5 ms·

While I understand the numbers benefits of vaccines and their ability to eradicate diseases, here are a few points from a devil's advocate: 1. No medicine is 1

While I understand the numbers benefits of vaccines and their ability to eradicate diseases, here are a few points from a devil's advocate: 1. No medicine is 100% safe in all circumstances. Vaccines do have published risk of complications and while tiny are not zero and sometimes are greater than the risk of contracting the disease itself. 2. As a general rule, I don't want any government telling me what to put in my body or my kid's bodies. Why not ban sugar that leads to far more health conditions than some of these diseases? Why not force people to eat the government recommended ratio of fiber, fat, calories, etc.? Sure, people might be physically healthier but at the expense of freedom of choice. 3. The flu and common cold kills lots of people per year yet those vaccines are optional for adults while some are required for kids, why? 4. Vaccines are required for kids to come to public school in CA, but not required to go to placed where they're in even closer contact (sports, pools, etc.), why? While I think free vaccines, good education and honest dialogue are important, punishing dissent doesn't seem right. I think understanding that non-vaxers have legitimate concerns helps create a better solution than enforcement and blame.

walrus01 8y ago
> greater than the risk of contracting the disease itself. This is a circular argument. In G7 countries with highly developed economies and medical systems, the reason why the risk of contracting a disease like mumps, rubella or polio is extremely rare is because almost everyone is vaccinated against them.
- jacoblambda 8y ago
  I'll offer a counterpoint. Some people have extremely adverse reactions with vaccines. Those who have predispositions that can lead to extreme reactions should be able to opt out of vaccination because they may in rare cases be more harm than good. Now, most people should be vaccinated and those few that aren't should hopefully be protected by herd immunity. To say that the quality medical systems and herd immunity decreasing the risk of those diseases nullifies the dangers of adverse reactions is a bit unfair. To close, I agree that most everyone should be vaccinated and that philosophical beliefs are not valid reasons to avoid vaccination. I do disagree in that I believe that there are a number of rare situations where vaccination is legitimately more harmful than just relying on herd immunity.
colemickens 8y ago
How does society reconcile this "all opinions are valid" viewpoint with the fact that anti-vaxxers are actively putting others at risk due to reduced herd immunity? It's not theoretical -- we have data that shows outbreaks of "cured" diseases in places with reduced vaccination rates.
- everdev 8y ago
  The same way we do with other topics: guns, alcohol, driving. We'd be in less danger if no one did anything dangerous ever, but that doesn't leave much room for freedom. It's extremely frustrating to see people doing something dangerous you disagree with, but it's likely that we all do it at some point.
  - colemickens 8y ago
    Hm, it's not a complete response to your point, but I think the comparison is possibly mismatched, given the inherent risks with anti-vaxers, herd immunity, and the larger population. The actions of a few can seriously impact large populations. The multiplier effect is, potentially, significantly greater than with guns/alcohol/driving. (And even then, those arguably border on even more divisive debates that we should leave for another thread.)
    - everdev 8y ago
      Totally agree. The US has a history of protecting the rights of the individual over the rights of the group perhaps more so than other nations. There are benefits and risks to that and many other countries are experimenting with other ways of evaluating those conflicts. I think where the point gets contentious with libertarians is that forcing them to do something feels far scarier and authoritarian to them than forcing them not to do something. I agree that we're all connected though and the decisions we make impact those around us no matter how individual we think our actions might be.
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    No, this take is bad. We do not need to allow things where the outcome is purely bad in the name of "freedom".
doitLP 8y ago
