Mom Suggests Parents Should Get Over Their Fear of Unvaccinated Children
There might be more unvaccinated kids than we realize.
Wow. I just read one of the best pieces I’ve ever come across on the great vaccine debate, Western vs. Holistic medicine, Big Pharma and our addict culture. And get this — it wasn’t some nine-page dissertation in the Times — all of those topics were covered and addressed thoroughly and logically in a two-page blog post on Mommyish.
The post I’m referring to was written in response to another Mommyish piece titled, Your Unvaccinated Kid is Not Welcome to Play With Mine. Angela Arsenault says in this, the original essay, that parents of unvaccinated children are “responsible for the unnecessary illness of babies who were too young to yet be vaccinated.” She then adds, “I definitely blame you for your own child’s sickness – and I just have to remind you that it was preventable.”
Okay, there’s some truth to those statements, sure. We know about “herd immunity” and how unvaccinated children — and adults, for that matter — put infants at risk for disease. But let me say that Arsenault jumped to this conclusion (50 days ago, it should be noted) because her daughter caught a cold at pre-school and it got passed to Arsenault’s 16-month-old son. The “sound of his phlegmy coughs” led Arsenault to “mind-Google” the symptoms of whooping cough. (Are you following this so far?) Then Arsenault realized her son was vaccinated against whooping cough, so he was fine. (Arsenault doesn’t suggest, by the way, that her daughter was infected by an unimmunized child, so I have no idea why she drew the connection between a common cold and vaccinations, but, that’s neither here nor there.)
Because here’s the real kicker: Arsenault is chastising parents for not vaccinating their children against viruses like pertussis when she herself used Dr. Sears’ modified vaccination schedule for her children — and — she admits that she doesn’t like the flu vaccine and has never had her children immunized against influenza.
Umm… projecting much, lady?
So here’s where Bolaji Williams’ response post, Parents, Get Over Your Fear Of Unvaccinated Children, comes in. Don’t let the post’s title mislead you: Williams doesn’t argue against vaccination, instead she encourages it, but says unvaccinated children are only a threat to themselves. (Which is only sort of true.)
Regarding the flu vaccine specifically, Williams writes:
Flu viruses change as a result of genetic mutations. Which means that the flu we have this year may have changed in a way that is not the same as the previous year. For example, the vaccine made against the flu virus of 2010 may not be effective against the flu of 2011. New virus types emerge all the time, which is why a vaccination is required each new year. Flu shots are preventative; for that reason alone, they be should be considered.
Williams consulted her father, Bolanle Williams, PhD, “a microbiologist-virologist, a research scientist with patents, and a former university professor,” on the topic of unvaccinated children playing with vaccinated ones, and he told her:
Nothing will happen if unvaccinated children play with a vaccinated and immuned child. It’s discrimination. It is not a biological exactitude. That said, the only individuals who will be at risk for highly contagious and infectious microbes like whooping cough, for example, are other unvaccinated children and those children should be isolated. If your child has been properly vaccinated and immuned, then the unvaccinated child poses no risk to your child.
To be fair, Arsenault does acknowledge that dynamic in her post, saying, “I understand that since my kids are vaccinated, I shouldn’t really be concerned about them being exposed to such maladies, but there’s a bigger issue that I just can’t get past. It’s an issue I have with you, parent of the unvaccinated, not actually with your child. It’s a feeling that you’re not doing your part here; not holding up your end of the bargain.” Which pretty much proves Williams’ point about discrimination.
So, this brings us to an open thread discussion about childhood vaccines, those that choose not to get them, those that get them on an adjusted schedule (I have written in the past that I think the validity of the Dr. Sears schedule is at least worth considering, even though I went with the CDC schedule), the flu shot, and whether or not you would discriminate against an unimmunized child. I just realized while writing this post that as a parent I wouldn’t even think to inquire (before a playdate, let’s say) whether or not the child my daughter was set to play with had been vaccinated. I would just assume he/she had been.
