5 ms·

> 2. Society is incurring some level of risk if the individual's risk of getting the disease is increased (although shouldn't this not affect people who are vac

by defen 10y ago

> 2. Society is incurring some level of risk if the individual's risk of getting the disease is increased (although shouldn't this not affect people who are vaccinated anyway?) No, that's not how it works. A vaccine that is not 100% effective can still be the difference between "exponential growth" and "peters out quickly". I'm not trying to be rude, but that is kind of epidemiology 101 - meaning, take that as an indication that you are not fully informed on this topic.

nonbel 10y ago
>"A vaccine that is not 100% effective can still be the difference between "exponential growth" and "peters out quickly". I'm not trying to be rude, but that is kind of epidemiology 101 - meaning, take that as an indication that you are not fully informed on this topic." And in epdiemiology 102, you learn a near-eradicating policy is one of the most dangerous things you can do: >"Then, suddenly, a new epidemic appears as if from nowhere. This is an illustration of a phenomenon known as the ‘honeymoon period’. This is the period of very low incidence that immediately follows the introduction of a non-eradicating mass vaccination policy." More in my earlier post here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13656252 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13656252
- defen 10y ago
  Do you think that is the logic employed by even one out of 100 anti-vaccination people? Do you think your post is an argument in favor of higher vaccination coverage or lower?
  - nonbel 10y ago
    I'm just spreading more accurate information than usually found in these threads and leaving my opinion out of it.
lend000 10y ago
> I'm not trying to be rude A self-defeating statement. Also, note the question mark at the end of the original sentence with which you took issue. > A vaccine that is not 100% effective can still be the difference between "exponential growth" and "peters out quickly". This seems logical from a mathematical standpoint, but you're missing a big piece. If we are consequentialist here / interested in the most realistic scenario, then we have to recognize that most people will get vaccines regardless of whether or not they are forced to do so. So now it's a different comparison: 95% vaccinated with a 95% successful vaccine vs. 100% vaccinated with the 95% successful vaccine, and the practical improvement is no longer so compelling as to prove that not taking away people's freedom to choose will really have such a negative effect on society.
- defen 10y ago
  Free riding is one of the fundamental problems of coordinated human action. If you take away disincentives to free riding, people will free ride. If there is a big outbreak of disease because of, the backlash could potentially be even worse than the disease.
  - lend000 10y ago
    This isn't the same as socialist free-riding, because the people who chose to vaccinate (or 95% of them, if the vaccine is 95% successful) are inherently enjoying a different privilege during disease outbreaks, by not getting sick. Flu season is a great example of this -- people who don't want to get sick get vaccinated and shouldn't care whether you do. They only get sick if the vaccine covers the wrong strain (i.e. it was useless) or in the occasional event of failure.
    - defen 10y ago
      Using the flu example - people who aren't vaccinated can be carriers without symptoms who can then infect others - for example elderly or immunocompromised people who can't receive the vaccine.
      - lend000 10y ago
        As can people who received the vaccine, especially in the immediate week following: http://www.westonaprice.org/press/public-health-officials-know-recently-vaccinated-individuals-spread-disease/ http://www.westonaprice.org/press/public-health-officials-kn... If vaccines had no flaws, this would be easy. But they are far from flawless, so the cost-benefit analysis does not seem compelling enough to forcefully subject people to medical procedures, in my opinion. There's still the argument for doing what's best for the children, but that's a bit different, and no less controversial (whether the state or the parents should have the final say). Based on your other posts ("Do you think that is the logic employed by even one out of 100 anti-vaccination people?"), it seems like you care more about dispelling some of the illogical arguments of 'anti-vaxxers' than you care about actual issue itself.

by defen 10y ago

nonbel 10y ago

>"A vaccine that is not 100% effective can still be the difference between "exponential growth" and "peters out quickly". I'm not trying to be rude, but that is kind of epidemiology 101 - meaning, take that as an indication that you are not fully informed on this topic." And in epdiemiology 102, you learn a near-eradicating policy is one of the most dangerous things you can do: >"Then, suddenly, a new epidemic appears as if from nowhere. This is an illustration of a phenomenon known as the ‘honeymoon period’. This is the period of very low incidence that immediately follows the introduction of a non-eradicating mass vaccination policy." More in my earlier post here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13656252 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13656252

defen 10y ago
Do you think that is the logic employed by even one out of 100 anti-vaccination people? Do you think your post is an argument in favor of higher vaccination coverage or lower?
- nonbel 10y ago
  I'm just spreading more accurate information than usually found in these threads and leaving my opinion out of it.

lend000 10y ago

> I'm not trying to be rude A self-defeating statement. Also, note the question mark at the end of the original sentence with which you took issue. > A vaccine that is not 100% effective can still be the difference between "exponential growth" and "peters out quickly". This seems logical from a mathematical standpoint, but you're missing a big piece. If we are consequentialist here / interested in the most realistic scenario, then we have to recognize that most people will get vaccines regardless of whether or not they are forced to do so. So now it's a different comparison: 95% vaccinated with a 95% successful vaccine vs. 100% vaccinated with the 95% successful vaccine, and the practical improvement is no longer so compelling as to prove that not taking away people's freedom to choose will really have such a negative effect on society.

defen 10y ago
Free riding is one of the fundamental problems of coordinated human action. If you take away disincentives to free riding, people will free ride. If there is a big outbreak of disease because of, the backlash could potentially be even worse than the disease.
- lend000 10y ago
  This isn't the same as socialist free-riding, because the people who chose to vaccinate (or 95% of them, if the vaccine is 95% successful) are inherently enjoying a different privilege during disease outbreaks, by not getting sick. Flu season is a great example of this -- people who don't want to get sick get vaccinated and shouldn't care whether you do. They only get sick if the vaccine covers the wrong strain (i.e. it was useless) or in the occasional event of failure.
  - defen 10y ago
    Using the flu example - people who aren't vaccinated can be carriers without symptoms who can then infect others - for example elderly or immunocompromised people who can't receive the vaccine.
    - lend000 10y ago
      As can people who received the vaccine, especially in the immediate week following: http://www.westonaprice.org/press/public-health-officials-know-recently-vaccinated-individuals-spread-disease/ http://www.westonaprice.org/press/public-health-officials-kn... If vaccines had no flaws, this would be easy. But they are far from flawless, so the cost-benefit analysis does not seem compelling enough to forcefully subject people to medical procedures, in my opinion. There's still the argument for doing what's best for the children, but that's a bit different, and no less controversial (whether the state or the parents should have the final say). Based on your other posts ("Do you think that is the logic employed by even one out of 100 anti-vaccination people?"), it seems like you care more about dispelling some of the illogical arguments of 'anti-vaxxers' than you care about actual issue itself.