To begin with, I'm a strict vegetarian for religious reasons and steadfastly refuse to use vaccines that are grown in animal tissue.
Yet, I can't seem to win here. If herd immunity works, then surely I don't need shots, being one of the small percentage of the public that abstains from getting jabbed. But if 'herd immunity' validly exists and I use that to skip a jab seeing as "I'm protected by others", then I'm labelled a parasite for bludging off society. If it's a myth then there's no protection whether you're vaccinated or not. If enough of the population has had flu shots, why should I worry? The strain is supposed to die out without enough hosts for it to multiply. Therefore I can skip the jab and avoid the risk of getting flu from it ha ha!
Don't get me wrong - I'm not an Anti-vaxxer - I'm pro-choice. Actually, I'm all for immunisation (eg tetanus antibodies booster); pretty much ok with inoculation such as variolation; sitting on the fence with inactivated vaccines but quite alarmed and somewhat wary about attenuated "live" vaccines such as flu shots - which can give you a bout of influenza that you may have otherwise avoided. Mind you, Australian flu vaccines are supposed to be different to overseas ones and don't have attenuated "live" microbes. They're supposedly thoroughly killed off and there's no chance of getting flu from them. Still, the vaccine is incubated in chicken eggs and then inactivated. This year's jab is 47% effective. Last year it was 36%. At those rates I'd sooner take my chances and stay chicken egg free. Though I might still get the flu regardless.
You didn't know there is a difference between vaccination, immunisation and inoculation? Thought they were all the same? That's because these three terms are wrongfully used interchangeably in a slipshod manner (hardly anyone even knows what variolation is so I didn’t count that one). They are all completely separate procedures that use different mechanisms to artificially induce immunity or even better, a response from your immune system.
As for "herd immunity", the term comes from observation of natural resistance that some animals have in a community. It isn't the same as vaccine-induced 'protection' because natural immunity is life-long and far more effective. Most adults don't realise that their childhood jabs are no longer protecting them, whereas kids that have had measles or chicken pox will never ever have to deal with them again. There's every chance that elderly citizens can succumb to diseases they've been vaccinated for because most wear off - like pneumonia, shingles, diptheria, tetanus, hepatitis A & B. And influenza - because it constantly mutates and past jabs won't protect from future strains.
The best protection by far is a healthy immune system. You can't find that in a needle or a pill bottle because it is a result of a healthy lifestyle - good diet, exercise, avoiding allergens, toxins and chemicals - and even having good thoughts and healthy warm emotions! All these promote a good immune system, your first defence against any attacking pathogen.
Childhood diseases are actually good for the individual as long as they don't suffer permanent injury (or worse still, die) because their immune system's response gives them lifelong protection. It is far better to catch a disease as a kid than as a senior because old folk don't bounce back so good. That's why they die of 'ordinary diseases' that would only send a kid to bed for a couple of days or at most a week or two. Catching measles as a veteran is potentially lethal whereas very few of us died as kids from it. Well in fact none of us if you're reading this.
I'd like to note here that as a child I was constantly getting sick on a routine yearly basis - either otitis media (infection of the middle ear), tonsilitis, or hives (I still don't like the smell of caladryl lotion!). As an undiagnosed coeliac, most likely all three, all inflammatory reactions, were a result of wheat, although the hives might've been from the sprays they used in those days. I enjoy them now without any allergic reaction. I was diagnosed just before my 55th birthday, soon after my 16yo daughter received the same news. Strangely my mother was a trained nurse yet missed picking up on it even when I complained that my lunchtime brown bread sandwiches made me feel ill. When I asked to have white bread like all the other kids I was told to stop complaining, "wholemeal bread is good for you". No it wasn't!
Ok, back to 'herd immunity'.
It's not a scientific rule. It's an idea. Herds can still get sick, just that it won't spread like wildfire and they're less likely to succumb when most of the members are resistant to a particular disease. Yet this natural resistance is far, far stronger than any artificially induced vaccination, a point often glossed over in pro-vaxx circles where those who have been jabbed may be unwittingly carrying around supressed microbes of a virus that infect unvaccinated people including anti-vaxxers.
So.... Herd Immunity is an ideological concept, not a scientific fact based on exact numbers. True, different diseases need different percentages of populations to minimise spreading but it doesn't eliminate disease. It prevents epidemics breaking out... in theory, that is. Still the numbers required are approximate because it's guesswork. That's not science. That's politics, guilt-trips, peer pressure, emotional blackmail. I find this whole "for the greater good" compulsory vaccination propaganda an impingement on personal freedom. Every individual in society has the right to choose otherwise we live in a dictatorship. Yet it makes complete sense that because viruses rely on suitable hosts to breed and multiply, limiting the number of available hosts restricts any disease from "going viral" (pun intended).
With myself, basically it comes down to this... If vaxxers really believe they're protected by their vaccinations, how can they blame anti-vaxxers for exposing them to potentially harmful pathogens? I thought your vaccination made you immune. What are you frightened of? How can you blame me or anyone else?
Because I'm a bludger, relying on herd immunity? Well then wtf are you worried about if herd immunity is protecting you!
The problem I find with these sorts of emotionally charged arguments is that it is hard to get unbiased information. Take for example global warming. Both sides of the argument presented data sets, graphs, meteorological and climatological groupthink, predictions and prognostications to backup their respective points of view. It is said, when debate degenerates into character assassination, name-calling, insults, foul language and uncivil antisocial behaviour it is fairly reasonable to assume that the offending party is losing the debate. Those with weak arguments get angry. Those who are quietly confident are patient, calmly presenting their case in an optimistic, gentle manner as they have nothing to fear. Aggression is a sign of a weakly placed Mars in the horoscope of the individual. Those with a strong Mars have no need to attack. They use others' agression by deflecting it back at them where their mistakes in thinking result in further complication. It is impossible to make wise decisions when one is angry, everyone knows this from practical example. No-one ever makes a smart choice by being hot-tempered. Eventually the detractor will self-implode out of sheer frustration. Game over.
"A gentleman tolerates insults silently. Wise men suffer fools gladly. In such circumstances, inaction is the only honorable course of action."
No comments:
Post a Comment