Is it right for schools to keep unvaccinated children at home?

[Scheavo]

That's an interesting point, Schevo, and yes, vaccination suppresses a certain virus population, which in turn means a different population has more "playing field". However, the problem is, viruses transform constantly anyway, so it's not as if you could arrest this and for example and keep a "stable" and harmless virus in the human population. So, vaccinations are still the way to go. It's just that the vaccines have to move along with the moving target.

rumborak

I think that's true, but I think we should implement this thinking into our policy somehow. These things can and do happen naturally, but putting an environmental pressure on a group of things which evolve is going to cause evolutionary changes, and we may not know how to deal with the changes. I think there's a sweet spot though between all-out vaccination, and some fear of vaccinations, where we can maximize the benefit of the medicine, without creating a monster and an arms race. Studies have shown that in hospitals, the over-sterilization and over-anti-bacterialization methods actually create a worse environment, and more people die (though I still less than nothing at all).

[rumborak]

In the case of bacterial mutations, I completely agree with you. The overuse of antibiotics has rendered most of them useless at this point, and it will need a major shift in public perception that squeaky clean is not the best way to be.
In terms of vaccinations I'm not sure that is the same case. The flu for example mutates every year anyway, with or without vaccinations. So, we're by default in the position that our remedy (the vaccine) becomes useless 6 months down the road. I think vaccinations are a different class than antibiotics.

rumborak

[Scheavo]

In the case of bacterial mutations, I completely agree with you. The overuse of antibiotics has rendered most of them useless at this point, and it will need a major shift in public perception that squeaky clean is not the best way to be.
In terms of vaccinations I'm not sure that is the same case. The flu for example mutates every year anyway, with or without vaccinations. So, we're by default in the position that our remedy (the vaccine) becomes useless 6 months down the road. I think vaccinations are a different class than antibiotics.

rumborak

We're just really getting to the point though where we can truly do anti-viral like we could anti-bacterial, aren't we?

[slycordinator]

We're just really getting to the point though where we can truly do anti-viral like we could anti-bacterial, aren't we?

1) AFAIK, most anti-virals are fairly specific to the virus in question. Like Tamiflu and Relenza are targeted specifically for influenza, whereas with antibiotics there are a lot more drugs that target whole classes of bacteria (like gram-positive, gram-negative, etc) or targeting structures that are pretty common to all bacteria.
2) Since we have more stuff specific to a certain disease, it could be easy for resistance to occur. Like the above Tamiflu now appears pretty useless against the seasonal influenza...

[yorost]

In the case of bacterial mutations, I completely agree with you. The overuse of antibiotics has rendered most of them useless at this point, and it will need a major shift in public perception that squeaky clean is not the best way to be.
In terms of vaccinations I'm not sure that is the same case. The flu for example mutates every year anyway, with or without vaccinations. So, we're by default in the position that our remedy (the vaccine) becomes useless 6 months down the road. I think vaccinations are a different class than antibiotics.

rumborak

They're often useless out of the box.  They throw 3-4 strains into the flu vaccine they expect to be needed over an entire country.  Only 1-2 of those will often have any benefit for being used.  Maybe all of the strains will be needed, but maybe not all of them in all locations.  They also aren't all mutations, many of them simply become insignificant while humanity develops natural antibodies for a generation or so, then resurface.

We shouldn't forget vaccines also help eradicate disease, like smallpox.  It inflicted humanity for most of our existence, but now it is gone and the vaccines are not used.  Measles is at least on the radar for eradication.  If we get to that point the arguments of mutation lose their weight.

[j]

The overuse of antibiotics has rendered most of them useless at this point,
rumborak

This isn't true, but I generally agree with the rest of your post.  Antibiotics are certainly overused, and a huge part of the problem is a public who demands immediate relief for even the most innocuous of symptoms.  But antibiotics are still largely effective at treating bacterial infections, despite the growing prevalence of classifications that are resistant to certain types.

We're just really getting to the point though where we can truly do anti-viral like we could anti-bacterial, aren't we?

