Poll: Testing for immunity to MMR before vaccination

[elohiym]

Ive already responded that i cannot say for what reason they chose to do that - and can only guess that its because she possibly displayed symptoms that some test she needed provided that answer.

Should testing like that be routine? I understand you are against mandatory testing to protect the most vulnerable, but what about routine, voluntary testing. Will you get tested to make sure you are not vulnerable and putting others at risk?

You dont know what her doctor was doing...

I'm haven't suggested anything that isn't implied from what Anna reported.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Should testing like that be routine?

Depends, are people displaying symptoms? Are other people in the community showing to have the disease presently?

I understand you are against mandatory testing to protect the most vulnerable, but what about routine, voluntary testing. Will you get tested to make sure you are not vulnerable and putting others at risk?

No, why would i, ive had the diseases, i know i have immunity.

Now, if others were all of a sudden becoming symptomatic who had been immunized the past, i would think boosters would be needed, like what happened with MMR, people who had already been vaccinated, needed another shot after it was found that immunity was wearing off for some people after a number of years.

It would also depend on how long the vaccination had been around to be able to ascertain if immunity was wearing off or not.

I'm haven't suggesting anything that isn't obvious from what Anna reported.

She only reported that they suggest she get a booster shot, she never reported why or how they came to do the test. Perhaps the doctor had seen recent cases of that illness in the community and she had symptoms, hence a test.

No one knows.

You are trying real hard to way over-simply a complex issue.

 

[elohiym]

Yes, it is clearly a fact (not conjecture) that she was not routinely tested.

Obviously.

And yes, why not checkups for vax-believers to include routine tests like this?

Perhaps they don't really believe the pro-vaccination propaganda they've been pushing. :idunno:

 

[1PeaceMaker]

She only reported that they suggest she get a booster shot, she never reported why or how they came to do the test. Perhaps the doctor had seen recent cases of that illness in the community and she had symptoms, hence a test.

No one knows.

You are trying real hard to way over-simply a complex issue.

She said she was hospitalized at the time, didn't she?

Symptoms = too late 4 vaxing... not deficiency of booster.

 

[Angel4Truth]

She said she was hospitalized at the time, didn't she?

Im not conjecturing on what happened to her or with her doctor. You dont know, and neither do i.

Get another example.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

Im not conjecturing on what happened to her or with her doctor. You dont know, and neither do i.

Get another example.

Hospitalization isn't routine. Testing because you are hospitalized is not a routine testing schedule.

 

[elohiym]

Get another example.

Every adult whose vaccine immunity may have worn off.

What should they do? Test or just get vaccinated again?

 

[CabinetMaker]

I can't vote on your poll as there are insufficient choices.

 

[elohiym]

Should testing like that be routine?

Depends, are people displaying symptoms?

If someone is displaying symptoms of measles, why would they get vaccinated? You don't believe you need to be vaccinated against diseases you've already had (I agree with that).

Are other people in the community showing to have the disease presently?

That could be a good reason to check titers. Nevertheless, routine testing for every adult would be the most responsible thing to do, don't you agree? That would keep those whose immunity has worn off from endangering the most vulnerable in our society.

I understand you are against mandatory testing to protect the most vulnerable, but what about routine, voluntary testing. Will you get tested to make sure you are not vulnerable and putting others at risk?

No, why would i, ive had the diseases, i know i have immunity.

I agree with you, and I tried very hard to get some other posters to acknowledge that point on the my Shick test thread. They wouldn't concede the point.

Now, if others were all of a sudden becoming symptomatic who had been immunized the past, i would think boosters would be needed, like what happened with MMR, people who had already been vaccinated, needed another shot after it was found that immunity was wearing off for some people after a number of years.

Were they vaccinated because they became infected with measles ("suddenly becoming symptomatic")? That seems like an odd thing to do when a natural infection will give them lifetime immunity. My impression, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that some people have to prove their immunity and instead of just getting the vaccine they test first and discover they have low titers. It seems that routine testing could be beneficial for society, right?

It would also depend on how long the vaccination had been around to be able to ascertain if immunity was wearing off or not.

Could you explain that point a little better?

 

[elohiym]

I can't vote on your poll as there are insufficient choices.

Okay.

 

[elohiym]

I can't vote on your poll as there are insufficient choices.

That you didn't vote no is good enough for me. Although I'm surprised you didn't join them considering your no answer on the Schick test thread.

