10 ms·

Not against vaccines, but I think understanding the views of things you disagree with is important. And even more so on this issue because people believe things

Not against vaccines, but I think understanding the views of things you disagree with is important. And even more so on this issue because people believe things that even more absurd, but more socially acceptable - and so these ideas persist. The issue some have with vaccines is not generally an outright denial whether or not vaccines work. It's people weight the risk:reward of vaccines differently than others largely supplemented by a large number of correlations to all sorts of nasty things with vaccines. The reason the opposition to vaccines is not a reasonable view is because these are correlations and correlation is not the same as causation. At the same time consider the innumerable number of social views that people hold, and that continue to be published about, that are based absolutely and completely on correlations relying on the absence of evidence against causality, as evidence of causality. But of course proving a negative is impossible -- the burden of proving causality is on the one suggesting such exists. Failing to recognize this is the exact logical fallacy that drives the opposition to vaccines. If all correlations were held to the same standard as those that reflect negatively of vaccines, the world (and science itself) would be in much better shape.

VikingCoder 8y ago
> It's people weight the risk:reward of vaccines differently than others And they are wildly misinformed about the risks. And they neglect to consider that the reward of them vaccinating their kid is that MY KID is less likely to get those diseases. That's how herd immunity works. If they were only risking their own kid's life, then it'd be a very different conversation. > largely supplemented by a large number of correlations to all sorts of nasty things with vaccines. Except those are almost all exaggerated or outright lies. To be clear: if I were a selfish individual, I might not get vaccinated. Vaccines have actual risks. But the actual risks are minimal and rare. But I recognize that herd immunity works, and that the risks are minimal and rare.
- Chris_Chambers 8y ago
  If you’re so scared of the outside world then you ought to never let your child leave the house. Our rights don’t end where your mental illness begins.
- TangoTrotFox 8y ago
  There's a funny thing about society. Do you know how you create wildly misinformed idiots? By assuming people who disagree with you on topics are wildly misinformed idiots. The National Academies put up a release in 2011 surveying all available information on the correlations between vaccines and a wide array of nasty stuff. It's available here [1]. It gives an extremely in depth overview of the evidence of the time, which has not radically changed since then. It's a 900 page report, but it's well organized. And you'll find that indeed there are quite a huge number of very real and very nasty correlations between vaccines and all sorts of things. By making the false statement (presumably based on the view that everybody who abides anti-vaccine views must be a wildly misinformed idiot) that 'almost all studies show correlations between nasty things and vaccines are exaggerated or outright lies', you do something really bad. You implicitly suggest that if the correlations were not 'exagerrated or outright lies', they would be meaningful. They are not. Correlation does not equal causation. There's an extremely strong correlation between US spending on science, space, and technology and suicides by hanging, strangulation, and suffocation. The correlation is a 99.8% fit. But this means absolutely nothing whatsoever. There are some 30,000 various correlations available here [2]. You'll find many, such as the one I mentioned, are incredibly strong fits. But that's really the danger of data. Just because something fits, doesn't mean anything. The entire process of science is about discovering causation. Correlations mean nothing without clear causation. Even correlations that make sense mean nothing without causation. For instance, I'm sure you'd agree that US spending on science has pretty much nothing to do with suicides by hanging. So it's easy to see it's spurious. What if instead that correlation was e.g. an increase in enrollment in STEM degrees being pursued? Again, you should assume this correlation is spurious until you have a very compelling reason, certainly beyond bias confirmation, to do otherwise. [1] - http://www.nationalacademies.org/hmd/Reports/2011/Adverse-Effects-of-Vaccines-Evidence-and-Causality.aspx http://www.nationalacademies.org/hmd/Reports/2011/Adverse-Ef... [2] - http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations
  - VikingCoder 8y ago
    You're absolutely right. Thank you.
- conanbatt 8y ago
  Herd immunity is a desirable outcome, but not a right. IF you want someone else to get a vaccine for your sake, you should compensate them for their risk and inconvenience.
  - VikingCoder 8y ago
    That'd work, if not for selfish bargaining. As soon as people realize they can blackmail me for my daughter's health, what wouldn't I pay? I propose we as a society set a fair price, instead: I vaccinate myself and my kids, and you vaccinate yourself and your kids. If you want a vaccine with lower risk and inconvenience, you are entitled to ask the government to spend more on research, or you can donate your time and money to that research.
    - conanbatt 8y ago
      > As soon as people realize they can blackmail me for my daughter's health, what wouldn't I pay? Because you don't need everyone vaccinated, you need most. Most already do it for their own interest. Bear in mind that this is what the state usually does by giving out free vaccines: they are effectively paying people that wouldnt pay for them. But some feel strongly against it. > I propose we as a society set a fair price, instead. There is no fair, certainly not in economics. There is only consented prices. You can propose whatever you want, but in the end you need to persuade those that have different ideas than you, or force them to do it. Forcefully vaccinating people is against the practice and principles of medicine, and against common decency, if not morality.
      - VikingCoder 8y ago
        > Because you don't need everyone vaccinated, you need most Have you researched different vaccines to find out how their effectiveness falls with the percent of the population that is not vaccinated? Genuinely curious if you have. I suspect you have not. > Forcefully vaccinating people is against the practice and principles of medicine, and against common decency, if not morality. You're right. People who refuse to get vaccinated should have to get insurance to pay for the damages of the illness and death they cause, right? Or place the money in escrow? And if that insurance is prohibitively expensive, and someone won't pay it, then we can just send them to prison, right? If you cause me harm through your behavior, that's against common decency, too, right? If not morality? And if it's hard to determine who caused me harm directly, then the "pollution" is an externality, right? Tragedy of the commons? You're literally polluting the environment with a virus. Of all of the topics Libertarians have an interesting position on, I am by far least impressed with their efforts to describe how they think we should protect the environment. Shedding viruses everywhere you go falls pretty well into that discussion, don't you think? Also I'm quite sure that medicine allows for quarantine, against your will.

