Always controversial: Vaccinations

[tango]

Re: Always controversial: Vaccinations

You're not recognizing how our entire economy is built on transportation and would not exist without it. The ability for you to get to a place, for goods or services to come to you or for the CEO of a company to get to a place near you so therefore making it possible for that company to exist and offer a job near you, is because of this. Without this, millions would die and many more would be without work. The benefits of another person driving are added economic activity to both the person and the society as a whole. The added risks are greatly outweighed by this, if they exist at all. Since the majority of the population lives in cities (>70%), the relative risk of one more driver when nearly everyone drives, is close to imperceptible in the majority of places.

Ah, so now I don't understand how an economy works. And more presentations of opinions as if they were facts.

The other side of the argument might consider the relative risks of one more SUV pumping out carbon monoxide, soot particles, assorted oxides of nitrogen etc. You know, the things scientifically proven to come out of the exhaust pipe. More people working further from home means more children growing up barely knowing their parents and all the social issues associated with that. More travelling time means less family time, a more sedentary lifestyle with all the associated health repercussions and so on.

Are the risks worth it? Another issue which is a matter of opinion rather than of fact.

This is quite different than the risks of vaccinations. You increase the risk to your kid, and the risk to all the other kids he may run into contact with. It doesn't matter if more people drive, there is no threshold above which things suddenly become a whole level more dangerous. In fact as we discussed, it can become less so beyond a certain level. Not so with vaccines, if enough people just think its fine to not do it, it will reach a critical mass where suddenly everybody is at much higher risk and endemics can break out. It's not at that level yet. This is not like driving, there is no comparison.

When more people drive the chances of a driver losing control of their vehicle increases, and the consequences of such loss of control also get significantly worse. If I drive a car I put myself at risk and everybody along my route at risk - for all the risk might be small it is not zero. I might be an incompetent driver, I might be over tired, I might be over the drink-drive limit (with or without realising it), I might simply run over something sharp and lose control after blowing a tyre. When aircraft crash the people who chose to fly are affected, as are the people who were merely unlucky enough to be underneath the wreckage when it landed. Do we ban the choice to drive because it puts others at risk? Do we ban the choice to fly because it puts others at risk?

Makes sense that smaller areas would allow more burning because of lower risks. Smoke is not like infectious diseases. The sensitive person who suffers cannot transmit his problem to any other person, even another sensitive one. There is no multiplicity effect, and no comparison.

If you choose to make comparisons to suit one argument than just about any comparison can be cast aside. Presumably by the same argument you would have no problem with people in rural areas avoiding vaccination, since their decision doesn't affect so many people? If it's OK to burn plastics and release thick black smoke because there aren't so many people who might be affected by it, why not?

The idea that you are fully free is a myth, and no society can or does function that way. There are inumerable things you cannot do, and that's why police and courts exist. In countries where those things do not functionally exist (the 'freeist' ones), life is short, dangerous and miserable. You cannot put landmines under your front lawn. You don't object to heavy-handed elitism because of that.

Why shouldn't I put landmines on my own private property? I'd rather have more freedoms than fewer - I'd rather have liberty and take the risks associated with it than deal with a totalitarian government that considers me incapable of making choices so takes them all away from me.

You believe that's the case because you only hear about studies that the media believes are newsworthy and tells you about. If you were routinely taking in academic literature, you would not go into a bunker, just as those who are, do not.

I'm glad you know the sources of information I use. You may have noticed I'm still here on the internet and therefore haven't retreated to my special bunker with my tinfoil hat on. The point I was making, which was clearly lost, is that we can take in whatever sources of information we choose and act, or not act, based on that information as we choose. Some sources of information within the media are biased, just as some scientists have to consider who is funding their next project.

Odd comparison, but take that argument and calculate the cost and benefits of each then report back on whether science was worth it.

Whether it was worth it would largely depend on whether you are the one born with hideously deformed or missing limbs because of something your mother was assured was safe.

