Quote:
Originally Posted by Clodfobble
Some shots, such as tetanus for example, can be given shortly after a known exposure. In addition, shots can be given in local areas during specific outbreaks instead of nationwide for all possible diseases. Mothers can be tested for diseases such as Hep B instead of giving all babies the shot when they will almost certainly have no exposure. There ARE options.
Antibiotics can be used preventatively across the board too. But it's strongly discouraged, and for good reason.
|
The argument here is very circular which is why I rarely involve myself, but clearly, a child will
Quote:
|
almost certainly have no exposure
|
because the disease is less prolific due to vaccination.
If no one ever vaccinated, my child would have a much higher risk of dying from a preventable disease than it would of developing an auto immune disease.
There in lies the social issue.
Because these diseases almost don't exist, it gives people the luxury of being able to say they don't need to immunise or that they choose not to because the other risks are higher.
I guess if people had to go back a couple of generations and live in families where the infant mortality rate was high (most families lost or had crippled at least one child) thanks to many of these preventable diseases, some of us might better understand the need to immunise where ever possible.