Anti-vaxxers should read up on smallpox.
There were risks with the vaccine for that as well. The end result is worth it.
Anti-vaxxers should read up on smallpox.
There were risks with the vaccine for that as well. The end result is worth it.
sc42 wrote:
While I agree with your conclusions, your logic is flawed. With >7B people on earth, a reduction in population size would reduce competition for limited resources. People would struggle less, not more, if the global population was halved. How do we know? [Actually, we don't. Source, please?] Because we've been there.
. . .
The data suggest that until about 1970 (when there were about half as many people on earth as there are now), technology improved faster than population size grew, so that the population was further and further below the earth's carry capacity for humans, despite growing exponentially.
Beginning about 1970 with a population around 3.7B, the data suggest that the earth's human population began growing FASTER than the rate of increase in carrying capacity. There are limits on technological solutions to supporting an infinite number of humans on a single planet.
Interesting. Two additional "data" points for you:
1) Human population stopped growing exponentially some decades back--very roughly around that year 1970 you mentioned, actually. And the big "driver" of continuing population growth is not the birth rate, but the increasing longevity of the average human life span. Which stems in part from the fact that...
2) Though there are more humans on the planet than ever before, a higher percentage than at any previous time in history gets enough to eat. This could be related to the fact that most humans who are equipped with mouths are also equipped with hands and a brain.
I'd like to switch the scene to drill down on GetUsedtoIt logic.
GetUsedtoIt goes to a bar and pounds 10 Natty Ices, then announces he's driving home - with his kid in the back seat.
"Hey GU, don't drive drunk - that's really risky. Let us call you a cab."
NO WAY! Screams GU, cabs can be harmful. Did you see that news story where the cab driver drove that drunk woman to a hotel and assaulted her! And we can't install the car seat in the cab! Do you know how dangerous it is to drive a kid without a car seat?!!!!
But GU - you just drank 10 beers! It's way riskier to drive drunk with your kid than ride in a cab!
I don't think about relative risk! Didn't you see the thing I wrote about chemo! I'm willing to accept an 80% risk of death to avoid a 20% risk of disability! Just like I'm willing to risk a high risk of a drunk driving accident with my kid in the car rather than ride in a rape cab!
But GU - that doesn't make any sense. Why would you do the way more risky thing and endanger your kid and other drivers?
I make decisions based on feel. I know a lot of people who drove home drunk and no one died. There are people who get raped on cab rides. Things pop up on both sides.
But wait - a lot more things pop up on one side than the other!
SCREEECH - and off he goes.
Look, I'm sorry that it came out like that, but it is the honest truth to a degree. I was just fed up with that guy not listening to anything many people are saying. He/She is stating that because the worry of the vaccination emotionally charges people to not want it, they should have the choice. But from the same standpoint, the worry of the disease should equally, if not to a greater degree, emotionally worry them enough to get the vaccine.
It is this anecdotal story telling that is emotionally removing logic from the discussion. As an earlier poster much more eloquently put it than I, the reason that the worry of the side effects of the vaccine is even discussed in the same breath as the worry over the disease is because the disease has been beaten down so much that the chances of getting it are so low. This is due to high levels of people getting the vaccine. If we were to just stand by while more and more people say "I'm scared of the side effects of the vaccine, so I'll take my chances with the disease" then the disease will crop back up and start taking people out. The response then becomes "well, if you get your vaccines then it doesn't matter" - but that is the WHOLE POINT. It does matter to those who have no choice because of age or immune deficiencies or something else.
And to use that other poster's own example - if I want to speed, but you set up a rule that says I can't go that fast, can I stop paying taxes on those roads? Stupid, extreme example, but it is the same thing if it ends up coming to requiring vaccines at public schools. Restrictions are put in place for the good of the majority, to keep others from invading on freedoms and liberties of others.
What is the saddest part of this whole discussion is that the anti-vaxxer community is that their defense is the "you don't know, your science and studies are just hocus pocus and put on by big pharma trying to turn a profit", when in reality the whole anti-vax movement started from literally a wack-job Dr. with zero data and science spouting off a result that isn't true and an outright lie.