This. Nothing is 100% good or bad. The conversation on both sides has gotten laughably hyperbolic. Like any medical intervention the pros and cons of each vaccine need to be discussed rationally and with full informed consent for each patient. Other commenters posting outrage casting anti-vaxxing as mental derangement or child abuse are going to get as far as the worst kind of anti-vax rhetoric
- orbitur 8y ago
  If measles is more common now that anti-vax is more popular, that's a problem worth addressing. We had a known, working solution, so yeah, it does seem like child abuse.
lucas_membrane 8y ago
> Vaccines do have published risk of complications Yes, so the selfish will avoid the risk and free-ride on the herd immunity. In a society that is irrationally selfish, the government may reasonably choose to give incentives to vaccinate. For example, the vaccinations might be required for admission into government-paid health care, or the government could compensate victims of the side-effects with care, cash, etc.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
alkonaut 8y ago
> No medicine is 100% safe in all circumstances. Vaccines do have published risk of complications and while tiny are not zero and sometimes are greater than the risk of contracting the disease itself. Yes. But the risk of a pandemic is the risk you are to compare with. Not the 1% risk of a side effect compared to a 0.01% risk of contracting the disease. Also: herd immunity means that those who can't take the vaccine are protected. Anyone who doesn't take e.g. the smallpox shot, is getting a free ride on those of us who DO take the shot. The reason they could dodge any side effect and STILL run almost 0% risk of getting smallpox, is because everyone else took the shot. I think this is what is lost on antivaxers. They think that the vaccine protects THEM and that they can thus weigh that benefit against the risk on THEM. But that's not how it works. Their shot protects ME. > As a general rule, I don't want any government telling me what to put in my body or my kid's bodies. As a general rule, I want my government to ensure the society is vaccinated. Government already tells you a lot of what you can and can't put in your body. Having them say you HAVE to put something is going one step further, but I don't see how it's a very big one. > Vaccines are required for kids to come to public school in CA, but not required to go to placed where they're in even closer contact (sports, pools, etc.), why? Presumably because of how laws work and how it might be legal for a school to require vaccines, but not another public location (perhaps because the school isn't a public place at all?). > punishing dissent doesn't seem right. Excellent point. Give a tax break to those who vaccinate etc. instead. > I think understanding that non-vaxers have legitimate concerns helps create a better solution than enforcement and blame. I think it's important to meet their concerns with information. But we can never ever give parents the idea that vaccines are somehow a controversial idea. It's not.
- tialaramex 8y ago
  Although herd immunity is good for the entire community, medical ethicists insist (for sound philosophical reasons) on requiring that any treatment be a good idea _for the patient themselves_. For example, many countries began vaccinating young female children against HPV on the rationale that understanding of cervical cancer says if we prevent HPV infection we prevent almost all of this type of primary cancer, and the vaccine seems to prevent infection with some strains of HPV implicated in cancer. Now, you can immediately see that vaccinating their male colleagues could induce herd immunity, this is almost always an STI. But ethically that doesn't justify classes of boys. What did subsequently cause some countries to vaccinate boys was the fact that HPV also causes cancer in other places, and vaccinating the boys protects them against that. It's a narrower call (fewer cancer cases prevented) but for a relatively safe vaccine it can still make sense. Edited to add: This gets interesting for a "Chickenpox Vaccine". The virus that causes Chickenpox in children (Varicella-zoster) has much nastier consequences in adults. So if we vaccinate children so they don't a nasty but rarely deadly illness, but as a result more adults get infected without prior exposure, that might suck... Different countries have made different choices about what to do here.

