Uncategorized

It Takes a Village: A New Meaning in the Vaccination Debate

It takes a village. We all know the saying, and as parents, we know it all too well to be true.  

In its usual context, we understand it to mean it takes a village to raise a child. The community we are in provides a safe, nurturing environment for our young to not only grow, but to thrive.

It’s a saying we throw around without much thought or consequence. But, with the growth of the anti-vaccination movement, we need to remember what comes with being a village now more than ever.

To be a village means to provide protection for those who can’t protect themselves. It’s something that goes hand-in-hand with herd immunity- that indirect protection is provided to the non-immune when a large percentage of a population is immune through vaccination.

However, herd immunity can lead to a false sense of security. When we view vaccination rates on a larger scale and see that a vast majority are vaccinated, it can lead to some electing not to vaccinate when otherwise capable – to reap the protections of the herd when they should actually be part of that herd providing the protection.

But with vaccination rates and herd immunity, we need to think much smaller. We need to focus on our communities and our schools- our village. We need to be sure that on that smaller scale, we are still vaccinating at a rate that provides protection for those who can’t protect themselves, like newborns, the elderly, the sick, or the immunosuppressed. To do otherwise is to run the risk of harming our village.

Without a doubt, every parent’s decision whether or not to vaccinate their child comes from love. However, the difference is those who choose to vaccinate not only have love for their child, but for their community. They vaccinate themselves and their children out of care and compassion for others.

After all, it takes a village to raise a child. It takes a village to protect a child. It takes a village to protect those who can’t protect themselves.

It takes a village.

- StayAtHomies
RSS
Follow by Email
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram

13
Leave a Reply

avatar
2 Comment threads
11 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
4 Comment authors
Northfield Senior Living CentersEmilyBrianneAngie Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Brianne
Guest
Brianne

I really enjoyed your page. I understand this is a topic too many shy from for many reasons. I appreciate the conversation and your opinions. However, I urge you to understand the “anti vax” movement comes mostly from “ex Vaxers”. And as any mother would agree there is no child I care about but my own. So while I appreciate your stance I wish you would really listen to these mothers with an open mind. Really really willing to hear them. Look at the trailer for vaxxed2. Above all else I believe mothers, these mothers. They have no reason to… Read more »

Emily
Guest
Emily

Brianne, I appreciate you taking the time to comment and giving further support for the idea that the difference between those who are provax and antivax is the ability to show care and compassion towards others. “And as any mother would agree there is no child I care about but my own” is as selfish as it is dangerous when put in the context of vaccination. You would hope that others cared about the well-being of your child when they were a newborn and not yet immune from otherwise preventable disease. And they were cared about by the healthcare professionals… Read more »

Brianne
Guest
Brianne

I again appreciate the conversation. I myself was left unable to walk at 4 years old from the DTP shot, which is now the DTAP because the PHARMA was sued so many times for the amount of damage the DTP did that they had to change the vaccine. In fact this is when they went to the government and asked for financial immunity in 1986 to anyone damaged by vaccines. That is why there is a tax on every vaccine so that we the consumers pay into VAERS for kids that have been injured. To date 4 Billion dollars has… Read more »

Emily
Guest
Emily

It’s true we do not use the DTP vaccination anymore, but it has never been taken of the market for reasons that “the PHARMA was sued so many times for the amount of damage the DTP did that they had to change the vaccine.” In fact, DTP is still an acceptable alternative for any of the first 4 of 5 doses of DTaP when combined with the Hib vaccine. DTP is still used in some areas of the world. Admittedly, DTaP has fewer side effects than DTP, but those side effects are still mild. The more severe side effects that… Read more »

Brianne
Guest
Brianne

Also, I see that I mistyped in my first comment. ” there is no child I care about more than my own”

And while you and I…and seemingly me and the majority will never agree I don’t think the needle on any tough convos will ever move without respectfully listening to the other side… SO I do appreciate your willingness to do so.

Brianne
Guest
Brianne

I am certain if there was a safety study done on the cdc schedule they would have sent it to me. The DTP is absolutely the reason the 1986 law was put into place. And I for one find it concerning that they cannot be sued and we protect them from that. What other company is not held liable for their product? We believe testing on pregnancy is unethical but giving them a vaccine that hasn’t been tested is??? I myself was left unable to walk for week and left with an autoimmune disease and that is considered “mild”. It’s… Read more »

Emily
Guest
Emily

I am sorry the CDC did not respond to your emails, but the study I was referring to can be found here: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2673970 I did not say DTP was not the reason for the 1986 law being put into place. The lawsuits during that time caused dozens of vaccine manufacturers to go out of business, which created a public health scare. Litigation itself is expensive but simply being involved in litigation does not make a person or company culpable. And yes, it is unethical to expose a pregnant woman and her fetus to a disease and only provide a placebo… Read more »

Brianne
Guest
Brianne

Oh they responded! They admitted after multiple back and for that no actual study of the entire schedule has been done. In fact if you listen to congressional hearings they admit this. Instead they just suggest “administering vaccines into different limbs”. You believe they are safe. I do not. In the end I will not risk the health of my child for anyone. Interesting though 600 cases of mumps last year wasn’t a health crisis?!’ Maybe becuse they were all vaccinated. Or the 30 kids in California right now with whooping cough. All also all vaccinated. Health “crisis” are created… Read more »

Emily
Guest
Emily

Multiple vaccines are given at once when a child is young because that is when they are most susceptible to the diseases the vaccines will prevent. There have been studies that look at the combination of vaccines shown to be safe. Every new vaccine that is licensed has been tested with the vaccinations recommended for a particular aged child. The CDC vaccination schedule is safe. Yes, many of those infected had the 2 doses of the MMR vaccine and those doses are given at ages 1 and 4. It spread among college students because they were old enough that their… Read more »

Angie
Guest
Angie

Wow Emily 👏👏👏 you should run for office since you care more about the public’s well being than your own children. Looooooooool.. as much as I want to argue, theres no use… found this argument to be entertaining for sure though…. & people who share YOUR thinking are the kind of citizens the system wants. SHEEPLE

Northfield Senior Living Centers
Guest

Great article! Thanks for sharing!