6 ms·

Vaccines are safer for a population, and they are safer for individuals in an unvaccinated population. In a vaccinated population the risks to the individual ha

by sgt101 10y ago

Vaccines are safer for a population, and they are safer for individuals in an unvaccinated population. In a vaccinated population the risks to the individual having a vaccine are low, but non zero. The risk of not having the vaccine may well be lower. The problem is that by not being clear that having a vaccination is an altruistic act with marginal risk but a massive social good the way is left open for claims of duplicity. This may be the key issue; some people won't agree with the desired position because the fact we are using isn't a fact at all. We fail to persuade because we don't make a good case.

crpatino 10y ago
I would upvote you twice if I could. The anti-science crowd and not idiots, but rather moderately intelligent individuals that go bersek after catching the Science spokeperson's oversimplifications and/or white lies. Fool me once and it's your fault, fool me twice and it is mine.
- pzone 10y ago
  This seems to be exactly the same as what the anti-PC and general Trump voting crowd believe as well. They HATE oversimplifications that deny their viewpoint. For example "Affirmative action is 100% fair." That's not an objective truth, but the left tries to sell it that way.
  - skj 10y ago
    No, it's what the right-wing pundits sell as what the left tries to sell.
- FabHK 10y ago
  The anti-vac crowd might not be idiots, but they're selfish as hell (free-riding on herd immunisation while not willing to accept the (very very tiny) risk of vaccination to their precious child).
  - BeetleB 10y ago
    >The anti-vac crowd might not be idiots, but they're selfish as hell (free-riding on herd immunisation while not willing to accept the (very very tiny) risk of vaccination to their precious child). You mean, selfish like everyone else is? Is it even appropriate to use a broad attribution like "selfish" to a specific case of selfishness? I know both pro and anti-vaccines. I can definitely assert that some of the anti-vacciners are less selfish than the pro-vacciners I know. I'd like you to examine your need to make a statement like this. It's a wonderful path of discovery (I am not being facetious here). You could have said that the anti-vaccine folks are reducing the herd immunization, and are benefiting from said herd immunizing without calling them selfish. Why the need to moralize? What was the purpose?
    - FabHK 10y ago
      Hi, yes, I mean selfish. The reason I "moralise" it is that it is but an instance of a prisoner's dilemma, tragedy of the commons. Same applies to signalling while driving, not stealing in stores, jumping the queue, lying on your CV, etc. etc. As in the tragedy of the commons, we have a lot to gain by cooperating, but individually have an incentive to defect/cheat. I personally think that there is no karma or god imposing justice or preventing cheating, thus it is incumbent on us to police compliance and discourage cheating. Furthermore, there are good arguments made that we have evolved capabilities to detect cheating and a tendency to punish cheaters (even to our cost). So, I'm both viscerally and, I think, rationally opposed to that and other forms of selfish cheating, and it warrants opprobrium and moralising disapproval, to minimise it. That's the purpose. Is that what you're asking? > I can definitely assert that some of the anti-vacciners are less selfish than the pro-vacciners I know. Not entirely sure what you mean - do you mean to say that the anti-vaccine stance is not selfish (which is in a sense a scientific issue), or that (while it is) there are people that are (in other ways) not selfish?
      - BeetleB 10y ago
        You're throwing around terms like "selfish" and "cheating". Both have connotations of intent. However, the disconnect is that none of the anti-vacciners I've come across intend to do anything you are suggesting. While from your perspective, they are gaining while not contributing, it is neither their intent nor their observation. So my question: Why use words like "selfish" and "cheating" when many/most of them do not believe they are gaining anything without contributing? >and it warrants opprobrium and moralising disapproval, to minimise it. That's the purpose. Forgive my skepticism, but if you are trying to tell me you are using such words in the hope of minimizing the behavior, I have trouble believing you. Two points: 1. Such behavior is more likely to cause dug heels and less likely to change people. 