3 ms·

It would be a huge concern if people stopped vaccinating. I am definitely in favour of vaccination - but if my experiences are anything to go by, the government

by SeanDav 10y ago

It would be a huge concern if people stopped vaccinating. I am definitely in favour of vaccination - but if my experiences are anything to go by, the government and healthcare establishment have done themselves and the public no favours in their approach to the issues. At the peak of the autism-vaccination scare a few years ago, we were due to vaccinate our child. I researched as much as I could, but almost all the information out there was very basic and almost condescending. Rather than try face parents concerns head-on, the attitude was simply to say "vaccination" equals "good", with no hint of a balanced discussion to address real issues like side effects and harm from vaccinations. On the one side we were faced with almost hysterical rhetoric and supposed "facts" from the anti-vaccination groups and on the other, near apathy from the governmental organisations. We did go ahead and get our child vaccinated, but after approximately 2 weeks she starting displaying very worrying symptoms, her eyes rolling backwards into her head, becoming floppy, making peculiar sounds. We rushed her to hospital, where the doctors steadfastly refused to admit even the possibility that her symptoms were related to the recent vaccinations. It was just "coincidence". At least one of my nephews suffered some sort of febrile convulsions after the measles vaccination - again coincidence apparently. Even after all this, I still support vaccinations, because the disease is statistically far worse the than side effects from vaccinations.

lsiebert 10y ago
I think that's because that encourages people to assess the issue for their children, but really vaccines aren't just for your kid, they provide herd immunity that saves the lives of newborns, the immunocompromised like children on chemo, etc. Also people forget the horror of life before vaccines for things like polio.
- nonbel 10y ago
  > "saves the lives of newborns" This is a myth, see my other post here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13656462 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13656462
acqq 10y ago
Read about the former UK Doctor (found guilty by the General Medical Council of serious professional misconduct in May 2010 and struck off the Medical Register) that started it all: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMR_vaccine_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMR_vaccine_controversy There were a lot of studies trying to prove or repeat his "discoveries" only to confirm that he faked the results for the personal gain. But the bad media coverage of the affair and the small number of people who actually profited from the scare got us to where we are today. And of course, exactly the success of vaccination allows the existence of "antis."
Someone1234 10y ago
If they want to advocate vaccines, list the side effects of the vaccines (and how common they are), then list the side effects of getting measles (and how contagious it is). During the vaccine "debates" it is very evident that discussion about the diseases that you're vaccinating against aren't readily discussed or available. If you pick up a leaflet at your pediatrician's about the MMR, it doesn't say what a measles infection is like, just talks endlessly about the vaccine. So we're having the wrong debate "Vaccines safe or unsafe" instead of "Vaccine Vs. measles." That's why people think skipping vaccines is the "safer" option because they don't grasp what it is they're vaccinating against. I got my daughter all of her vaccines on schedule. My biggest concern wasn't the vaccines, it was her getting freaking measles before she was old enough for her first MMR shot (at 12 months); there was a big outbreak at Disneyland in that period too.
nostrademons 10y ago
CDC has fairly good, neutral, quantitative information about potential side effects from most vaccines: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/side-effects.htm https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/side-effects.htm In general, I've found that a very useful heuristic for evaluating the trustworthiness of a claim is to take the inverse of the amount of fear & outrage generated by it. So if everybody is screaming in very shrill tones about how outrageous some conspiracy being perpetrated on the American people is, it's probably false. If there's indignant recitation of facts & circumstantial evidence, it may be true but likely isn't all that important. If nobody is talking about it except for a few well-qualified voices, you should be scared. So applying this to a few issues of the day - "vaccines cause autism" = false (this has already been established, the guy who published the original story admitted to falsifying data and lost his medical license over it). Pizzagate = false. Trump being the next Hitler is probably false. Clinton e-mail scandal = true, but inconsequential. Radical Islamic terrorism = terrible for folks in Syria, but inconsequential for most Westerners. Trump administration ties with Russians = probably true, also inconsequential. Global warming = should be moderately concerned, but likely not the biggest pending environmental calamity. That drunk driver you don't know about = will probably do you in. Either that or a constant diet of more calories in than calories out.

by SeanDav 10y ago

lsiebert 10y ago

I think that's because that encourages people to assess the issue for their children, but really vaccines aren't just for your kid, they provide herd immunity that saves the lives of newborns, the immunocompromised like children on chemo, etc. Also people forget the horror of life before vaccines for things like polio.

nonbel 10y ago
> "saves the lives of newborns" This is a myth, see my other post here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13656462 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13656462

acqq 10y ago

Read about the former UK Doctor (found guilty by the General Medical Council of serious professional misconduct in May 2010 and struck off the Medical Register) that started it all: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMR_vaccine_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMR_vaccine_controversy There were a lot of studies trying to prove or repeat his "discoveries" only to confirm that he faked the results for the personal gain. But the bad media coverage of the affair and the small number of people who actually profited from the scare got us to where we are today. And of course, exactly the success of vaccination allows the existence of "antis."

Someone1234 10y ago

If they want to advocate vaccines, list the side effects of the vaccines (and how common they are), then list the side effects of getting measles (and how contagious it is). During the vaccine "debates" it is very evident that discussion about the diseases that you're vaccinating against aren't readily discussed or available. If you pick up a leaflet at your pediatrician's about the MMR, it doesn't say what a measles infection is like, just talks endlessly about the vaccine. So we're having the wrong debate "Vaccines safe or unsafe" instead of "Vaccine Vs. measles." That's why people think skipping vaccines is the "safer" option because they don't grasp what it is they're vaccinating against. I got my daughter all of her vaccines on schedule. My biggest concern wasn't the vaccines, it was her getting freaking measles before she was old enough for her first MMR shot (at 12 months); there was a big outbreak at Disneyland in that period too.

nostrademons 10y ago

CDC has fairly good, neutral, quantitative information about potential side effects from most vaccines: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/side-effects.htm https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/side-effects.htm In general, I've found that a very useful heuristic for evaluating the trustworthiness of a claim is to take the inverse of the amount of fear & outrage generated by it. So if everybody is screaming in very shrill tones about how outrageous some conspiracy being perpetrated on the American people is, it's probably false. If there's indignant recitation of facts & circumstantial evidence, it may be true but likely isn't all that important. If nobody is talking about it except for a few well-qualified voices, you should be scared. So applying this to a few issues of the day - "vaccines cause autism" = false (this has already been established, the guy who published the original story admitted to falsifying data and lost his medical license over it). Pizzagate = false. Trump being the next Hitler is probably false. Clinton e-mail scandal = true, but inconsequential. Radical Islamic terrorism = terrible for folks in Syria, but inconsequential for most Westerners. Trump administration ties with Russians = probably true, also inconsequential. Global warming = should be moderately concerned, but likely not the biggest pending environmental calamity. That drunk driver you don't know about = will probably do you in. Either that or a constant diet of more calories in than calories out.