My daughter attends a public school in Brooklyn, as do all of her friends. In New York State, for the most part, children cannot attend public school without being vaccinated. I didn’t know this until researching vaccination requirements for this post, but New York State does extend a religious exemption to those who wish to attend public school without vaccination. (Yikes.) According to the website vaclib.org, however, “New York is probably the most difficult state in the US in which to exercise your right to determine what goes into your body and your children’s bodies.” (Whew.) New York State is not the only state with such exemptions available to public school families; many states have religious and other exemptions that might allow a child to attend public school without immunization. In discussing this with a teacher friend of mine, she wondered if schools are required to inform parents that there is an unvaccinated child in their midst. Is the right to medical privacy trumped by the need to protect the larger school population, including pregnant teachers?
It seems clear that the exchange between Arsenault and Williams is important for this reason alone: to get all of us to realize that vaccinations are clearly something worth bringing up to anyone who will have contact with your unprotected infant, since there may be more unvaccinated children around than we realize, and even though your vaccinated older child is safe, your unimmunized infant is not.
Thoughts?
As the mother of a partially vaccinated 6 month old (following the CDC schedule) I think calling a fear of unvaccinated children mere discrimination is total nonsense. Sorry, my infant IS endangered by that kid without his whooping cough vax AND the kids who’s parents elect not to get their seasonal flu vaccines (plus unvaccinated grown ups) since the flu is disproprtionally dangerous to infants. My baby gets his first flu vaccine Tuesday. And you know, most kids are safe once they are fully vaccinated, but not 100%. Nothing will happen if an unvaccinated child plays with a vaccinated AND IMMUNED child, but too bad for that 1-30% of any particular vaccine that don’t take. Well written does not equal right.
Your partially vaccinated and/or not yet vaccinated baby is endangered not just by someone else’s unvaccinated child but by your children (the baby’s siblings) as well as a working spouse that is out and about. They may be immunized against a virus and can’t contract it,but they can still bring the virus home and infect any unvaccinated person!
Logicalmama: You can’t bring home a virus if you don’t contract it (other than on your hands or something, which is easily prevented by handwashing). You can be infected by a virus and not have symptoms, but immunization, when it works, keeps you from contracting and spreading the virus at all, it doesn’t just prevent the symptoms. So it isn’t true that a person who isn’t infected can easily bring home a virus to infect an unvaccinated family member. If it was, vaccination wouldn’t help at all to prevent the spread of illness, and it does.
I would really like to know where people are getting their information that unvaccinated children are such a threat to vaccinated children. Just because a child is unvaccinated does not mean they carry every single disease known to man. To become infected or become a carrier of a disease you first have to come into contact with it. I have not read anywhere that a vaccinated child cannot carry a disease and then pass it on to others. They may be carrying the disease and show no symptoms due to the vaccine. Furthermore, vaccines are not 100% effective, and most only claim to make the illness less severe, not fully avoid it. Megan I am really confused how you think that your vaccinated child is endangered by someones child who is unvaccinated against whooping cough?
I’m sure even Bolanie Williams would agree that vaccines are not 100 percent effective in every person who receives them; they vary quite a bit in their effectiveness. Your child may be vaccinated, but you don’t know if your child actually has immunity unless go go an extra step to have that tested sometime after the vaccination. So it’s hard to say that the only vulnerable people are “unvaccinated” children; also vulnerable are the vaccinated children who did not receive full immunity.
Jamie, here’s the deal as I understand it. Whole cell vaccines are generally the most effective kinds of vaccines when it comes to preventing disease. But the old whole cell whooping cough vaccine (used decades ago) caused too many bad reactions, and fewer people were getting their kids vaccinated. So in 1991 they developed new whooping cough vaccines (these ones use a few broken up pieces of the Bordetella pertussis bacterium) with very few and mild reactions. A review of studies of the new vaccine’s effectiveness this year showed this:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD001478.pub4/abstract;jsessionid=18F67EEFB7B7AA32EBB55DC1FBB72362.d03t01
Basically, the most effective of the current crop of pertussis vaccines prevents typical whooping cough in up to 85 percent of the kids who get vaccinated. But that means 15 percent of the vaccinated kids are still vulnerable. Now, if those vulnerable kids aren’t exposed to whooping cough, it won’t matter.
From the CDC: How common is pertussis in the United States?
Before a vaccine against pertussis was available, pertussis (whooping cough) was a major cause of childhood illness and death in the United States. From 1940–1945, over one million cases of pertussis were reported. With the introduction of a vaccine in the late 1940s, the number of reported pertussis cases in the U.S. declined from approximately 200,000 a year in the pre-vaccine era to a low of 1,010 cases in 1976.