Rationally, and using the evidence available to you. Blair probably just forgot, or is too busy, or has a wife who wants to show her dinner party friends that she's down with the latest hip trend or watches too much Oprah, or its a a huge hassle with security etc, or they ran out at the local clinic, or any other of a myriad of possibilities. Regardless, it doesn't matter what Blair does. It's about as relevant that Leo didn't get the vaccine, as that Jenna Bush, or any other person, did.

I have to say these are among the most odd arguments I've seen in a long time. Blair forgot? I can just see breakfast at the Blairs...

"Cherie, darling, who is this small person running around? Where did he come from? Weren't we supposed to do something with him... what was it again? Oh yes, everybody ELSE in the nation, don't forget the MMR vaccine for your kids. Cherie, remind me what we were supposed to do with this guy?"

Blair is too busy? Hassles with security? I suspect for the Prime Minister with the fairly well known security issues they might just persuade a doctor to make a home visit.

"wife wants to show her dinner party friends she's hip and trendy?" So it's OK for her but not OK for anyone else? Pull the other one.

If Jenna Bush had the vaccine (I don't know if she did or didn't) it shows that George Bush had faith in it. I'm not familiar with his history prior to taking residence in the White House so don't know if he was a figure of any significance at the time - if he was in a position to have scientific advisors and used the vaccine anyway. In Blair's position it does rather suggest that he did not have faith in the vaccine - he could clearly remember to tell everyone else to have it, and could find the time to tell everyone else to have it, which makes it even more odd that he didn't back up what he was saying by demonstrating that he had given it to his own family.

You know, actions speak louder than words and all that.

[Itinerant Lurker]

Re: Always controversial: Vaccinations

Perish the thought I should try and maintain an open mind.

Having an open mind does not mean that one must give equal consideration to all opinions irregardless of their merit. You are not exhibiting an "open mind", you are exhibiting cognitive dissonance.

I remain ambiguous when I don't feel it necessary to take one specific side or the other. For some diseases I may choose vaccination, for others I may not.

Weak. You are remaining ambiguous because you know that anyone who has access to data on rates of infection before and after routine vaccination (in other words anyone) will obliterate your argument the moment you make a specific claim.

Which does precisely nothing to address my comments about the relative risk and reward. If I do not consider the chances of contracting a disease with or without vaccination to be significant, or I consider the consequences of the disease to be a risk I am willing to take, I may choose against a vaccine. If I consider a disease to represent a more significant threat I may choose to take a vaccine. Where's the problem? You didn't answer that one either.

If you'd like to make incredibly irresponsible decisions on this issue based on an intentional poverty of knowledge that's your call. As I have stated before, however, your ability to make incredibly irresponsible decisions does not exempt you from having others point out how incredibly irresponsible those decisions are.

So just about any adult with a pulse can vote.

Unless they do not meet the legal requirements we have established in this country for the right to vote. That such legal requirements exist is the entire point.

"Welcome to civilization" - what a splendid form of discussion. Anyone who disagrees with your perspective has been demoted from making "very poor decisions" to being "uncivilized". Is this the version of civilization where two wolves and a sheep vote on who is for dinner, and the sheep doesn't get a veto because the decision represents a greater gain for the other members?

No, this is simply an invitation to learn something about the history of civilization and how all governments function. If you didn't notice that all human societies make rules restricting certain rights based on a balance of risks and rewards I would invite you to open your eyes.

If the majority of society decided that the risk-reward pattern was inadequate for vaccination then presumably you would accept their choices?

Just to clarify, it's not like we're putting all these decisions to a vote; instead when I say "society has decided" I'm referring to the fact that the government agencies which oversee this have decided. This may not be a direct reflection of public opinion, but it is an indirect reflection of our representative government. If there was an upsurge in anti-vaccine and laws were passed to reduce the number of vaccines to nil in the U.S. I would accept that society was making an incredibly irresponsible decision based on popular ignorance. Then I would wait for the inevitable outbreaks of easily preventable infectious diseases, the general public to realize they'd been hoodwinked by a bunch of ignorati, and the reinstatement of the current immunization schedule.

You can go to a number of third world countries to see the above in action. Let me know when you get back how that's working out for them.




