5 ms·

In reality, for a vaccine to be effective, the portion of the population that needs to receive that vaccination is significantly less than 100%. Irrelevant. In

In reality, for a vaccine to be effective, the portion of the population that needs to receive that vaccination is significantly less than 100%. Irrelevant. In reality, for a vaccine to be effective, public policy must target 100% vaccination. (this isn't intended to be an endorsement of those who refuse to get vaccinated) You may not be endorsing it, but it's important to point out that this argument is ethically dubious. My favorite ethical test is Kant's categorical imperative, which is briefly that an act is ethical if everyone else can act the same way. For example, if you're wondering whether it's ok to slip onto the subway just as the doors are closing, delaying the train by just a second, you can ask: what if everyone boarded the train that way? Of course, the train would never depart, being constantly delayed by each as-the-doors-close boarder. If everyone thought that vaccines are ok for others but not themselves, then no one would be vaccinated. Thus this argument is unethical. Let's go beyond "not endorsing" it-- let us all actively condemn it.

rmk 16y ago
Well-put... I completely agree with you on this. Name them and shame them!
- yourmomcalled 16y ago
  I'm sure your plan sounds better in the original German. Something must have been lost in the translation.
  - nostrademons 16y ago
    Meant to downvote, accidentally upvoted. Hello, Godwin.
- CWuestefeld 16y ago
  Believe it or not (because of my arguments in the parallel sub-thread) I agree with you. Government doesn't (or shouldn't) have the power to force me to do this. But there's nothing wrong with each individual in the community attempting to persuade those who don't want it. By analogy: the government doesn't have the authority to endorse any religion, but I'm certainly free to tell you about mine (if I had one).
  - tomjen3 16y ago
    No you are not - you can jab about it all day, I have every right to not hear you.
CWuestefeld 16y ago
Your ethical test can be applied at a meta level as well. The US Constitution doesn't provide any mechanism for a public policy of vaccination (the existence of NIH, CDC, etc notwithstanding). While such a policy might be desirable, overstepping the extent of federal power granted by the Constitution would, in your Kant explanation, lead to a collapse of all Constitutional control [1]. That would be bad, so we can't allow the single transgression. I'm in favor of getting vaccinated. I even ensure that I'm up-to-date on everything whenever I leave the country. However, our society is founded on individualist ideals. We are not communitarians or collectivists, and the fact that my action might not be optimal for the community as a whole does not constitute a rationale for controlling my behavior. This is why we tolerate free speech even from evil people; it's why we're willing to let some criminals go free in order to prevent punishing the innocent, etc. [1] Not that this hasn't happened already.
- trunnell 16y ago
  Maybe I wasn't clear: my point was not about mandating vaccination. My point is simply that it matters what we all say about the ethics of vaccination. There has been much muddying of the water by unscientific voices, and to counter that public policy should be crystal clear: vaccines are safe, every child should be vaccinated, and to do otherwise is unethical. If you want to do otherwise you will always have the freedom to do so. But according to the latest science, there is no publicly acceptable argument for going unvaccinated or for advocating against vaccinations.
  - CWuestefeld 16y ago
    vaccines are safe, every child should be vaccinated, and to do otherwise is unethical I have a friend whose son is mentally handicapped, apparently [1] because, as an infant, his vaccination was both (a) done incorrectly and (b) massively overdosed. I say this not to advocate against vaccination, but to remind that no medical procedure is without risk. Accidents happen, and there are also individual circumstances that would make some treatments unadvisable. A statement as categorical and sweeping as yours is taking things too far. [1] Nobody will ever be able to prove it, but the evidence is convincing to me. UPDATE: forgot to mention about the (very small) inherent danger in using attenuated virus vaccines, such as the OPV (Sabin, not Salk) polio virus. It seems that in this case, it mutates and reverts to the virulent, paralyzing form in 1 / 750,000 cases [2]. This is tiny, but you can't categorically call it safe. [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polio_vaccine#Iatrogenic_.28vaccine-induced.29_polio http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polio_vaccine#Iatrogenic_.28vac...
fleitz 16y ago
For a vaccine to be effective only one person needs to take it. That person gets immunity and thus it's effective. Secondly, according to your interpretation of Kant's categorical imperative it's perfectly ethical for no one to get vaccinated because everyone can act in that way. You may not like the outcome, but your gedankenexperiment satisfies the categorical imperative because everyone holds the belief and thus it is ethical. Kant's categorical imperative is merely a way for a large percentage of the population to force their ethics on others. Largely because the primary way it is used is to justify policies rather than have policies stem from it. Since not everyone can agree that everyone should be vaccinated policies to vaccinate everyone are unethical according to Kant.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- barendt 16y ago
  For a vaccine to be effective only one person needs to take it. That person gets immunity and thus it's effective. That's not always true. Even good vaccines aren't 100% effective, so a vaccinated person exposed to a pathogen can still get sick, it's just less likely. Also, it's important to remember there are some populations who either can't be vaccinated (e.g. children too young for attenuated, live virus vaccines) or for whom the immunity induced by a vaccine may not be robust enough (e.g. the elderly) who still require herd immunity even if they've already chosen to be immunized.
- ugh 16y ago
  Certain people can’t be vaccinated (e.g. babies), they have to rely on herd immunity.
  - infinite8s 16y ago
    Well, if the mother was exposed to either the disease or the vaccine, and she is breastfeeding the baby, then the baby will have protection (another strong argument in favor of breastfeeding babies) until they are old enough for the vaccine.
nostrademons 16y ago
The categorical imperative has a lot of problems. For example, is being a doctor ethical? Not everyone can be a doctor, because then we'd all starve. But few people would say that doctor is an unethical profession because of that. There are a bunch of other actions that most people would consider perfectly ethical that fail this test too. Is going childless ethical? If everyone did that, we'd all die out. How about going to your favorite hamburger joint? If everyone did that, the line would be miles long, and nobody would get served. The problems work in the other way too: there're some actions that people do consider unethical where there are no problems if everyone did it. Consider cheating (by a constant percentage) on your tax returns. If everyone did it, the government would just raise tax rates to compensate, everyone would end up paying the same taxes anyway, and nobody would be worse off (except perhaps having to throw an additional calculation in). Yet few people would say that cheating on your taxes is ethical. Why is going childless considered okay, yet killing your infant considered abhorrent? They have the same effect on the world - in both case, there's no kid. They have the same effect on the world if everyone does them - in both cases, we all die out. And yet one is considered fine while the other is highly unethical.
- trunnell 16y ago
  I'm a little surprised by the upvotes on the parent comment. The categorical imperative is not the only or best rule, but it is a good rule of thumb. It's a good test in this case because it clearly demonstrates the folly of going unvaccinated-- if everyone relies on "herd immunity" there will be no herd immunity. It matters what we say. The mixed messages out there already are dangerous. Kottke put it best in TFA: So get your kids (and yourselves) vaccinated and save them & their playmates from this whooping cough bullshit, which is actually killing actual kids and not, you know, magically infecting them with autism.
  - lotharbot 16y ago
    The categorical imperative, in this case, is simply a slippery slope argument. As long as only a small percentage rely on "herd immunity", we're fine. If only those who actually have severe reactions to vaccines rely on "herd immunity", we're fine. Even if a few nutjobs fear autism and a few others simply don't get around to it, we're fine. The problem is that too many people are relying on it for foolish reasons (fear of autism) and not weighing the risks appropriately. Going unvaccinated without extremely good reason, in the present circumstance, is foolish, but don't overgeneralize.