Since the 1980s, there has been an increase in the number of cases of pertussis, especially among adolescents (10–19 years of age) and babies less than 6 months of age. The incidence of pertussis is in the U.S. is cyclical, with peaks occurring every 3–5 years as the number of susceptible people increase to the point where transmission can occur. In 2004 and 2005, over 25,000 cases of pertussis were reported to CDC in each of those years, the highest number since 1959. The reason for this increase is not clear. California experienced a substantial increase in reported cases in 2010. By the end of August, 3,600 cases had been reported, the most in 52 years, including 8 deaths from pertussis in infants too young to be fully protected.
Unvaccinated children are a danger. Without unvaccinated children, these viruses can’t be spread.
A stupid article.
It assumes every vaccinated kid is 100% protected. Is there seriously anybody who had spent 5 minutes looking into vaccines that thinks this is true?
Everybody knows, including Bolaji Williams, that a percentage of vaccinated kids are still vulnerable. Meaning she was just talking BS. As was anyone who agrees with her based on that faulty premise.
Ridiculous.
“In discussing this with a teacher friend of mine, she wondered if schools are required to inform parents that there is an unvaccinated child in their midst. Is the right to medical privacy trumped by the need to protect the larger school population, including pregnant teachers?”
The only one who needs to know the vaccination status of a given child is the school nurse. If there is an outbreak of a particular disease, current laws already permit the exclusion of unvaccinated children.
Diera, then why are more vaccinated people catching and spreading it? http://www.gaia-health.com/articles451/000484-whooping-cough-in-vaccinated.shtml
In fact, in the recent Smalltown, NY outbreak 100% of the cases WERE vaccinated up to date.
Correction- Smithtown, NY
‘Why? Partly because the vaccine is not 100 percent effective (see above) and partly because that while the short term immunity is pretty good, that immunity may wane more quickly that researchers thought. I suspect they are thinking of redoing the schedule so that vaccinated kids are better protected before they hit their tweens.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/2011/09/19/whooping-cough-vaccination.html
“Health officials have acknowledged the long-term effectiveness of whooping cough vaccine is not well understood. The nation switched over to a new type of childhood whooping cough vaccine in the late 1990s, one deemed safer than the version used for decades before.
Short-term effectiveness of the new vaccine has been shown to be 90 per cent or greater. But the long-term effectiveness of the childhood vaccine has not been studied as much.
A preliminary study by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, conducted last year, found it ebbs. The five doses for young children were about 70 per cent effective five years after the last shot.
Witt found that rates of whooping cough — also known as pertussis — dropped dramatically after kids were age 11 and 12, when many get the recommended booster shot.”
Sooooo- what’s the vax rate on adults with the newer TDaP formula? I had mine last year. -(the Boostrix in case you were wondering
I check, get the fact sheet and obtain package inserts for EVERY vaccine my family receives.) Do a little anecdotal study of all of the adults you know- how many have had THEIR Boostrix and Adacel vaccines within the past 5 years. Yes, specifically those two, which are newer to the US and contain the pertussis component and replace the older, still used Td vaccines which has NO pertussis coverage.
If you aren’t going to force all adults to get it, don’t mandate it for children without having exemptions in place for med, rel & philo. Because your child can catch it just as quickly at the supermarket, doctor’s office, theater, restaurant or even school- from other ADULTS.
@Goddess: I never said that vaccinated people cannot catch and spread disease, and several other people in this thread have already mentioned that no vaccination works 100% of the time (and that the effectiveness of vaccination wanes over time). What I said was, vaccinated people aren’t only protected against symptoms – they aren’t any more prone than they would have been without vaccination to catching and spreading disease without showing any symptoms (“They may be immunized against a virus and can’t contract it,but they can still bring the virus home and infect any unvaccinated person!”). Several people in this thread appear to believe that all vaccines do is protect you against symptoms, and that therefore a vaccinated person is just as likely as an unvaccinated one to infect others. This is incorrect.
@Goddess: I don’t understand your reasoning. Because not all adults have had the recently issued boosters for pertussis (I have, personally) that argues that we SHOULDN’T vaccinate kids? Color me confused.
Actually, unless immunity IS achieved a vaxed person can be just as likely to contract the infection and have just as severe symptoms, as well as spread it to others.