No rational supported of vaccines will tell you they are perfect. No rational supporter of vaccines will say there shouldn't be studies done for vaccines to make them more efficient and safer. The more knowledge the better. But in the meantime, the anti-vax movement is ignoring the data of centuries of vaccine success, including completely eliminating diseases. The positives surely completely outweigh the negatives, but people still sit back and say "nope, I know somebody who knows somebody...."
I am using my phone for this so all I am going to say is that you have your ways of making decisions. Other people have theirs. If you have a legitimate concern regarding what the side effects of vaccinations are, start by researching the effects of aluminum on the nervous system. You can find a lot of real search if you are open to the idea, but my guess at this point is that you have only seen what the media had to say and haven't looked at both sides to make your decision.You may not want unvaccinated kids in your church or in a movie theater with you but they will be there. It is still their perogative.How convenient of you that your decision to vaccinate also benefits the herd. But if it didn't you would not do it just to be fit society. To continue to say that would be disingenuous.
ehhhh wrote:
Sorry, need to reply AGAIN.
I don't speed and I am always cautious on the road. Once again, nice straw man. The person driving below the speed limit is just as much a danger as well. Do we ticket them?
I am in the process of having my first child vaccinated - absolutely. Because I make decisions based on a combination of logic, common sense, personal belief (which is guided by history in general, not just my personal view). It is good for him for a multitude of reasons - first and foremost, I do not want him exposed to potentially dangerous diseases. But also, just as importantly, is that I am acting in the best interest of society considering my son's personal situation - if the vaccine does not work for him for any reason at all, I understand the importance of having everybody possible vaccinated in order to rid our society of the disease as best as possible.
If autism isn't the only issue, then please provide the other side effects and their % of occurrences? This is the point we are all trying to make - some people "think" they are dangerous because they have heard a story or may even know somebody who has had an adverse reaction loosely connected to some vaccine. But they haven't heard of a story or personalized an actual disease, so that isn't dangerous. Well, lets sum all those up and find out what is more likely to happen - the getting the disease and having a serious consequence is proven to be significantly more likely than having an adverse reaction to a vaccine. Get it? Take emotion and feeling out of it - you can admit to this.
What your stance seems to be is that it is ok to override history with personal emotion and feeling. That is fine, but as you read through that last line, you realize how that sounds and want to scream out "no, that is not what I am saying". But it is - we all see it. You joint example is exactly that. I don't care the severity of joint replacement - in fact, I would argue that is an even more serious and likely occurrence of serious consequences such as death than getting a vaccine - but you are saying that people think of others that have had complications or died and get emotional about it and decide not to do it because, hell, they can live with a bum knee. That is fine - but lets put your joint replacement example in the same scenario as vaccines:
**All %s made up but in relative terms it is the same concept** You need to have joint replacement, but your grandfather had a knee replacement and never woke up from the anesthetics. So your PT tells you that only X% of joint replacements end up with death. But if you don't get it, that there is a 2X% chance of dying as a complication to your knee issue. (I know this isn't true, but this is the relevant part of the likelihood of having a complication or serious instance of the disease) Your stance is that the emotional response of "well, it happened to my grandfather, so screw the %s" is the correct way to go? This isn't even considering the herd immunity and being a proper member of society. You are saying, screw the %s, lets go with emotion. Just because people do make decisions this way, doesn't mean it is intelligent nor acceptable.
Lastly, to address your point about vaccinating for everybody else - you're correct, I do it to protect my kid first and foremost. No question. But what you don't understand is that it has the added benefit of protecting him, myself, my wife, my whole family and friends, by this concept we keep using of herd immunity. As I pointed out above - the likelihood of a complication from the vaccine is lower than the likelihood of contracting the disease itself. Isn't this benefit enough to have your own child immunized? The added benefit is that by everybody doing this, our society is protected as a whole from an outbreak, allowing for the case that my own son does not take to the vaccine and is not immunized. See how that is a benefit to my son as well?