rmk 16y ago

Well-put... I completely agree with you on this. Name them and shame them!

yourmomcalled 16y ago
I'm sure your plan sounds better in the original German. Something must have been lost in the translation.
- nostrademons 16y ago
  Meant to downvote, accidentally upvoted. Hello, Godwin.
CWuestefeld 16y ago
Believe it or not (because of my arguments in the parallel sub-thread) I agree with you. Government doesn't (or shouldn't) have the power to force me to do this. But there's nothing wrong with each individual in the community attempting to persuade those who don't want it. By analogy: the government doesn't have the authority to endorse any religion, but I'm certainly free to tell you about mine (if I had one).
- tomjen3 16y ago
  No you are not - you can jab about it all day, I have every right to not hear you.

CWuestefeld 16y ago

Your ethical test can be applied at a meta level as well. The US Constitution doesn't provide any mechanism for a public policy of vaccination (the existence of NIH, CDC, etc notwithstanding). While such a policy might be desirable, overstepping the extent of federal power granted by the Constitution would, in your Kant explanation, lead to a collapse of all Constitutional control [1]. That would be bad, so we can't allow the single transgression. I'm in favor of getting vaccinated. I even ensure that I'm up-to-date on everything whenever I leave the country. However, our society is founded on individualist ideals. We are not communitarians or collectivists, and the fact that my action might not be optimal for the community as a whole does not constitute a rationale for controlling my behavior. This is why we tolerate free speech even from evil people; it's why we're willing to let some criminals go free in order to prevent punishing the innocent, etc. [1] Not that this hasn't happened already.