Lurker

[Itinerant Lurker]

Re: Always controversial: Vaccinations

It's easy to band about statistics like "one in 2.4 million". That means that out of a group, albeit a very large group, one person suffered an unpleasant side effect. Bit of a blow if that one person was you or your child, and you had little if any recourse against the supplier. The fact it's no longer recommended doesn't change things for the people who were affected by it.

Yes, it would be pretty awful if you or your child suffered from the extremely small risk of developing polio from the oral vaccine that is no longer in use. However, it would be even more awful if not only you and/or your child but also hundreds of thousands of others developed polio because no one was vaccinated for it. Again, there are places in the world where you can go and watch this happening as we speak. Why don't you go check them out and get back to me.

Incidentally I still don't see any recognition that if society does want to mandate treatments that some people may not wish to have, it has a matching responsibility to look after those who do suffer side effects. "Look after" means more than consigning people to a life of medical tests and minimal welfare payments. If the side effects are so rare it won't cost society much after all.

I don't have any problem with that, did you have a specific example in mind?




Lurker

[TomH]

Re: Always controversial: Vaccinations

One only needs to look at the aids epidemic in African nations to see the results of personal options verses medical opinions.

People in the third world nations are refusing treatment for aids out of 1-ignorance 2-personal opinion and 3- rejection of facts when presented to them.

I believe that a person who would reject vaccine for their children are betting on the fact that their child won't contract the disease because there isn't anyone to contract the disease from. (I will benifit by the risk of others.)

With that mentality, and putting it forth as something that is of no risk to others, and promoting that mentality is simply assuring that the disease will always need an active program to fight it.

The more people having this attitude, the more risk. Along with more people PROMOTING this attitude.

There will always be people (as this "doctor" who started this whole debate linking autism with vaccine) who see monetary gain in promoting fear.

Rather than continuing research on the causes of autism, people are instead, following a train of thought that has been prven as bogus.

[tango]

Re: Always controversial: Vaccinations

Having an open mind does not mean that one must give equal consideration to all opinions irregardless of their merit. You are not exhibiting an "open mind", you are exhibiting cognitive dissonance.

Not at all, I'm simply declining to regard the topic of vaccination as being as simple as either "vaccines are good, period" or "vaccines are bad, period". I'm merely saying that I believe individuals should have a free choice to accept every vaccine, some vaccines, or no vaccines. The arguments that insist all vaccines are good, or that all vaccines are bad, appear overly simplistic.

Weak. You are remaining ambiguous because you know that anyone who has access to data on rates of infection before and after routine vaccination (in other words anyone) will obliterate your argument the moment you make a specific claim.

I'm remaining ambiguous because I consider the merits of vaccination to largely depend on the illness being vaccinated against and the individual's decisions regarding which risks they prefer to accept.

If you'd like to make incredibly irresponsible decisions on this issue based on an intentional poverty of knowledge that's your call. As I have stated before, however, your ability to make incredibly irresponsible decisions does not exempt you from having others point out how incredibly irresponsible those decisions are.

You can point out that, in your opinion a decision is bad. But once again you are listing an opinion as if it were an absolute fact. Would you care to explain how it is so irresponsible to decline a vaccine against a disease I am unlikely to contract and which will have very limited consequences even if I do contract it?

Unless they do not meet the legal requirements we have established in this country for the right to vote. That such legal requirements exist is the entire point.

That the legal requirements do not include having any knowledge of the policies of any candidate is my point. A convicted felon who knows every candidate's policies in detail is barred from casting an informed vote while the person who votes for a candidate simply because they have a nice smile is not barred from casting a totally uninformed vote.

No, this is simply an invitation to learn something about the history of civilization and how all governments function. If you didn't notice that all human societies make rules restricting certain rights based on a balance of risks and rewards I would invite you to open your eyes.

I see, so wanting freedom to make my own choices now means I'm ignorant? Keep the backhanded insults coming, they make an argument so much more interesting.