2. When you study the field of morality (scientifically, not just mere philosophy), you find that almost all such acts are for selfish purposes, with post-hoc rationalizations. I mean your selfish acts. As in you feel a need to criticize and ridicule, and your justification above is an attempt not to make it appear so. There are ways to persuade people. The method you cite (opprobrium and moralising) is amongst the least effective. If your goal was very strongly driven by trying to persuade people to use vaccines, you would focus more on other techniques. >Not entirely sure what you mean - do you mean to say that the anti-vaccine stance is not selfish (which is in a sense a scientific issue), or that (while it is) there are people that are (in other ways) not selfish? My point is that the label is broad, and you applied it to the person, and not just the act. Any neutral person who hears this will simply find it false. Put another way, if someone wants to dispute your claim, it is trivial to do so - I just did it in my original comment. I know at least one anti-vacciner who is less selfish than pretty much any pro-vacciner I know. And in general, I find the anti-vacciners that I personally know to be less selfish. You do not come off as one who is trying to cause change, but one who wants to sit and criticize. As I said: >You could have said that the anti-vaccine folks are reducing the herd immunization, and are benefiting from said herd immunizing without calling them selfish. Why didn't you? The point is as valid when phrased my way.
rl3 10y ago
The acrimonious and often zealous tone taken by many doesn't help matters either. What you just wrote was nuanced, and there's very little room for nuance recently. Most of what qualifies as discourse today simply degenerates into a shouting match with each side not giving an inch. For example: compulsory vaccination via mandate, coercion, exclusion, or otherwise. While there are compelling motivations to pursue such ends for the greater social good, doing so is a slippery slope fraught with the risk of trampling individual medical freedoms in the process, such as informed consent. I've seen people on the latter side of that argument treated as if they were analogous to axe murderers for even suggesting anything but 100% compliance, all the while being shouted down by the angry mob. The fact is, vaccinations carry the risk of very rare but sometimes serious adverse reactions. As long as that remains true, there can be no absolute moral high-ground when demanding compulsory vaccination. In the current climate however, stating such a position outside of tiny civilized bubbles like HN is tantamount to heresy. I suspect when the autism link was debunked, many people conflated this to mean vaccines were completely safe, when in fact they're simply very safe.
- noir_lord 10y ago
  > What you just wrote was nuanced, and there's very little room for nuance recently. It certainly seems like that has become the case though I wonder if it's always been like that and modern technology just exposes it better. > "Tyranny is the deliberate removal of nuance" I saw a stand up comedian misquote that as "Tyranny is the absence of nuance" which I think I actually preferred. As for your point on the vaccination thing, yes there are absolutely is a debate somewhere in there about compulsory vaccinations and medical freedom, that debate should always be on-going since in such issues there are rarely absolutes, I wouldn't want them to be settled since settled issues never get revisited. This is something I've noticed with politics, people hold a position, that position comes to dominance and then they are surprised when it back tracks from their point of view, I'm not sure why they find this suprising it's not like the arrow of progress is one way and while we are talking about the 'arrow of progress' whos arrow and what is progress. Politics (and the vaccination thing runs slap bang into it) is absolutely messy and chaotic, that's just how the sausage gets made I think.
sbuttgereit 10y ago
An argument based on altruism wouldn't ring true with me. I'm not an altruist and, while I'm absolutely in the minority in that regard, there are others that don't accept altruism as a valid moral system either. I don't think you need altruism to make a good argument for vaccines and that you can construct good arguments for altruists and egoists alike. Perhaps the only argument I need is to know that I need to protect myself from the damn fools that don't get them... I expect your assessment of risk to the non-vaccinated compared to the risk of the vaccines themselves in a generally vaccinated population is not correct depending on the disease. I expect that if you're not vaccinated against small pox, your chance of getting it is very low compared to the risk of the vaccine itself... but that if you're not vaccinated against measles you're risking much more than the what risk the vaccine presents. Having said all this I can assure you that, as an egoist, I have most vaccinations and have had my young child get all the normal vaccinations. Not for some greater good, but because it's in our self interest.

