequently, out of fear of getting 
>>>>shingles again, I plan to take care of my immune system in future and 
>>>>that includes getting the flu jab from now on.
>>>
>>> I may succumb to taking the shingles vaccine... you're all scaring me
>>> :-(
>>
>>Not to pile on but...
>>
>>My mother was very seriously ill from it this Christmas. VZV
>>encephalitis.
>>
>>My daughter had chickenpox a couple of years ago, it is a horrible
>>virus, big boils everywhere, inside and out. She is scarred for life,
>>though not noticably on the face luckily.
>>
>>I have since learned that there is a vaccine for it but it is not
>>routine in the UK (as I gather it is in the USA). It should be.
>
> Yes. And old people get shingles, a reoccurrence of the same latent
> infection.

Sure, it is shingles that my mother had in the form of
encephalitis. I.e., she had already had chickenpox as a child.



-- 

John Devereux

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#447092

On 2/9/2017 10:02 AM, John Devereux wrote:
> John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> writes:
>
>> On Tue, 07 Feb 2017 21:08:24 +0000, John Devereux
>> <john@devereux.me.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 7 Feb 2017 17:57:22 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
>>>> <curd@notformail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 06 Feb 2017 17:56:02 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I opted for the pneumonia one... all the rest, including flu, I avoid.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My father always got the annual flu vaccine... and always ended up with
>>>>>> the flu.  I haven't had the flu since 1964... knock on wood ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>> I've avoided the flu one too and haven't had flu for over 40 years -
>>>>> until now. The flu I could have handled without too much hassle, BUT it
>>>>> weakened my immune system and opened me up to Shingles, which I'm still
>>>>> suffering the after-effects of. Shingles pain can be *excruciating* at
>>>>> times, I won't forget it in a hurry. Consequently, out of fear of getting
>>>>> shingles again, I plan to take care of my immune system in future and
>>>>> that includes getting the flu jab from now on.
>>>>
>>>> I may succumb to taking the shingles vaccine... you're all scaring me
>>>> :-(
>>>
>>> Not to pile on but...
>>>
>>> My mother was very seriously ill from it this Christmas. VZV
>>> encephalitis.
>>>
>>> My daughter had chickenpox a couple of years ago, it is a horrible
>>> virus, big boils everywhere, inside and out. She is scarred for life,
>>> though not noticably on the face luckily.
>>>
>>> I have since learned that there is a vaccine for it but it is not
>>> routine in the UK (as I gather it is in the USA). It should be.
>>
>> Yes. And old people get shingles, a reoccurrence of the same latent
>> infection.
>
> Sure, it is shingles that my mother had in the form of
> encephalitis. I.e., she had already had chickenpox as a child.

Catching chickenpox is the only way to get shingles.  You don't get 
shingles from someone with shingles, you get chickenpox.

-- 

Rick C

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#447173

On Thu, 09 Feb 2017 17:46:44 -0500, rickman wrote:

> Catching chickenpox is the only way to get shingles.  

Rubbish. The chickpox vaccine alone can cause shingles in later life.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#447249

On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 3:53:57 AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Feb 2017 17:46:44 -0500, rickman wrote:
> 
> > Catching chickenpox is the only way to get shingles.  
> 
> Rubbish. The chickenpox vaccine alone can cause shingles in later life.

Not exactly. The chickenpox vaccine is an attenuated strain of the chickenpox virus, and getting vaccinated is just a safer way of getting chickenpox. You are are less likely to develop shingles from exposure to the attentuated virus, so getting vaccinated does happen to be an effective way of reducing your risk of getting shingles.

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#447131

On Thu, 09 Feb 2017 15:02:51 +0000, John Devereux
<john@devereux.me.uk> wrote:

>John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> writes:
>
>> On Tue, 07 Feb 2017 21:08:24 +0000, John Devereux
>> <john@devereux.me.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 7 Feb 2017 17:57:22 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
>>>> <curd@notformail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 06 Feb 2017 17:56:02 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I opted for the pneumonia one... all the rest, including flu, I avoid.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> My father always got the annual flu vaccine... and always ended up with
>>>>>> the flu.  I haven't had the flu since 1964... knock on wood ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>>I've avoided the flu one too and haven't had flu for over 40 years - 
>>>>>until now. The flu I could have handled without too much hassle, BUT it 
>>>>>weakened my immune system and opened me up to Shingles, which I'm still 
>>>>>suffering the after-effects of. Shingles pain can be *excruciating* at 
>>>>>times, I won't forget it in a hurry. Consequently, out of fear of getting 
>>>>>shingles again, I plan to take care of my immune system in future and 
>>>>>that includes getting the flu jab from now on.
>>>>
>>>> I may succumb to taking the shingles vaccine... you're all scaring me
>>>> :-(
>>>
>>>Not to pile on but...
>>>
>>>My mother was very seriously ill from it this Christmas. VZV
>>>encephalitis.
>>>
>>>My daughter had chickenpox a couple of years ago, it is a horrible
>>>virus, big boils everywhere, inside and out. She is scarred for life,
>>>though not noticably on the face luckily.
>>>
>>>I have since learned that there is a vaccine for it but it is not
>>>routine in the UK (as I gather it is in the USA). It should be.
>>
>> Yes. And old people get shingles, a reoccurrence of the same latent
>> infection.
>
>Sure, it is shingles that my mother had in the form of
>encephalitis. I.e., she had already had chickenpox as a child.

Encephalitis?  Because she had chickenpox she got encephalitis? You'll
have to parse the above for me.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.electronics.design

csiph-web