Hacker News Reader

Comment by smuss77 | Hacker News Reader

If it was my son and he couldn't be vaccinated for a few months I'd simply hold him out of school until the vaccinations could be administered. I feel for the child and his family, it's a horrible thing that happened to them, but talk about solving a simple problem with an activist response. This is how we end up with a ridiculous number of laws and regulations. If we should legislate that every kid in a public school is vaccinated, why would we stop there? Why not legislate every kid that enters a public library be vaccinated? Why not any public place?

View on HN

The thing that bothers me isn't the need to vaccinate, but the fact that the list of vaccinations continues to get longer. Well, it isn't the length of the list; it's simply that I'm not worried about all of the diseases on the list.

My main disagreement is chicken pox. Yes, I understand that there are serious chicken pox cases, but they're incredibly rare. Whoever made the decision to include the chicken pox vaccine on the list weighed a very rare risk for unvaccinated children against even smaller risks for vaccinated children, and decided to require the vaccine. That's a rational decision, but I would prefer if I were allowed to weigh benefits and risks myself.

The chicken pox vaccine is included to prevent shingles. You will be long gone by the time your child is a senior citizen and vulnerable to the relapse but it's a horrible experience for the elderly.

You don't have to be senior to get shingles. I got shingles at age 30 along the s2 and s3 dermatomes. Extremely painful but certainly survivable and treatable. Complications are the big concern in the elderly. I think education and knowledge dissemination on what to look for for early diagnosis is more important.

shingles isn't just for old people, I'm 27 and I had it. Wish I hadn't. Caught it early and the doctor said I was lucky, but it still hurt to even move.

As I mentioned on a sibling post, I too got shingles at a younger age.

Just prior to rearing its ugly blisters, were you stressed physically, emotionally, and/or mentally? From my understanding shingles is able to come out when the immune system is weak/compromised, often times to due high stress levels. I know when my showed up I was extremely stressed.

I know a few others who have had shingles in their late 20's early 30's too. Not sure if it's becoming more prevalent or just more recognized/talked about but I think people should be more informed to recognize early symptoms so as to treat it ASAP.

For others reading, when my shingles showed up I recall a funny tingling sensation which after a few days turned into more of a burning sensation. You will only feel it on one side of your body. My singles came out around the S2 and S3 dermatomes (http://webpresencepartners.com/wp-content/uploads/cssmap/201...) on my right side. If hurt to sit, it hurt to stand, it hurt to move... but it went away after only a few days thank goodness! Shingles often starts presenting itself in one of two dermatomes. If you're not familiar with dermatomes I suggest you due a quick five minute search and read on them.

ADD: Good info: http://www.webmd.com/skin-problems-and-treatments/shingles/n...

Unless there's a detail that I'm not aware of, vaccination at, say, 18 should be as effective against shingles as vaccination at 4.

Shingles isn't a separate disease. If you had chicken pox, you have the shingles virus in you already. If you had the chicken pox vaccine before you got exposed to chicken pox, you don't. And the only shingles specific vaccine is only for ages 50+, which isn't terribly useful for people like me, who get it at age 27.

According to this http://www.webmd.com/drugs/2/drug-144377/zostavax-subq/detai... there is a [different?] shingles vaccine ZOSTAVAX available to older adults.

I assumed and thought the same as you, that once you got chicken pox then the vaccine for shingles is useless.

The link above states "This vaccine works by boosting the body's natural defense (immunity) against the zoster virus so that symptoms of shingles do not develop. It should not be used for treating active shingles, nerve pain caused by shingles, or for the prevention of chickenpox.

This vaccine should not be used in children."

You're right. I wasn't thinking when I wrote the comment.

Still, the CDC's page for the chicken pox vaccine doesn't mention its effect on shingles ( http://www.cdc.gov/chickenpox/vaccination.html ), which suggests to me that avoiding shingles may be a great perk, it isn't the main reason behind requiring vaccination in school children.

With the caveats of believing Wikipedia, Wikipedia's page ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varicella_vaccine ) states both that being vaccinated reduces (but does not eliminate) the risk of shingles, and that vaccination of children raises the risk of shingles in unvaccinated adults slightly because the adults don't come into contact with the virus as often (near the end of the subsection on "Rates of immunity" and the second paragraph of the subsection "Rates of chickenpox").

Your case of shingles may, in fact, have been caused by widespread vaccination of children (I would expect that problem to disappear after a long transition; and, of course, it's impossible to say if your case was caused by this transition, but it's certain that some cases are).

meh, I think I'll take the discomfort over: "Some people with serious complications from chickenpox can become so sick that they need to be hospitalized. Chickenpox can also cause death.

Some deaths from chickenpox continue to occur in healthy, unvaccinated children and adults. Many of the healthy adults who died from chickenpox contracted the disease from their unvaccinated children."

quoted from http://www.cdc.gov/chickenpox/about/complications.html

Something about this comment is really bugging me and I'm not sure what it is. I think I'm in agreement that giving people unnecessary medical procedures is probably a bad idea. Maybe it's just because I don't understand why you hate the chicken pox vaccine.