walrus01 8y ago

> greater than the risk of contracting the disease itself. This is a circular argument. In G7 countries with highly developed economies and medical systems, the reason why the risk of contracting a disease like mumps, rubella or polio is extremely rare is because almost everyone is vaccinated against them.

jacoblambda 8y ago
I'll offer a counterpoint. Some people have extremely adverse reactions with vaccines. Those who have predispositions that can lead to extreme reactions should be able to opt out of vaccination because they may in rare cases be more harm than good. Now, most people should be vaccinated and those few that aren't should hopefully be protected by herd immunity. To say that the quality medical systems and herd immunity decreasing the risk of those diseases nullifies the dangers of adverse reactions is a bit unfair. To close, I agree that most everyone should be vaccinated and that philosophical beliefs are not valid reasons to avoid vaccination. I do disagree in that I believe that there are a number of rare situations where vaccination is legitimately more harmful than just relying on herd immunity.

colemickens 8y ago

How does society reconcile this "all opinions are valid" viewpoint with the fact that anti-vaxxers are actively putting others at risk due to reduced herd immunity? It's not theoretical -- we have data that shows outbreaks of "cured" diseases in places with reduced vaccination rates.

everdev 8y ago
The same way we do with other topics: guns, alcohol, driving. We'd be in less danger if no one did anything dangerous ever, but that doesn't leave much room for freedom. It's extremely frustrating to see people doing something dangerous you disagree with, but it's likely that we all do it at some point.
- colemickens 8y ago
  Hm, it's not a complete response to your point, but I think the comparison is possibly mismatched, given the inherent risks with anti-vaxers, herd immunity, and the larger population. The actions of a few can seriously impact large populations. The multiplier effect is, potentially, significantly greater than with guns/alcohol/driving. (And even then, those arguably border on even more divisive debates that we should leave for another thread.)
  - everdev 8y ago
    Totally agree. The US has a history of protecting the rights of the individual over the rights of the group perhaps more so than other nations. There are benefits and risks to that and many other countries are experimenting with other ways of evaluating those conflicts. I think where the point gets contentious with libertarians is that forcing them to do something feels far scarier and authoritarian to them than forcing them not to do something. I agree that we're all connected though and the decisions we make impact those around us no matter how individual we think our actions might be.
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  No, this take is bad. We do not need to allow things where the outcome is purely bad in the name of "freedom".

doitLP 8y ago

This. Nothing is 100% good or bad. The conversation on both sides has gotten laughably hyperbolic. Like any medical intervention the pros and cons of each vaccine need to be discussed rationally and with full informed consent for each patient. Other commenters posting outrage casting anti-vaxxing as mental derangement or child abuse are going to get as far as the worst kind of anti-vax rhetoric

orbitur 8y ago
If measles is more common now that anti-vax is more popular, that's a problem worth addressing. We had a known, working solution, so yeah, it does seem like child abuse.

lucas_membrane 8y ago

> Vaccines do have published risk of complications Yes, so the selfish will avoid the risk and free-ride on the herd immunity. In a society that is irrationally selfish, the government may reasonably choose to give incentives to vaccinate. For example, the vaccinations might be required for admission into government-paid health care, or the government could compensate victims of the side-effects with care, cash, etc.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

alkonaut 8y ago

> No medicine is 100% safe in all circumstances. Vaccines do have published risk of complications and while tiny are not zero and sometimes are greater than the risk of contracting the disease itself. Yes. But the risk of a pandemic is the risk you are to compare with. Not the 1% risk of a side effect compared to a 0.01% risk of contracting the disease. Also: herd immunity means that those who can't take the vaccine are protected. Anyone who doesn't take e.g. the smallpox shot, is getting a free ride on those of us who DO take the shot. The reason they could dodge any side effect and STILL run almost 0% risk of getting smallpox, is because everyone else took the shot. I think this is what is lost on antivaxers. They think that the vaccine protects THEM and that they can thus weigh that benefit against the risk on THEM. But that's not how it works. Their shot protects ME. > As a general rule, I don't want any government telling me what to put in my body or my kid's bodies. As a general rule, I want my government to ensure the society is vaccinated. Government already tells you a lot of what you can and can't put in your body. Having them say you HAVE to put something is going one step further, but I don't see how it's a very big one. > Vaccines are required for kids to come to public school in CA, but not required to go to placed where they're in even closer contact (sports, pools, etc.), why? Presumably because of how laws work and how it might be legal for a school to require vaccines, but not another public location (perhaps because the school isn't a public place at all?). > punishing dissent doesn't seem right. Excellent point. Give a tax break to those who vaccinate etc. instead. > I think understanding that non-vaxers have legitimate concerns helps create a better solution than enforcement and blame. I think it's important to meet their concerns with information. But we can never ever give parents the idea that vaccines are somehow a controversial idea. It's not.

tialaramex 8y ago
Although herd immunity is good for the entire community, medical ethicists insist (for sound philosophical reasons) on requiring that any treatment be a good idea _for the patient themselves_. For example, many countries began vaccinating young female children against HPV on the rationale that understanding of cervical cancer says if we prevent HPV infection we prevent almost all of this type of primary cancer, and the vaccine seems to prevent infection with some strains of HPV implicated in cancer. Now, you can immediately see that vaccinating their male colleagues could induce herd immunity, this is almost always an STI. But ethically that doesn't justify classes of boys. What did subsequently cause some countries to vaccinate boys was the fact that HPV also causes cancer in other places, and vaccinating the boys protects them against that. It's a narrower call (fewer cancer cases prevented) but for a relatively safe vaccine it can still make sense. Edited to add: This gets interesting for a "Chickenpox Vaccine". The virus that causes Chickenpox in children (Varicella-zoster) has much nastier consequences in adults. So if we vaccinate children so they don't a nasty but rarely deadly illness, but as a result more adults get infected without prior exposure, that might suck... Different countries have made different choices about what to do here.