Just to clarify, it's not like we're putting all these decisions to a vote; instead when I say "society has decided" I'm referring to the fact that the government agencies which oversee this have decided. This may not be a direct reflection of public opinion, but it is an indirect reflection of our representative government. If there was an upsurge in anti-vaccine and laws were passed to reduce the number of vaccines to nil in the U.S. I would accept that society was making an incredibly irresponsible decision based on popular ignorance. Then I would wait for the inevitable outbreaks of easily preventable infectious diseases, the general public to realize they'd been hoodwinked by a bunch of ignorati, and the reinstatement of the current immunization schedule.

OK, so if the government agencies which oversee this decided that vaccination was too expensive you'd accept it? Whatever decisions people make have consequences, which is pretty much what I've been trying to say all along. The consequences may be susceptibility to disease, they may be side effects from vaccination, they may be immunity without side effects. But at least now we're getting somewhere with the obviously radical idea of people choosing for themselves.

When people can choose for themselves they can decide based on their own situations. Where a disease like smallpox is concerned people may decide they would rather risk vaccine side-effects than risk smallpox. Where something like the flu is concerned people may decide they would rather risk getting flu than having a vaccine. For instance I don't bother with a flu vaccine because my perception (based on experience) is that my chances of contracting flu are small. I know someone who has a badly suppressed immune system due to a variety of medical issues - this person does take an annual flu vaccine because they have an increased risk of contracting just about anything coupled with a reduced ability to fight it off.

If the majority think as you do then the majority will take vaccines. If the majority believe every single scare story then few people will be vaccinated. If the majority consider each individual vaccine in its own right then people will be vaccinated against some diseases and not others. Which seems pretty much the norm - as I live in the suburbs in a developed nation I do not feel the need to be vaccinated against malaria - however small the risks might be there is very little to be gained. If I were to visit an area where malaria is a major issue the benefits of vaccination become more significant, which tips the whole risk-reward balance. It still ultimately has to be my own decision whether to accept the significantly increased risk of malaria or the small risk of side-effects from vaccination.

[tango]

Re: Always controversial: Vaccinations

Yes, it would be pretty awful if you or your child suffered from the extremely small risk of developing polio from the oral vaccine that is no longer in use. However, it would be even more awful if not only you and/or your child but also hundreds of thousands of others developed polio because no one was vaccinated for it. Again, there are places in the world where you can go and watch this happening as we speak. Why don't you go check them out and get back to me.

What happens in Africa doesn't change my argument that people should have the freedom to choose. If people would prefer to risk a debilitating disease than risk a vaccine where's the problem? If the majority would prefer not to risk the disease then a large take-up of vaccination follows and herd immunity starts to take effect. If large enough numbers don't trust the vaccine (for whatever reason) then herd immunity is reduced or eliminated, leaving those who were vaccinated to gain the benefits of vaccination.

Where's the problem?

I don't have any problem with that, did you have a specific example in mind?

I do, although the chances are it would be disregarded as anecdotal. It relates to the son of an old friend who was apparently perfectly normal until his MMR jab, shortly after which he started acting very strangely and was subsequently diagosed as being autistic. From all accounts the parents were pretty much left to get on with it and had to battle for just about everything they needed, from education suitable to their child to additional care. Needless to say the chances of compensation were pretty slim given the insistence that the vaccine did not have such side effects.

[Studyin'2Show]

Re: Always controversial: Vaccinations

If I had had my children immunized (which I did - had to to get them in school) and one of them became ill with a potentially dangerous disease such as polio and I discovered it was because one of the neighborhood kids had NOT been immunized - I would have went ape on the parent. How DARE they think their "right" to their unproven ideas allows them to endanger me and mine?

People's "rights" are fine as long as they do NOT infringe on the safety and well-being of others.

If your kids had been vaccinated.... how would they get the disease? That's kind of the point, V. Even if I choose to delay somewhat or even refuse vaccines for my child it would have ABSOLUTELY NO affect on your children if you choose to vaccinate them. So, people who have conscientious objections to vaccines are not infringing upon your safety. Like a Jehovah Witness that refuses to take a blood transfusion that will save their life. I may not agree with their beliefs but I would fight and die to support their right to have them.