by sgt101 10y ago

crpatino 10y ago

I would upvote you twice if I could. The anti-science crowd and not idiots, but rather moderately intelligent individuals that go bersek after catching the Science spokeperson's oversimplifications and/or white lies. Fool me once and it's your fault, fool me twice and it is mine.

pzone 10y ago
This seems to be exactly the same as what the anti-PC and general Trump voting crowd believe as well. They HATE oversimplifications that deny their viewpoint. For example "Affirmative action is 100% fair." That's not an objective truth, but the left tries to sell it that way.
- skj 10y ago
  No, it's what the right-wing pundits sell as what the left tries to sell.
FabHK 10y ago
The anti-vac crowd might not be idiots, but they're selfish as hell (free-riding on herd immunisation while not willing to accept the (very very tiny) risk of vaccination to their precious child).
- BeetleB 10y ago
  >The anti-vac crowd might not be idiots, but they're selfish as hell (free-riding on herd immunisation while not willing to accept the (very very tiny) risk of vaccination to their precious child). You mean, selfish like everyone else is? Is it even appropriate to use a broad attribution like "selfish" to a specific case of selfishness? I know both pro and anti-vaccines. I can definitely assert that some of the anti-vacciners are less selfish than the pro-vacciners I know. I'd like you to examine your need to make a statement like this. It's a wonderful path of discovery (I am not being facetious here). You could have said that the anti-vaccine folks are reducing the herd immunization, and are benefiting from said herd immunizing without calling them selfish. Why the need to moralize? What was the purpose?
  - FabHK 10y ago
    Hi, yes, I mean selfish. The reason I "moralise" it is that it is but an instance of a prisoner's dilemma, tragedy of the commons. Same applies to signalling while driving, not stealing in stores, jumping the queue, lying on your CV, etc. etc. As in the tragedy of the commons, we have a lot to gain by cooperating, but individually have an incentive to defect/cheat. I personally think that there is no karma or god imposing justice or preventing cheating, thus it is incumbent on us to police compliance and discourage cheating. Furthermore, there are good arguments made that we have evolved capabilities to detect cheating and a tendency to punish cheaters (even to our cost). So, I'm both viscerally and, I think, rationally opposed to that and other forms of selfish cheating, and it warrants opprobrium and moralising disapproval, to minimise it. That's the purpose. Is that what you're asking? > I can definitely assert that some of the anti-vacciners are less selfish than the pro-vacciners I know. Not entirely sure what you mean - do you mean to say that the anti-vaccine stance is not selfish (which is in a sense a scientific issue), or that (while it is) there are people that are (in other ways) not selfish?
    - BeetleB 10y ago
      You're throwing around terms like "selfish" and "cheating". Both have connotations of intent. However, the disconnect is that none of the anti-vacciners I've come across intend to do anything you are suggesting. While from your perspective, they are gaining while not contributing, it is neither their intent nor their observation. So my question: Why use words like "selfish" and "cheating" when many/most of them do not believe they are gaining anything without contributing? >and it warrants opprobrium and moralising disapproval, to minimise it. That's the purpose. Forgive my skepticism, but if you are trying to tell me you are using such words in the hope of minimizing the behavior, I have trouble believing you. Two points: 1. Such behavior is more likely to cause dug heels and less likely to change people. 2. When you study the field of morality (scientifically, not just mere philosophy), you find that almost all such acts are for selfish purposes, with post-hoc rationalizations. I mean your selfish acts. As in you feel a need to criticize and ridicule, and your justification above is an attempt not to make it appear so. There are ways to persuade people. The method you cite (opprobrium and moralising) is amongst the least effective. If your goal was very strongly driven by trying to persuade people to use vaccines, you would focus more on other techniques. >Not entirely sure what you mean - do you mean to say that the anti-vaccine stance is not selfish (which is in a sense a scientific issue), or that (while it is) there are people that are (in other ways) not selfish? My point is that the label is broad, and you applied it to the person, and not just the act. Any neutral person who hears this will simply find it false. Put another way, if someone wants to dispute your claim, it is trivial to do so - I just did it in my original comment. I know at least one anti-vacciner who is less selfish than pretty much any pro-vacciner I know. And in general, I find the anti-vacciners that I personally know to be less selfish. You do not come off as one who is trying to cause change, but one who wants to sit and criticize. As I said: >You could have said that the anti-vaccine folks are reducing the herd immunization, and are benefiting from said herd immunizing without calling them selfish. Why didn't you? The point is as valid when phrased my way.

rl3 10y ago

The acrimonious and often zealous tone taken by many doesn't help matters either. What you just wrote was nuanced, and there's very little room for nuance recently. Most of what qualifies as discourse today simply degenerates into a shouting match with each side not giving an inch. For example: compulsory vaccination via mandate, coercion, exclusion, or otherwise. While there are compelling motivations to pursue such ends for the greater social good, doing so is a slippery slope fraught with the risk of trampling individual medical freedoms in the process, such as informed consent. I've seen people on the latter side of that argument treated as if they were analogous to axe murderers for even suggesting anything but 100% compliance, all the while being shouted down by the angry mob. The fact is, vaccinations carry the risk of very rare but sometimes serious adverse reactions. As long as that remains true, there can be no absolute moral high-ground when demanding compulsory vaccination. In the current climate however, stating such a position outside of tiny civilized bubbles like HN is tantamount to heresy. I suspect when the autism link was debunked, many people conflated this to mean vaccines were completely safe, when in fact they're simply very safe.

noir_lord 10y ago
> What you just wrote was nuanced, and there's very little room for nuance recently. It certainly seems like that has become the case though I wonder if it's always been like that and modern technology just exposes it better. > "Tyranny is the deliberate removal of nuance" I saw a stand up comedian misquote that as "Tyranny is the absence of nuance" which I think I actually preferred. As for your point on the vaccination thing, yes there are absolutely is a debate somewhere in there about compulsory vaccinations and medical freedom, that debate should always be on-going since in such issues there are rarely absolutes, I wouldn't want them to be settled since settled issues never get revisited. This is something I've noticed with politics, people hold a position, that position comes to dominance and then they are surprised when it back tracks from their point of view, I'm not sure why they find this suprising it's not like the arrow of progress is one way and while we are talking about the 'arrow of progress' whos arrow and what is progress. Politics (and the vaccination thing runs slap bang into it) is absolutely messy and chaotic, that's just how the sausage gets made I think.

sbuttgereit 10y ago

An argument based on altruism wouldn't ring true with me. I'm not an altruist and, while I'm absolutely in the minority in that regard, there are others that don't accept altruism as a valid moral system either. I don't think you need altruism to make a good argument for vaccines and that you can construct good arguments for altruists and egoists alike. Perhaps the only argument I need is to know that I need to protect myself from the damn fools that don't get them... I expect your assessment of risk to the non-vaccinated compared to the risk of the vaccines themselves in a generally vaccinated population is not correct depending on the disease. I expect that if you're not vaccinated against small pox, your chance of getting it is very low compared to the risk of the vaccine itself... but that if you're not vaccinated against measles you're risking much more than the what risk the vaccine presents. Having said all this I can assure you that, as an egoist, I have most vaccinations and have had my young child get all the normal vaccinations. Not for some greater good, but because it's in our self interest.