Diera, regarding:”@Goddess: I don’t understand your reasoning. Because not all adults have had the recently issued boosters for pertussis (I have, personally) that argues that we SHOULDN’T vaccinate kids? Color me confused.”
That’s because I am not telling you whether YOU should vax or not. I’;m saying- there should be NO mandate that does not allow for choice. If you aren’t willing to make adults man/woman up and force them to vaccinate without providing exemptions, you should not be proposing to do so to children.
Obviously, vacccinated people who don’t achieve immunity (and inevitably, some of them won’t) can catch the disease they’ve been immunized against and spread it to other people. I’m kind of confused why you keep saying this, when every pro-vaccine person here has already agreed with you, including me. However, a vaccinated person can’t spread it unless they get it, just like everybody else, and in any group of vaccinated people, fewer of them will get it than in a similar group of unvaccinated people. They can’t spread it and somehow remain uninfected themselves, as Logicalmama seems to think. And personally, I’d be completely fine with making adult booster shots as mandatory as child shots, it’s just that it’s more difficult to do on a practical level. In most states, vaccination isn’t genuinely mandatory, it’s only mandatory if you want to be enrolled in a school. Since there is no big public institution which is the equivalent for adults, the state doesn’t have as much leverage.
I agree there should be no mandate for vaxing, adults, kids or otherwise. The government should not have the power to tell you how you must alter your or your children’s body. I choose to get my kid vaccinated. I don’t think the unvaccinated kids pose a risk. I don’t really even think about it. If people are so worried about illness, they’d do well not only to get vaxed but to do things that help boost immunity, like extended breastfeeding and eschewing formula, healthful low-sugar diets, getting enough rest, etc.
Can[‘t agree enough with Suzie on this one.
Diera- why do I keep repeating it? How can YOU tell which adults have achieved immunity thru vaccination? How do you determine whose immunity is waning? The point I am making is that unvaxed adults pose as much threat as unvaxed kids- and we do not (or cannot) mandate them be vaxed, why kids? And no- I don ‘t think the govt has a right to force ANY risks on a person without their consent. You quarantine in case of outbreak, but you don’t forcibly inject people. Kids or otherwsie
It came out in a discussion with my mom about following a selective/delayed vaccine schedule that neither she nor my dad have ever received the measles vaccine or had the disease. I have to wonder how many other 50somethings and older are in the same situation.
It should be noted that just because your child is vaccinated, doesn’t automatically mean they are immune. A certain number of individuals (the percentage varies based on the vaccine in question) will not acquire immunity from the vaccination. The only way to ensure the vaccine provided immunity is to do a titer- looking for the presence of antibodies against the illness in question. Titers are rarely done if an accurate vaccination record is available.
So, it is in our society’s best interest for all children to be vaccinated- that way the small number who do not acquire immunity from the vaccine, and the small number for whom vaccination is medically contra-indicated (those with certain allergies, certain types of immune disorders, etc) will be protected. Otherwise, those individuals- as well as individuals who were effectively immunized, but are on chemotherapy, elderly, etc. with suppressed immune responses- will be at risk from exposure by non-vaccinated individuals.
My problem with “the government doesn’t have any right to force any risks on a person without their consent” is that it seems to imply the government doesn’t have the right to do much of anything. Families who sent their children to public school, which is how vaccines are “forced”, accept all kinds of risks that are different from the risks that they would bear at home. Risk of assault by other kids or teachers, risk of health consequences due to spending time in school buildings which may be in poor repair, the risks involved in traveling back and forth, waiting at bus stops, etc., not to mention the risks to other citizens involved in putting all of those school buses on the road every day. How is the risk of vaccination categorically different? Almost anything a government can do – build roads, enforce laws – will involve increasing someone’s risk, even if it involves lessening risk for the population as a whole, as vaccination does. I’m aware of your history and I’m not trying to belittle those risks, but ANY action involves risk. This one lessens the overall risk to us as a society, and the vast majority of voters seem to accept that and agree it’s the right thing for us to do.
I hadn’t thought about this in years, but I just remembered two people in a family I knew growing up were killed in an accident that happened as an adult gave a child a ride to school. They were a family that lived across the street from us and one of their teenagers had been our favorite babysitter. The people killed were her older brother and a young cousin who was living in the same house. The average school year is 180 days long. If each child lives 15 minutes from school, that’s 90 hours on the road each year and 1080 hours for each child over the course of 12 years of schooling. The government is forcing that risk just as much as they’re forcing risk from vaccination (i.e. by requiring that each child get schooling). Why is the one risk OK to “force”, while the other is not?