Look, you are arguing to argue, I get that. You want it to be ok to make a decision based on emotion and feeling. You want to lump this into the "I'm free to choose what I want to do, it is my body" - I understand that. I am actually very pro choice about a whole lot of things, all sorts of freedoms. But, from a very selfish standpoint, I want everybody immunized so that we have the best possible chance of eradicating a disease or a few because I understand that there are those who DON'T have a choice to be immunized because of health reasons or age reasons, you get that? By you having a choice, you are endangering those who do not have a choice. This is what needs to be regulated.
I am all for choice, by the way. You choose to not immunize your children, thats fine. But I don't want you around my children in the case that they are not able to be immunized. I don't want you at my public health offices, clinics, or hospitals. I don't want you at my public schools. I don't want to support your children who get sick with treatment - so no coverage in healthcare for these diseases, unless vaccination attempts are shown or proof of inability is shown. Send them to private schools, send them to private healthcare offices, don't take them to public events, don't let them play at city or state or national parks. Do you get the idea?
Thing is, you have your wants that don't supersede the religious objections. You disagree with that? Home school your kids then.I am willing to abide by any government law that at least offers a choice and a way to avoid being vaccinated. The reality is however, even if you kept them out of school or kept unvaccinated kids out, they would still be in the mall, restaurants, movie theaters and churches. With regard to proving causation. If I go to school with measles and someone develops them later, you cannot prove where the transition occurred because of all the places you could come in contact with it, even from those who were vaccinated.
Disease Free Public Schools wrote:
get used to it says
"It is the health of my child, and you CANNOT prove causation with my child being unvaccinated to yours being sick."
Yes we can.
http://www.theguardian.com/society/ng-interactive/2015/feb/05/-sp-watch-how-measles-outbreak-spreads-when-kids-get-vaccinatedhttp://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/02/02/us/measles-facts.html?_r=0Smallpox is eradicated. It's gone. Because modern society worked fervently for over two centuries to vaccinate EVERYONE in the entire world. Eventually enough people were vaccinated that there was no unvaccinated population left for the virus to survive in. By 1978 it was eradicated worldwide and the human race was spared an awful debilitating disease. And the US hasn't actually vaccinated for smallpox for over 40 years because it extinct, its gone.
The US almost did the same thing with measles in the early 2000s but right after the CDC declared domestic borne measles eradicated the anti-vax movement took off and unvaccinated populations in California and Colorado sprung up where foreign borne cases of measles could take root and spread.
Still, I'm not telling you to vaccinate your child. You believe that it poses an unacceptable risk and that's fine, don't vaccinate your kid.
I am politely, humbly, graciously asking you to keep your child out of publicly funded schools pre-schools and daycare to minimize the spread of unwanted and wholly preventable diseases. Actually I'm not asking you, I'm asking the publicly funded facilities to keep your unvaccinated kid out.
Unvaccinated infected individuals can and do spread measles virus bodies for the 4 days before symptoms and the 4 days after showing symptoms. Measles can be briefly carried by vaccinated individuals on their clothes and skin for the several hours the measles virus can survive outside the human body. This means that measles can and does spread from an unvaccinated and infected 6 year old to the clothes of my vaccinated 6 year old who goes home and plays with his 6 month old baby brother who isn't vaccinated because he is too young.
This is not an idle hypothetical. This happened in the previous California Orange County outbreak and the more recent Disney outbreak and an outbreak in Chicago. Unvaccinated school and pre-school age children got measles , most likely from foreign travel, and then spread the virus to not just other unvaccinated school age kids but to unvaccinated infants through inadvertent contact, pediatricians offices and day to day life. Yes most of these infants will survive but a few won't and measles is not something to scoff at.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/chi-measles-palatine-20150205-story.html#page=1http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-santa-monica-baby-measles-20150202-story.htmlBarring unvaccinated kids from public schools won't totally eliminate the potential for spread to at risk infant populations but it will help.
