Mutant Registration vs. Vaccine Registration 493
Responding to an editorial endorsing a national vaccine registry in Canada (though the same kind of registry could be and has been proposed in the U.S. with the same logic), an anonymous reader writes "Vaccine Registration makes me think of Mutant and Superhero registration. The reasons are similar. It's based on fear and misinformation. People fear that unvaccinated people will doom us all. Sound familiar? The difference is this is real. (Oh, and they probably won't use sentinels to track down the dangerous unvaccinated folks.) Thoughts?"
From the linked editorial: "A national vaccination registry would identify which Canadians have been fully vaccinated, those who have received less than a full dose of shots, and those who have not been vaccinated at all. Having a vaccine registry in place in the event of an outbreak of measles, whooping cough, and diseases like these would enable public health officials to identify the children and adults who need vaccinations. Getting them the shots they need would reduce the risk of anyone on the list getting sick, and would also reduce the threat of an outbreak in the community in which they live or travel to [and] from."
In the U.S., immunization records — at least, ones which have been put in electronic form at all — are maintained in a mix of databases, including at the state level, or maintained by cities, or by insurance companies and medical providers. Here, some people (like the reader who submitted this story) also see a potential for unwarranted privacy invasion in a national vaccination registry; however, their case isn't helped by often being tied to opposition to vaccination more generally.
Re:Infectious diseases ... (Score:5, Informative)
How can you get infected if YOU have been inoculated??? So how are they a public risk to you?
Because no vaccine is 100% effective, even if you're immunized, you can still catch the disease.
http://www.historyofvaccines.o... [historyofvaccines.org]
Why aren’t all vaccines 100% effective?
Vaccines are designed to generate an immune response that will protect the vaccinated individual during future exposures to the disease. Individual immune systems, however, are different enough that in some cases, a person’s immune system will not generate an adequate response. As a result, he or she will not be effectively protected after immunization.
That said, the effectiveness of most vaccines is high. After receiving the second dose of the MMR vaccine (measles, mumps and rubella) or the standalone measles vaccine, 99.7% of vaccinated individuals are immune to measles. The inactivated polio vaccine offers 99% effectiveness after three doses. The varicella (chickenpox) vaccine is between 85% and 90% effective in preventing all varicella infections, but 100% effective in preventing moderate and severe chicken pox.
Further, some individuals are unable to be vaccinated due to underlying medical conditions (allergies, compromised immune system, etc).
Re:Infectious diseases ... (Score:5, Informative)
The only problem with your logic is that if you are immunized then the un-immunized people don't pose a threat against you. That's the point of you being immunized. So your argument is pretty much moot...
Vaccinations are not 100% successful. We rely on everyone having the vaccinations so the chance of ever even being exposed to the pathogens is very remote.
Re:NO. (Score:2, Informative)
People with HIV who have had deliberately had sex with people have been charged with attempted murder and for good reason too.
Re:Infectious diseases ... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Misinformation? (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, it's two jabs, but the point remains valid.
Also, never having chickenpox means you won't develop shingles later in life.
Re: Misinformation? (Score:4, Informative)
All diseases range in severity from individual to individual, and chicken pox and shingles are no different. Generally speaking it is worse for adults. That doesn't mean that every adult infection is guaranteed to be life-threatening, nor does it mean that a childhood infection can't kill somebody.
It really is in the public interest to reduce the incidence of these diseases all-around. For every few hundred cases of whooping cough that cause discomfort to a teenager there could be a case that kills a 4 month old child (who is still too young to vaccinate I might add).
Sure, the vaccines can also cause their own problems, but for any vaccine on the market the risks of side-effects and the risks of not being vaccinated are well known, and they wouldn't be on the market and on the vaccine schedules of virtually every developed nation if the one didn't greatly outweigh the other...
Re:Misinformation? - Shingles (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Well... (Score:4, Informative)
How the US is doing:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastat... [cdc.gov]
Percent of children 19-35 months old receiving vaccinations for:
Diphtheria, Tetanus, Pertussis (4+ doses DTP, DT, or DTaP): 83%
Polio (3+ doses): 93%
Measles, Mumps, Rubella (MMR) (1+ doses): 91%
Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) (primary series + booster dose): 81%
Hepatitis B (Hep B) (3+ doses): 90%
Chickenpox (Varicella) (1+ doses): 90%
Pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV) (4+doses): 82%
Percent of children 6 months to 17 years who received an influenza vaccination during the past 12 months: 45.2%
Percent of adults 18-49 years who received an influenza vaccination during the past 12 months: 26.3%
Percent of adults 50-64 years who received an influenza vaccination during the past 12 months: 42.7%
Percent of adults 65 years and over who received an influenza vaccination during the past 12 months: 66.5%