[Vhayes]

Re: Always controversial: Vaccinations

If your kids had been vaccinated.... how would they get the disease? That's kind of the point, V. Even if I choose to delay somewhat or even refuse vaccines for my child it would have ABSOLUTELY NO affect on your children if you choose to vaccinate them. So, people who have conscientious objections to vaccines are not infringing upon your safety. Like a Jehovah Witness that refuses to take a blood transfusion that will save their life. I may not agree with their beliefs but I would fight and die to support their right to have them.

I need medical imput here but I "thought" (so yes, I could be wrong) that immunization did not grant complete immunity - that it lessened the effects IF one did get the disease.

I'll look and see what I can find but that is my current understanding.

[NHL Fever]

Re: Always controversial: Vaccinations

Ah, so now I don't understand how an economy works. And more presentations of opinions as if they were facts.

The other side of the argument might consider the relative risks of one more SUV pumping out carbon monoxide, soot particles, assorted oxides of nitrogen etc. You know, the things scientifically proven to come out of the exhaust pipe. More people working further from home means more children growing up barely knowing their parents and all the social issues associated with that. More traveling time means less family time, a more sedentary lifestyle with all the associated health repercussions and so on.

Are the risks worth it? Another issue which is a matter of opinion rather than of fact.

When more people drive the chances of a driver losing control of their vehicle increases, and the consequences of such loss of control also get significantly worse. If I drive a car I put myself at risk and everybody along my route at risk - for all the risk might be small it is not zero. I might be an incompetent driver, I might be over tired, I might be over the drink-drive limit (with or without realizing it), I might simply run over something sharp and lose control after blowing a tire. When aircraft crash the people who chose to fly are affected, as are the people who were merely unlucky enough to be underneath the wreckage when it landed. Do we ban the choice to drive because it puts others at risk? Do we ban the choice to fly because it puts others at risk?

You can find in any geography text, the number of people who can be supported on a given area of natural land. We are way WAY beyond that, and its because of modern infrastructure, which is totally dependent on motorized mobility. Its hard to understand how you could not recognize this. Yes cars pose dangers, and we should do what we can to limit them. The benefits far outweigh those dangers. You described the dangers of cars, but the risk are incremental. There is no threshold of sudden worsening.

If you choose to make comparisons to suit one argument than just about any comparison can be cast aside. Presumably by the same argument you would have no problem with people in rural areas avoiding vaccination, since their decision doesn't affect so many people? If it's OK to burn plastics and release thick black smoke because there aren't so many people who might be affected by it, why not?

If the rural people were very isolated and did not come into contact with any areas of population density, than yes the risk would be lower. That's doesn't happen in real life anymore. Both diseases and toxic chemicals are less likely to affect others when there are fewer others around.

Why shouldn't I put landmines on my own private property? I'd rather have more freedoms than fewer - I'd rather have liberty and take the risks associated with it than deal with a totalitarian government that considers me incapable of making choices so takes them all away from me.

You shouldn't because you are likely to explode some neighborhood children. This is what happens right now today, in places with lots of landmines.

I'm glad you know the sources of information I use. You may have noticed I'm still here on the internet and therefore haven't retreated to my special bunker with my tinfoil hat on. The point I was making, which was clearly lost, is that we can take in whatever sources of information we choose and act, or not act, based on that information as we choose. Some sources of information within the media are biased, just as some scientists have to consider who is funding their next project.

Then you need to read the studies and make a decision. If you are not academically literate, you need to find someone who is or better yet listen to the overall consensus of those who are. You have made conclusions about vaccinations without doing that. News articles do not represent the studies, they just pull out the most ratings-worthy tidbits.

Whether it was worth it would largely depend on whether you are the one born with hideously deformed or missing limbs because of something your mother was assured was safe.

Because it happened to somebody, is an argument that can be used to justify any policy, for anything, ever. It's not a real argument, its appeal to emotion. You don't understand how irrelevant that comparison is. Thalidomide was given because they thought it was safe, but it wasn't. That was very obvious, and then they stopped giving it. We're not talking about anything like that. We're talking about giving something that has been giving to literally millions with no clear connection between the vaccine and adverse outcomes. If it was a new experimental drug, like thalidomide was, then your comparison would be appropriate. This is as much unknown risk for modern vaccines as taking Tylenol.