And like you say, I'm not willing to take any medical risks with my children I don't have to or want to. Neither should you, but home schooling or attending a totally independent private school isn't a medical risk so get used to it.
So that's all I want. I want public schools to get rid of the religious/ philosophical exemption. Personally, there is no way I would send my baby boy to day care unless I was certain the day care required MMR immunization.
I really do have six month old baby boy and I don't want him to get measles. I'm not paranoid. I simply don't think its unreasonable for me to expect the public facilities I pay for with tax dollars to be free from infectious diseases. That's all.
If this is the kind not non sense that comes from public schools I would have no issues with my kids being homeschooled. We have shown time and time again how this is not relevant, yet if you still claim it is, think about what a hypocrite you are next time you speed and increase your risk of causing an accident . Laws are set for the good of society, right? I will vaccinate my kin and encourage others to do the same if everyone who b1tches about people not vaccinating never ever speeds again.
GetUsedToHomeschooling wrote:
I'd like to switch the scene to drill down on GetUsedtoIt logic.
GetUsedtoIt goes to a bar and pounds 10 Natty Ices, then announces he's driving home - with his kid in the back seat.
"Hey GU, don't drive drunk - that's really risky. Let us call you a cab."
NO WAY! Screams GU, cabs can be harmful. Did you see that news story where the cab driver drove that drunk woman to a hotel and assaulted her! And we can't install the car seat in the cab! Do you know how dangerous it is to drive a kid without a car seat?!!!!
But GU - you just drank 10 beers! It's way riskier to drive drunk with your kid than ride in a cab!
I don't think about relative risk! Didn't you see the thing I wrote about chemo! I'm willing to accept an 80% risk of death to avoid a 20% risk of disability! Just like I'm willing to risk a high risk of a drunk driving accident with my kid in the car rather than ride in a rape cab!
But GU - that doesn't make any sense. Why would you do the way more risky thing and endanger your kid and other drivers?
I make decisions based on feel. I know a lot of people who drove home drunk and no one died. There are people who get raped on cab rides. Things pop up on both sides.
But wait - a lot more things pop up on one side than the other!
SCREEECH - and off he goes.
srt wrote:
Two additional "data" points for you:
1) Human population stopped growing exponentially some decades back--very roughly around that year 1970 you mentioned, actually.
Maybe if you re-read my post you'll see that was the point. Maybe not, who knows.
Well if I know plenty of people without vaccines and have no negative stories, why should I fear the diseases? I can't make a decision because i know someone who knows someone who got sick, right? It goes both ways.The thing is, there are so many people that this country follow everything doctors say that there will always be a preponderance of people who are vaccinated. The people then that don't want it shouldn't have to take that risk and luckily so far they don't. People keep talking about "what if no one got vaccinated, what then"? Not going to happen. You want your kids protected with vaccines? Have at it. If I want to protect my kids from vaccines I should have that choice because I think it should be clear at this point that protecting society is no one's real reason for vaccinating. Again...for the record...and I have said before in other threads on this. I am neither strongly for or strongly against. I get the idea that as of now we are better off with most people having vaccines. I also realize there are valid reasons people choose to not do it. I just think the pro vaxers need to be more respectful of people's freedoms.
ehhhh wrote:
Look, I'm sorry that it came out like that, but it is the honest truth to a degree. I was just fed up with that guy not listening to anything many people are saying. He/She is stating that because the worry of the vaccination emotionally charges people to not want it, they should have the choice. But from the same standpoint, the worry of the disease should equally, if not to a greater degree, emotionally worry them enough to get the vaccine.
It is this anecdotal story telling that is emotionally removing logic from the discussion. As an earlier poster much more eloquently put it than I, the reason that the worry of the side effects of the vaccine is even discussed in the same breath as the worry over the disease is because the disease has been beaten down so much that the chances of getting it are so low. This is due to high levels of people getting the vaccine. If we were to just stand by while more and more people say "I'm scared of the side effects of the vaccine, so I'll take my chances with the disease" then the disease will crop back up and start taking people out. The response then becomes "well, if you get your vaccines then it doesn't matter" - but that is the WHOLE POINT. It does matter to those who have no choice because of age or immune deficiencies or something else.