VikingCoder 8y ago

> It's people weight the risk:reward of vaccines differently than others And they are wildly misinformed about the risks. And they neglect to consider that the reward of them vaccinating their kid is that MY KID is less likely to get those diseases. That's how herd immunity works. If they were only risking their own kid's life, then it'd be a very different conversation. > largely supplemented by a large number of correlations to all sorts of nasty things with vaccines. Except those are almost all exaggerated or outright lies. To be clear: if I were a selfish individual, I might not get vaccinated. Vaccines have actual risks. But the actual risks are minimal and rare. But I recognize that herd immunity works, and that the risks are minimal and rare.

Chris_Chambers 8y ago
If you’re so scared of the outside world then you ought to never let your child leave the house. Our rights don’t end where your mental illness begins.
TangoTrotFox 8y ago
There's a funny thing about society. Do you know how you create wildly misinformed idiots? By assuming people who disagree with you on topics are wildly misinformed idiots. The National Academies put up a release in 2011 surveying all available information on the correlations between vaccines and a wide array of nasty stuff. It's available here [1]. It gives an extremely in depth overview of the evidence of the time, which has not radically changed since then. It's a 900 page report, but it's well organized. And you'll find that indeed there are quite a huge number of very real and very nasty correlations between vaccines and all sorts of things. By making the false statement (presumably based on the view that everybody who abides anti-vaccine views must be a wildly misinformed idiot) that 'almost all studies show correlations between nasty things and vaccines are exaggerated or outright lies', you do something really bad. You implicitly suggest that if the correlations were not 'exagerrated or outright lies', they would be meaningful. They are not. Correlation does not equal causation. There's an extremely strong correlation between US spending on science, space, and technology and suicides by hanging, strangulation, and suffocation. The correlation is a 99.8% fit. But this means absolutely nothing whatsoever. There are some 30,000 various correlations available here [2]. You'll find many, such as the one I mentioned, are incredibly strong fits. But that's really the danger of data. Just because something fits, doesn't mean anything. The entire process of science is about discovering causation. Correlations mean nothing without clear causation. Even correlations that make sense mean nothing without causation. For instance, I'm sure you'd agree that US spending on science has pretty much nothing to do with suicides by hanging. So it's easy to see it's spurious. What if instead that correlation was e.g. an increase in enrollment in STEM degrees being pursued? Again, you should assume this correlation is spurious until you have a very compelling reason, certainly beyond bias confirmation, to do otherwise. [1] - http://www.nationalacademies.org/hmd/Reports/2011/Adverse-Effects-of-Vaccines-Evidence-and-Causality.aspx http://www.nationalacademies.org/hmd/Reports/2011/Adverse-Ef... [2] - http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations
- VikingCoder 8y ago
  You're absolutely right. Thank you.
conanbatt 8y ago
Herd immunity is a desirable outcome, but not a right. IF you want someone else to get a vaccine for your sake, you should compensate them for their risk and inconvenience.
- VikingCoder 8y ago
  That'd work, if not for selfish bargaining. As soon as people realize they can blackmail me for my daughter's health, what wouldn't I pay? I propose we as a society set a fair price, instead: I vaccinate myself and my kids, and you vaccinate yourself and your kids. If you want a vaccine with lower risk and inconvenience, you are entitled to ask the government to spend more on research, or you can donate your time and money to that research.
  - conanbatt 8y ago
    > As soon as people realize they can blackmail me for my daughter's health, what wouldn't I pay? Because you don't need everyone vaccinated, you need most. Most already do it for their own interest. Bear in mind that this is what the state usually does by giving out free vaccines: they are effectively paying people that wouldnt pay for them. But some feel strongly against it. > I propose we as a society set a fair price, instead. There is no fair, certainly not in economics. There is only consented prices. You can propose whatever you want, but in the end you need to persuade those that have different ideas than you, or force them to do it. Forcefully vaccinating people is against the practice and principles of medicine, and against common decency, if not morality.
    - VikingCoder 8y ago
      > Because you don't need everyone vaccinated, you need most Have you researched different vaccines to find out how their effectiveness falls with the percent of the population that is not vaccinated? Genuinely curious if you have. I suspect you have not. > Forcefully vaccinating people is against the practice and principles of medicine, and against common decency, if not morality. You're right. People who refuse to get vaccinated should have to get insurance to pay for the damages of the illness and death they cause, right? Or place the money in escrow? And if that insurance is prohibitively expensive, and someone won't pay it, then we can just send them to prison, right? If you cause me harm through your behavior, that's against common decency, too, right? If not morality? And if it's hard to determine who caused me harm directly, then the "pollution" is an externality, right? Tragedy of the commons? You're literally polluting the environment with a virus. Of all of the topics Libertarians have an interesting position on, I am by far least impressed with their efforts to describe how they think we should protect the environment. Shedding viruses everywhere you go falls pretty well into that discussion, don't you think? Also I'm quite sure that medicine allows for quarantine, against your will.