I have to say these are among the most odd arguments I've seen in a long time. Blair forgot? I can just see breakfast at the Blairs...

"Cherie, darling, who is this small person running around? Where did he come from? Weren't we supposed to do something with him... what was it again? Oh yes, everybody ELSE in the nation, don't forget the MMR vaccine for your kids. Cherie, remind me what we were supposed to do with this guy?"

Lots of people forget to take their kids, and themselves to appointments of all kinds every single day. They also forget to pay the power bill, change the oil, go to choir practice. I know I'm really blowing people away with these insights on human nature.

Blair is too busy? Hassles with security? I suspect for the Prime Minister with the fairly well known security issues they might just persuade a doctor to make a home visit.

I don't know why you are still arguing that Tony Blair's actions are like an airtight reputation of the scientific consensus.

If Jenna Bush had the vaccine (I don't know if she did or didn't) it shows that George Bush had faith in it. I'm not familiar with his history prior to taking residence in the White House so don't know if he was a figure of any significance at the time - if he was in a position to have scientific advisors and used the vaccine anyway. In Blair's position it does rather suggest that he did not have faith in the vaccine - he could clearly remember to tell everyone else to have it, and could find the time to tell everyone else to have it, which makes it even more odd that he didn't back up what he was saying by demonstrating that he had given it to his own family.

Ok you're right, the reason Blair's kid did not get it is he has secret inside info of international conspiracy. Other world leaders, leading scientists 99% of my medical colleagues and the CDC just don't know the truth. For the milliions upon millions who have been vaccinated including me.....its just a matter of time.

I need medical imput here but I "thought" (so yes, I could be wrong) that immunization did not grant complete immunity - that it lessened the effects IF one did get the disease.

I'll look and see what I can find but that is my current understanding.

That's true. Some vaccine are very close to 100% effective, some are not.

[Itinerant Lurker]

Re: Always controversial: Vaccinations

Not at all, I'm simply declining to regard the topic of vaccination as being as simple as either "vaccines are good, period" or "vaccines are bad, period". I'm merely saying that I believe individuals should have a free choice to accept every vaccine, some vaccines, or no vaccines. The arguments that insist all vaccines are good, or that all vaccines are bad, appear overly simplistic.

As has been explained to you several times no one here making the simplistic argument that vaccines are "all good", all I'm doing is explaining how the benefits far outweigh the risks. Additionally, no one is preventing you from making your jaw-droppingly poor decisions concerning vaccines.

You can point out that, in your opinion a decision is bad. But once again you are listing an opinion as if it were an absolute fact. Would you care to explain how it is so irresponsible to decline a vaccine against a disease I am unlikely to contract and which will have very limited consequences even if I do contract it?

That's already been explained to you repeatedly by several different posters. Why exactly are you asking me for information you've simply chosen to ignore in the past? Is something going to be different this time around?

That the legal requirements do not include having any knowledge of the policies of any candidate is my point.

There is no legal requirement concerning vaccines that is analogous to this.

I see, so wanting freedom to make my own choices now means I'm ignorant?

Not at all, but you do seem to not realize that every society restricts the rights of its citizens based on balances of risks and rewards, which is rather naive.

OK, so if the government agencies which oversee this decided that vaccination was too expensive you'd accept it?

I've already answered this question. I would accept it in that I'm not going to foment rebellion and create the kingdom of Itinerant Lurkerdom wherein all naysayers of vaccination are cast into the sea, but I wouldn't accept it as the right decision. Surely you can distinguish between accepting a law as law and agreeing with the wisdom of a law.

When people can choose for themselves they can decide based on their own situations.

Again, you can go to any number of third world countries to observe what happens when too many people start thinking like you do and refuse vaccinations. These are literally your suggested policies in action and, oddly enough, they don't seem to be working out so well.




Lurker