And to use that other poster's own example - if I want to speed, but you set up a rule that says I can't go that fast, can I stop paying taxes on those roads? Stupid, extreme example, but it is the same thing if it ends up coming to requiring vaccines at public schools. Restrictions are put in place for the good of the majority, to keep others from invading on freedoms and liberties of others.
What is the saddest part of this whole discussion is that the anti-vaxxer community is that their defense is the "you don't know, your science and studies are just hocus pocus and put on by big pharma trying to turn a profit", when in reality the whole anti-vax movement started from literally a wack-job Dr. with zero data and science spouting off a result that isn't true and an outright lie.
No rational supported of vaccines will tell you they are perfect. No rational supporter of vaccines will say there shouldn't be studies done for vaccines to make them more efficient and safer. The more knowledge the better. But in the meantime, the anti-vax movement is ignoring the data of centuries of vaccine success, including completely eliminating diseases. The positives surely completely outweigh the negatives, but people still sit back and say "nope, I know somebody who knows somebody...."
How is this not relevant?
You argue that people have the right to make a risky choice (not vaccinating / driving drunk) because they irrationally fear a lower risk choice (vaccinating / riding in a cab).
I believe as a society we should create disincentives to this kind of behavior. We should create penalties for making the riskier choice. I think speeding tickets are a good thing. They encourage people to drive slower. Some people break that law, some get caught, and some pay a fine.
That's what should happen with vaccination. We should make a law, like speeding, that imposes a penalty for making irrationally dangerous choices. Maybe that's a big fine...maybe it's that you can't enroll your kids in school. Whatever. Some people like you will break the law, like speeders, and you will accept the penalty. I'm cool with that - because on the whole more people will vaccinate, just like people generally drive slower in places with speed limits.
So we're good right?
I accept that you can make irrationally risky choices. You accept that society can penalize that behavior because it's bad for society.
Human beings aren't members of a heard and human action is not driven by the goal of serving any collective (there isn't one). Man is a species of autonomous individuals seeking to fulfill their own desires to live the longest, happiest lives possible to them, and societies are successful to the extent that they respect the sovereignty of the individual. Few people remain in perfect health until the moment they drop dead of old age, and even the most genetically fit are still vulnerable to physical catastrophe. The purpose of medicine, like all technology, is to solve the problems imposed by nature. Man's ability to use his intelligence to create remedies for diseases creates a lucrative niche for people who have the skills to do so. You as an individual shouldn't have to do anything you don't want to do, including vaccinate, "medicate," or pay for anyone else's healthcare; just have the decency to extend the same respect to others, and don't use your voice or vote to try to force anyone else do anything they don't want to do.
You would have every right to say it is an irrational choice IF there were no potential risks for vaccination. But because there ARE, these fears and the subsequent choices are not irrational to the people who make them.Should the government make a law that everyone has to be vaccinated, and the only way out is to pay a fine, I have no problem with that. If there are prison sentences for parents who don't vaccinate and they force vaccination anyway, I have a huge problem. Again, I know at this point that people are not required. However, there is likely going to be sponsored in CA for mandatory vaccination. If this is a civil penalty, fine. If criminal I think we should all be outraged.
I think we have a deal wrote:
How is this not relevant?
You argue that people have the right to make a risky choice (not vaccinating / driving drunk) because they irrationally fear a lower risk choice (vaccinating / riding in a cab).
I believe as a society we should create disincentives to this kind of behavior. We should create penalties for making the riskier choice. I think speeding tickets are a good thing. They encourage people to drive slower. Some people break that law, some get caught, and some pay a fine.