“My problem with “the government doesn’t have any right to force any risks on a person without their consent” is that it seems to imply the government doesn’t have the right to do much of anything.” That implication is spot on. The government does not have rights over individual’s bodily choices. I do think it is fine for there to be a requirement that children attending PUBLIC school must have certain basic vaccinations (I would not include Gardasil in this) because yes, when you go to public school you are receiving a government service, and so there can be strings attached.
That’s an obtuse argument, Diera.
How is the risk of vaccination any different? It is injecting certain chemicals into one’s body, forcing a health care choice on a person whether they would choose it or not- it is physical assault when it is not consented to.
The strings attached when it comes to public school attendance are that unvaccinated children are not permitted to attend in the event of an outbreak.
Diera- the driving incident- the school is liable for their transport. I believe that is why some districts banned children walking to school-p the courts found the school system responsible for their well-being from the moment thy stepped off their parents’ property (home/car).
I do not belive the government should have any jurisdiction over our health care and that of our children, unless clear physical abuse is suspected/established.
@Suzie: Maybe. It wouldn’t be the first time. But would you care to elaborate? I just don’t think a blanket statement of “the government shouldn’t ever make policy decisions that increase any kind of risk in any direction” is defensible. If vaccinations pose a special kind of risk that should be considered separately, I’d like to know why.
@Goddess: But anyone who has chosen to send their child to school has consented. One can opt out of vaccination in precisely the same way one can opt out of school bus transport: by keeping the kids home. It would be kidnapping to put a child on a bus without a parent’s permission, but that doesn’t mean that laws requiring universal schooling are equivalent to kidnapping, any more than laws requiring vaccination for school are equivalent to assault.
Nope. The schools, by law, must provide the most inclusive education to each child. The ;law provides for un/undervaccinated children by excluding them IF there is an outbreak for the disease for which they are not adequately vaccinated. I’m afraid you’ll ALL have to accept that.
@Goddess: Um, OK, so then you’ve won? Then what problem do you have?
@ godess – just because the law says something does not mean that we have to accept it. I don’t even know where I stand on the issue but to say the law says so, therefore accept it would mean that meaningful discussion on any current law is meaningless. I disagree. I am glad to see healthy discussion on this matter.
My niece has a condition which affects her immune system, and she has been kept out of preschool for this very reason. But when she’s old enough for grade school, my brother and sister are going to ask their local school what measures they are going to take to provide for this child. If schools across the country can become ‘nut-free’ because a small number of children have a peanut allergy, then they should be able to accommodate my niece and any other child with a compromised immune system. They has a right to go to school, too. And if the school can’t adequately accommodate them then they should pay for private tutors out of public funds. It’s not these kids’ fault that other people willingly refuse to vaccinate without an actual reason (other than vague fear, not a legitimate medical reason).
HAVE, not ‘has,’ a right.
Right Trish- and some states do not have philosophical exemptions in place, and I fight for those.
I could not provide a good education for my children at home, and I pay plenty of taxes into an educational system that is compelled to educate my children, and one day they may be undervaccinated for not having had the Gardisil. The only thing you [the general you] need to do is keep your kids’ genitals (and other body parts) away from those of mine. That vaccine has no business being mandated as airborne transmission is not possible.
But for the sake of argument- say unvaxed kids cannot attend school. The schools will be responsible for home tutoring them. That’s going to cost a LOT of money. But you know, if it comes down to that, I’ll take it. The tutor can come teach them at home.
However, until you mandate adults be vaxed as well, I’ll continue to fight for free choice in childhood vaccines with philosophical exemptions available for all states.
I am sorry but kids should be vaccinated. I had to cancel my travel plans find a babysitter and friends to take my daughter and not leave my apartment until I was found not to have chicken pox and why because some parent felt compelled not to have their kid vaccinated and the audacity to take them to the pediatrician where I was exposed. Good grief!! If the health departtment had not been continued to call me, I would have gone on vacation with a 6 month old who was not vaccinated. And what then. In the end, I was fine but what if I had not been.