No, because viruses and bacteria aren't really comparable genetically.  Viruses are much simpler and mutate at a much higher rate, so broad-spectrum treatment would be virtually impossible.

-J

[Scheavo]

Yes, but we're at the most in genetic engineering and scientific ability that we can keep up with those viruses, as you point out, which effectively makes the same effect as anti-biotics. I know that there's a vast difference between viruses and bacteria, but the pragmatic end can still be the same when we're talking about modern medicine. If you can basically kill any virus that you can find (which, thanks to genetics is something we can do very easily and rather quickly).

Wouldn't we just help them mutate faster?

[slycordinator]

Yes, but we're at the most in genetic engineering and scientific ability that we can keep up with those viruses, as you point out, which effectively makes the same effect as anti-biotics. I know that there's a vast difference between viruses and bacteria, but the pragmatic end can still be the same when we're talking about modern medicine. If you can basically kill any virus that you can find (which, thanks to genetics is something we can do very easily and rather quickly).

The issue is that it is harder than you think to find which virus is involved (there can be many strains involved in an outbreak), create the vaccine, and generate enough of it to treat people.

[William Wallace]

Since the discussion has now mutated from "should kids be kept home" to the vaccination debate, my two cents:

Vaccination = Good, and perhaps necessary, to an extent
Over-vaccination = At best, unnecessary, and at worst, potentially very harmful

The problems are (1) that most "experts" do not take the time to acknowledge that there is a difference, and (2) we are far too dependent as a society on Big Pharm, who financially back most of the "studies" done on the issues, and who notoriously obscure a lot of the important data.  As a result, it is very, VERY difficult to make completely informed, educated decisions about there the line is for "over-vaccination," and Big Pharm likes it that way because if it is too difficult to make an educated decision, most people will err on the perceived "safe side" of just doing it.

That sounds like very carefully crafted Jenny McCarthy logic. How do you define over-vaccination?

And I don't think it's fair to say that studies funded by drug companies are unreliable as a result. If a particular study's methodology is lousy, or if the researchers draw a conclusion beyond the data, then the conflict of interest argument may have some validity, but it doesn't work as a blanket statement.

[rumborak]

The thing is also, unless you're subscribing to a massive conspiracy theory, it becomes hard to explain why both pharma and academia say in unison that vaccinations are necessary.
Bottom line is, nobody in the general public is in the position to make an educated decision about this. All this comes down to is trust. Americans love distrusting things, it's a hobby of theirs, so they will "stick it to the man" wherever they can, be that when it comes to evolution, vaccines or Area 51.

rumborak

[William Wallace]

Bottom line is, nobody in the general public is in the position to make an educated decision about this. All this comes down to is trust. Americans love distrusting things, it's a hobby of theirs, so they will "stick it to the man" wherever they can, be that when it comes to evolution, vaccines or Area 51.

rumborak

Sort of. There's a difference between making an educated decision and being an expert. The latter is what's off limits to most people.

[Scheavo]

Yes, but we're at the most in genetic engineering and scientific ability that we can keep up with those viruses, as you point out, which effectively makes the same effect as anti-biotics. I know that there's a vast difference between viruses and bacteria, but the pragmatic end can still be the same when we're talking about modern medicine. If you can basically kill any virus that you can find (which, thanks to genetics is something we can do very easily and rather quickly).

The issue is that it is harder than you think to find which virus is involved (there can be many strains involved in an outbreak), create the vaccine, and generate enough of it to treat people.

This is true for some viruses, but is it true of all viruses? Some vaccines work for a seasons (influenza), other's last for several years, and other's last for decades.

I think the more damming counter-evidence, now that I think of it, is that we don't even need to vaccinate for polio or small pox.... though that could be due to small sample size? And it would lead to the problem you just gave me.