 

[CabinetMaker]

That you didn't vote no is good enough for me. Although I'm surprised you didn't join them considering your no answer on the Schick test thread.

Your poll is intentionally misleading so I didn't vote. It is not a simple yes or no question. There may be compelling reasons for testing or compelling reasons to bet the shot. Your poll ignores that.

 

[elohiym]

Your poll is intentionally misleading so I didn't vote.

There is nothing misleading about the poll. It's a simple question with either a yes or no answer. Several people have voted and didn't complain about the poll. Are you smarter than them? You haven't even suggested alternative answers.

It is not a simple yes or no question.

Sure it is. You're making it more complex in your imagination.

There may be compelling reasons for testing or compelling reasons to bet the shot. Your poll ignores that.

The MMR titer test exists for only one purpose: testing MMR titers in persons who received the MMR vaccine. It is designed to answer the question: is my MMR vaccination still effective?

Whoever votes no:

• implies the MMR titer test is a useless test
• implies health professionals shouldn't use the test
• implies it's not important to identify adults with failing immunity in order to protect the most vulnerable in out society
• implies they would have no argument against mandatory adult MMR boosters without testing first

 

[CabinetMaker]

There is nothing misleading about the poll. It's a simple question with either a yes or no answer. Several people have voted and didn't complain about the poll. Are you smarter than them? You haven't even suggested alternative answers.



Sure it is. You're making it more complex in your imagination.



The MMR titer test exists for only one purpose: testing MMR titers in persons who received the MMR vaccine. It is designed to answer the question: is my MMR vaccination still effective?

Whoever votes no:

• implies the MMR titer test is a useless test
• implies health professionals shouldn't use the test
• implies it's not important to identify adults with failing immunity in order to protect the most vulnerable in out society
• implies they would have no argument against mandatory adult MMR boosters without testing first

Don't agree with your conclusions. If may just be that they are not overly concerned about vaccines. I am not sure that a vaccine hurts somebody with immunity.

 

[Rusha]

Don't agree with your conclusions. If may just be that they are not overly concerned about vaccines. I am not sure that a vaccine hurts somebody with immunity.

We have a winner. My only concern is the safety hazard caused by those who refuse to be vaccinated.

 

[elohiym]

Don't agree with your conclusions.

Why?

If may just be that they are not overly concerned about vaccines.

That doesn't make sense. The test answers the question: is my MMR vaccination still effective? If you mean they are not overly concerned with whether their vaccination is still effective, I agree, and that's a travesty. Obviously you don't mean that, so your response is vague and pointless.

I am not sure that a vaccine hurts somebody with immunity.

Suddenly the MMR vaccine has no risks? Your vaccine ideology is like shifting sands. Regardless, what you are not sure of is irrelevant to the thread.

 

[elohiym]

My only concern is the safety hazard caused by those who refuse to be vaccinated.

Then you want every adult on a booster schedule without the option to test their titers first? If not, you are not concerned about the safety hazard caused by adults who refuse regular MMR boosters to ensure their immunity hasn't waned, and that makes you a hypocrite.

 

[elohiym]

There may be compelling reasons for testing or compelling reasons to bet the shot.

Yet you had no problem voting no on the Schick test thread. :think:

 

[CabinetMaker]

Why?

Because a no answer does not necessarily imply the things that you say it does. Poor, meaning none, logic on your end.

That doesn't make sense. The test answers the question: is my MMR vaccination still effective? If you mean they are not overly concerned with whether their vaccination is still effective, I agree, and that's a travesty. Obviously you don't mean that, so your response is vague and pointless.

No, I said what I meant. If I was traveling out of the country to a place where mumps was prevalent, I would get the vaccine without wanting a test.

Suddenly the MMR vaccine has no risks? Your vaccine ideology is like bshifting sands. Regardless, what you are not sure of is irrelevant to the thread.

*sigh*. It's always easier to argue against what you wish people said than what they said. I did not say that the vaccine us without risk. Aside from those risks, I am unaware of any addition risks posed by getting a vaccination for something that you already posses immunity for. My guess, it would function as a booster.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Yet you had no problem voting no on the Schick test thread. :think:

Functionally, I would get the booster if there was cause and forgo the test. That said, I still think your poll is poorly formed as it only allows for the end points when, in reality, there are valid points in between that you are ignoring to better serve your end game.