I took a quick look at the CDC page about it and the wikipedia entry. According to wikipedia before the vaccine was introduced in the US 10k people a year were admitted to a hospital due to chicken pox and 100 people a year died from it. It goes on to say that 10 years after the CDC recommended the vaccine the hospital admissions dropped by 71% for people under 20 and deaths dropped 97%.

Neither of those sources had numbers for the moderate or severe reactions cause by the vaccine (seizures,pneumonia) the CDC just says very rare. Overall though it seems like there is essentially no downside.

Now that I just looked all that up maybe my issue is when you claim that they "weighed a very rare risk for unvaccinated children against even smaller risks for vaccinated children" and go on to agree that was a rational decision. At that point wouldn't not being immunized just be irrational?

I'll admit that I don't make all of my decisions scientifically. I had chicken pox, all of my siblings and cousins had chicken pox, and I personally don't know anyone who had a bad enough case to be hospitalized.

If 100 people die out of 10000 that are hospitalized, the danger of death from people who have an unusually bad infection is only 1%, meaning the risk for the general public is significantly less.

But I'll admit my grandparents lived in a time where they knew large numbers of people suffered through measles, mumps or reubela. If they had the same "I lived through it" attitude I have, those diseases would be much more common today.

But, still, I have a hard time telling my kids that they have to get this specific vaccine so they can avoid the horrors of spending a week or two covering themselves with calamine lotion, with a small risk of something worse happening.

OK, here are the numbers from the CDC ( http://www.cdc.gov/chickenpox/vaccination.html ): 4 million cases annually, 10,600 (0.265%) required hospitalization, and 100 to 150 (0.0025% to 0.0037% of the 4 million cases) deaths.

Certainly going from 100-150 deaths a year to fewer than 10 is a significant improvement, and the 90-140 people who survive each year who wouldn't are grateful (or would be, if they knew what the alternative was). But we are talking about a very small risk.

Because going to school is a legal requirement until a specific age. Going to the library or another public place is not.

People shouldn't be afforded leeway because of their own ignorance. Not vaccinating your child is ignorant and dangerous. I don't think there should be a religious exemption either, but I'm a raging atheist so shrug.

Yeah but that's kind of a capricious line considering the amount of traffic going into that public place -- mandatory of not. It's kind of a not-so-strong point to say that kids are forced to go to school when there are so many kids in a library anyway.

Also, I thought vaccination works? If so, what does it matter if another child is or isn't vaccinated? This child is a special case, and he is also a temporary case. It's because HE cannot be vaccinated. It's silly because if there were another special case at the school, then it would be untenable.

I believe nearly every university requires proof of vaccination/immunity for a variety of standard immunizations for attendance. It's pretty standard. I don't know if it's some federal law, or just good public health practice.

Are you upset about this? I'm not sure why the anti-vaccination crowd isn't more upset about this -- but bite my tongue, I'm sure it'll be coming next.

You can always make a slippery slope argument, but public educational institutions seem like a pretty appropriate place to require vaccinations.

Then again, why not legislate that every kid period is vaccinated (unless health conditions prevent it), really, why not?

I'm not upset about that. Personally, I think vaccines are a minuscule risk, and worth taking, but that's me.

The "why not," for me, is if someone truly believes a vaccine is harmful, maybe due to religion or because she's a researcher that believes there is some second order risk (founded or not), it's immoral to force them to do so.

Why does your personal preference with any basis in fact or reasoning allow you to trump some sick child's ability to attend school?

Where does preference end? If there's a boy in a kindergarten with severe peanut allergy, should the class snack be peanuts one a day week? After all, the kid can stay home that day?

Read the story of FDR's struggle with polio. Or the death and disfigurement dealt out by smallpox. Or the kids bedridden for weeks with measles in the 50s. Taking safe, effective measures to eradicate these things isn't "ridiculous regulation"... It's a service to humanity.

I didn't say I have a preference. Labeling someones choice not to vaccinate a "personal preference" is quite belittling. There is a real, albeit tiny, risk of allergic reaction and possibly death from vaccines (pro-vaccine reference http://www.vaccines.com/vaccine-allergic-reaction-odds.cfm). So the peanut analogy doesn't hold up, the lack of peanuts doesn't pose a risk to any child.

That actually doesn't sound that bad. It's interesting invoking the phrase "laws and regulations" is meant to indicate on its face something terrible. :) Maybe it is just simply irresponsible and negligent not to vaccinate your child. Makes a lot of sense to me. But then I like polio's status today, perhaps some would like to see it make a comeback.

It absolutely is meant to seem terrible. :) Not to put words in your mouth, but assuming a law is passed requiring every kid get vaccinated, there must be a punitive side to the law. What will it be? Prison? Taking people's kids?

Holding a kid out of school can be a pretty serious hardship for a family, and a setback for the kid's education. At the very least, the school should provide the kid with alternative care.

And furthermore, if the concern is that unvaccinated children are putting others at risk and should be excluded from school, then wouldn't it stand to reason that this child (who is also unvaccinated) is also putting others at risk (albeit the motivation for not vaccinating is different)?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity

Public health is inherently a community thing, cause contagious diseases are transmitted socially, that's just how it works. If everyone who can be vaccinated is, then those who can't are much safer.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com