trunnell 16y ago
Maybe I wasn't clear: my point was not about mandating vaccination. My point is simply that it matters what we all say about the ethics of vaccination. There has been much muddying of the water by unscientific voices, and to counter that public policy should be crystal clear: vaccines are safe, every child should be vaccinated, and to do otherwise is unethical. If you want to do otherwise you will always have the freedom to do so. But according to the latest science, there is no publicly acceptable argument for going unvaccinated or for advocating against vaccinations.
- CWuestefeld 16y ago
  vaccines are safe, every child should be vaccinated, and to do otherwise is unethical I have a friend whose son is mentally handicapped, apparently [1] because, as an infant, his vaccination was both (a) done incorrectly and (b) massively overdosed. I say this not to advocate against vaccination, but to remind that no medical procedure is without risk. Accidents happen, and there are also individual circumstances that would make some treatments unadvisable. A statement as categorical and sweeping as yours is taking things too far. [1] Nobody will ever be able to prove it, but the evidence is convincing to me. UPDATE: forgot to mention about the (very small) inherent danger in using attenuated virus vaccines, such as the OPV (Sabin, not Salk) polio virus. It seems that in this case, it mutates and reverts to the virulent, paralyzing form in 1 / 750,000 cases [2]. This is tiny, but you can't categorically call it safe. [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polio_vaccine#Iatrogenic_.28vaccine-induced.29_polio http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polio_vaccine#Iatrogenic_.28vac...

fleitz 16y ago

For a vaccine to be effective only one person needs to take it. That person gets immunity and thus it's effective. Secondly, according to your interpretation of Kant's categorical imperative it's perfectly ethical for no one to get vaccinated because everyone can act in that way. You may not like the outcome, but your gedankenexperiment satisfies the categorical imperative because everyone holds the belief and thus it is ethical. Kant's categorical imperative is merely a way for a large percentage of the population to force their ethics on others. Largely because the primary way it is used is to justify policies rather than have policies stem from it. Since not everyone can agree that everyone should be vaccinated policies to vaccinate everyone are unethical according to Kant.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
barendt 16y ago
For a vaccine to be effective only one person needs to take it. That person gets immunity and thus it's effective. That's not always true. Even good vaccines aren't 100% effective, so a vaccinated person exposed to a pathogen can still get sick, it's just less likely. Also, it's important to remember there are some populations who either can't be vaccinated (e.g. children too young for attenuated, live virus vaccines) or for whom the immunity induced by a vaccine may not be robust enough (e.g. the elderly) who still require herd immunity even if they've already chosen to be immunized.
ugh 16y ago
Certain people can’t be vaccinated (e.g. babies), they have to rely on herd immunity.
- infinite8s 16y ago
  Well, if the mother was exposed to either the disease or the vaccine, and she is breastfeeding the baby, then the baby will have protection (another strong argument in favor of breastfeeding babies) until they are old enough for the vaccine.

nostrademons 16y ago

The categorical imperative has a lot of problems. For example, is being a doctor ethical? Not everyone can be a doctor, because then we'd all starve. But few people would say that doctor is an unethical profession because of that. There are a bunch of other actions that most people would consider perfectly ethical that fail this test too. Is going childless ethical? If everyone did that, we'd all die out. How about going to your favorite hamburger joint? If everyone did that, the line would be miles long, and nobody would get served. The problems work in the other way too: there're some actions that people do consider unethical where there are no problems if everyone did it. Consider cheating (by a constant percentage) on your tax returns. If everyone did it, the government would just raise tax rates to compensate, everyone would end up paying the same taxes anyway, and nobody would be worse off (except perhaps having to throw an additional calculation in). Yet few people would say that cheating on your taxes is ethical. Why is going childless considered okay, yet killing your infant considered abhorrent? They have the same effect on the world - in both case, there's no kid. They have the same effect on the world if everyone does them - in both cases, we all die out. And yet one is considered fine while the other is highly unethical.

trunnell 16y ago
I'm a little surprised by the upvotes on the parent comment. The categorical imperative is not the only or best rule, but it is a good rule of thumb. It's a good test in this case because it clearly demonstrates the folly of going unvaccinated-- if everyone relies on "herd immunity" there will be no herd immunity. It matters what we say. The mixed messages out there already are dangerous. Kottke put it best in TFA: So get your kids (and yourselves) vaccinated and save them & their playmates from this whooping cough bullshit, which is actually killing actual kids and not, you know, magically infecting them with autism.
- lotharbot 16y ago
  The categorical imperative, in this case, is simply a slippery slope argument. As long as only a small percentage rely on "herd immunity", we're fine. If only those who actually have severe reactions to vaccines rely on "herd immunity", we're fine. Even if a few nutjobs fear autism and a few others simply don't get around to it, we're fine. The problem is that too many people are relying on it for foolish reasons (fear of autism) and not weighing the risks appropriately. Going unvaccinated without extremely good reason, in the present circumstance, is foolish, but don't overgeneralize.