That's what should happen with vaccination. We should make a law, like speeding, that imposes a penalty for making irrationally dangerous choices. Maybe that's a big fine...maybe it's that you can't enroll your kids in school. Whatever. Some people like you will break the law, like speeders, and you will accept the penalty. I'm cool with that - because on the whole more people will vaccinate, just like people generally drive slower in places with speed limits.
So we're good right?
I accept that you can make irrationally risky choices. You accept that society can penalize that behavior because it's bad for society.
get used to it.. wrote:
You would have every right to say it is an irrational choice IF there were no potential risks for vaccination. But because there ARE, these fears and the subsequent choices are not irrational to the people who make them.
Should the government make a law that everyone has to be vaccinated, and the only way out is to pay a fine, I have no problem with that. If there are prison sentences for parents who don't vaccinate and they force vaccination anyway, I have a huge problem. Again, I know at this point that people are not required. However, there is likely going to be sponsored in CA for mandatory vaccination. If this is a civil penalty, fine. If criminal I think we should all be outraged.
I agree with that.
For those keeping score: Personally I have had all of my kids vaccinated for everything recommended. I believe that the risks are so close to zero as to be irrelevant to my decision making
srt wrote:
[quote]sc42 wrote:
People would struggle less, not more, if the global population was halved. How do we know? [Actually, we don't. Source, please?] Because we've been there.
google "Black Death."
[quote]ehhhh wrote:
Sorry, need to reply AGAIN.
I don't speed and I am always cautious on the road. /quote]
Anyone who does not drive over the speed limit should be beaten and humiliated in public.
get used to it.. wrote:
You would have every right to say it is an irrational choice IF there were no potential risks for vaccination. But because there ARE, these fears and the subsequent choices are not irrational to the people who make them.
Incorrect. It is not rational to fear a much lesser risk than a much greater risk. In fact, that would be pretty much be a textbook definition of "irrational." People who fear seat belt injuries (and in rare instances, seat belts are indeed the cause of injury in an accident, and the person would have indeed been safer without wearing the seatbelt) over car accidents without seat belts, and therefore don't wear their seat belts, are indeed being irrational.
Another example (since we've been discussing car/speeding analogies) would be someone who knows a single person who was rear-ended going 55 (the speed limit), and therefore develops an irrational fear of driving the speed limit when most people are driving faster than the speed limit, and decides it is much safer to go 85 on the highway all the time. Again, statistics would demonstrate that such behavior is not safer, and this would be another irrational fear/behavior.
Just because you fear something, and it has some infinitesimal risk, doesn't make it rational to avoid that thing and take a bigger risk.
Disease Free Public Schools wrote:
I am politely, humbly, graciously asking you to keep your child out of publicly funded schools pre-schools and daycare to minimize the spread of unwanted and wholly preventable diseases. Actually I'm not asking you, I'm asking the publicly funded facilities to keep your unvaccinated kid out.
Don't forget to require him to be taxed at least double for these facilities because he's so snotty that he doesn't want to use them.
We could stop all the madness through a mandatory global sterilization program.
Who's with me?.
Randy Oldman wrote:
We could stop all the madness through a mandatory global sterilization program.
Who's with me?.
I'm with you.
get used to it.. wrote:
It is not selfish for people to believe that vaccines are harmful and to not want to give them to their kids. Their kids are their priority. They have and should have the right to choose, as you do. If I feel there are significant potential negative consequences to vaccinating, I really don't give a rats ass what the consequence to society is. It is the health of my child, and you CANNOT prove causation with my child being unvaccinated to yours being sick.
If there are 100 babies on one ledge and yours on another, and you could only save yours OR the 100, which would you choose?
I would choose my baby. Sorry.
It is selfish because you are electing to not participate in something you yourself are benefiting from, the fact that most everyone is vaccinating their kid. By not vaccinating your kid, you and everyone else who share (and act on) your view, are increasing the prevalence of those diseases in the general population. The odds of your kid not getting the virus is still somewhat high because of the vaccine, while the odds of your kid (actually, you with your selfish decision) contributing to someone else getting the disease increases. How is that not selfish.