[bosk1]

Since the discussion has now mutated from "should kids be kept home" to the vaccination debate, my two cents:

Vaccination = Good, and perhaps necessary, to an extent
Over-vaccination = At best, unnecessary, and at worst, potentially very harmful

The problems are (1) that most "experts" do not take the time to acknowledge that there is a difference, and (2) we are far too dependent as a society on Big Pharm, who financially back most of the "studies" done on the issues, and who notoriously obscure a lot of the important data.  As a result, it is very, VERY difficult to make completely informed, educated decisions about there the line is for "over-vaccination," and Big Pharm likes it that way because if it is too difficult to make an educated decision, most people will err on the perceived "safe side" of just doing it.

That sounds like very carefully crafted Jenny McCarthy logic.

And?  Any decent argument out there, whether sound or not, is likely to eventually garner the support of some loud, high profile moron.  That, in and of itself, doesn't discredit the argument.

[William Wallace]

Since the discussion has now mutated from "should kids be kept home" to the vaccination debate, my two cents:

Vaccination = Good, and perhaps necessary, to an extent
Over-vaccination = At best, unnecessary, and at worst, potentially very harmful

The problems are (1) that most "experts" do not take the time to acknowledge that there is a difference, and (2) we are far too dependent as a society on Big Pharm, who financially back most of the "studies" done on the issues, and who notoriously obscure a lot of the important data.  As a result, it is very, VERY difficult to make completely informed, educated decisions about there the line is for "over-vaccination," and Big Pharm likes it that way because if it is too difficult to make an educated decision, most people will err on the perceived "safe side" of just doing it.

That sounds like very carefully crafted Jenny McCarthy logic.

And?  Any decent argument out there, whether sound or not, is likely to eventually garner the support of some loud, high profile moron.  That, in and of itself, doesn't discredit the argument.

Yeah, but lack of evidence does.  That's what's I was getting at.

[slycordinator]

This is true for some viruses, but is it true of all viruses? Some vaccines work for a seasons (influenza), other's last for several years, and other's last for decades.

Lets just say that if coming up with a vaccine was something amazingly quick and easy... there'd have been vaccines for HIV, Hepatitis C, rhino virus (common cold), and herpes simplex years ago. And there are vaccines for the latter in clinical trials... only they've been shown to not work much at all.  And that's just a tiny sample of viruses that cause problems all the time that we don't have vaccines for.

I think the more damming counter-evidence, now that I think of it, is that we don't even need to vaccinate for polio or small pox.... though that could be due to small sample size? And it would lead to the problem you just gave me

Smallpox doesn't need to be vaccinated against because it doesn't exist in the wild anymore; it's supposedly only in research labs. And the vaccine is a live-virus type so generating more of it is likely easier than for other types (but this is an semi-educated guess, having not worked in that field).

[yorost]

I think the more damming counter-evidence, now that I think of it, is that we don't even need to vaccinate for polio or small pox.... though that could be due to small sample size? And it would lead to the problem you just gave me

Smallpox doesn't need to be vaccinated against because it doesn't exist in the wild anymore; it's supposedly only in research labs. And the vaccine is a live-virus type so generating more of it is likely easier than for other types (but this is an semi-educated guess, having not worked in that field).

Yes, smallpox is an argument for vaccines.  Vaccination eradicated it, now nobody needs to take the vaccine.

[Scheavo]

This is true for some viruses, but is it true of all viruses? Some vaccines work for a seasons (influenza), other's last for several years, and other's last for decades.

Lets just say that if coming up with a vaccine was something amazingly quick and easy... there'd have been vaccines for HIV, Hepatitis C, rhino virus (common cold), and herpes simplex years ago. And there are vaccines for the latter in clinical trials... only they've been shown to not work much at all.  And that's just a tiny sample of viruses that cause problems all the time that we don't have vaccines for.

I'm not saying it's easy, that's exactly the opposite of what I'm saying; I'm saying modern science is currently cracking this nut, and I believe there is a new vaccine for Hepatitis C. We're starting to understand the genome in a way we never did before, and with knowledge comes power. The rest of it doesn't go against what I said, as viruses are not all the same, so some of them are going to be easier to find vaccinations for, others harder. But obviously we can eradicate some viruses because we effectively have.