4 ms·

I was close to a potential measles outbreak this summer. Close enough that had to be tested because my vaccination decades ago in another country was considered

I was close to a potential measles outbreak this summer. Close enough that had to be tested because my vaccination decades ago in another country was considered insufficient. (I was found to be already immune, as expected, but got a booster anyway.) I also got to work with epidemiologists who were working to contain things, and fortunately the outbreak did fizzle out . So I take this issue pretty personally. Whatever people's concerns about vaccines might be, and I'll concede that manufacturers' lack of transparency about ingredients and adverse-reaction risks is part of the problem, those totally pale in comparison to the importance of maintaining herd immunity to prevent the disease itself from spreading. There are people who are too young to be immunized, or who have conditions that preclude it. Also, vaccines do fail. The current rate is around 2% and that's what led to the case I was involved in. There is a very small chance that someone will avoid problems that might have occurred if they'd had their children vaccinated. There's a much larger chance that in the process they'll put someone else's child at risk. It's stealing others' lives for their own, so I think it's quite reasonable to compare vaccine refuseniks to vampires. Don't be a vampire. Get your damn shots, make your sure children get their damn shots, and do your part to keep this killer from roaming around freely.

rixrax 8y ago
URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfdZTZQvuCo& https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfdZTZQvuCo& Penn and Teller on Vaccinations. This really drives home the point of herd immunity ( in ~ 90 seconds ).
downer60 8y ago
It's great to say "but what about the children" and all, but immunized individuals really don't need to involve themselves in the lives of those choosing to avoid medical treatment. By definition, the immune won't be harmed by my choice to not immunize myself. If I get sick, and you are immune, my choice to take risks won't harm you. If you're worried about those other than yourself, who might be harmed by my hypothetical decision to risk illness and injury, your advice should be phrased to them as an audience. Meanwhile, the waters are still muddier. There are a wide array of other terrible personal choices that are defended maximally, despite conceptual harm being part of the package. The choice to consult a doctor, or not, the choice to not be resuscitated, to not seek treatment for terminal diseases, to not suffer treatment when quality of life is not rewarding. All of these choices matter as much as choosing to have a child at all. Ultimately, I think some children would be better off as orphans in foster care, but I'm not about to try and make that happen. I think it's more about letting nature take its course. The immune live. The others die. Darwin's theory prevails.
- wolf550e 8y ago
  Some children are at an age when they are both too young to get vaccinated and too old to be protected by antibodies from their mother. They rely on herd immunity to not get infected. Vaccinations don't always take, so some people who have been vaccinated are not immune and rely on herd immunity to not get infected. Some people are immunocompromised and cannot take vaccinations and rely on herd immunity to not get infected.
  - downer60 8y ago
    If my quality of life is low, even while otherwise healthy, what do I care about the well-being of the herd? If I'm held down, and made to work two or more low-paying jobs, and still can't escape poverty, you're going to have to hold me down even harder, and force me to take care of myself. If I'm unhappy in life, I'm not going to see a doctor to keep that life going. Does this make sense yet?
    - lovich 8y ago
      That does make a point, but it's not what's happening here. You don't get to 30 years old before you decide to get vaccinated. You get them as young children. Following your analogy it would be more like "I don't like my life, so I'm not going to take care of my children" Also we do take steps to hold people down and make them take care of themselves or just do it ourselves, when it's gets so bad that they affect other people. If you let your home start collapsing it'll get condemned. If you let trash pile up on your property and attract dangerous animals into the neighborhood you'll get increasing fines until your forced to clean up. If you go into a drug fueled bender all the time and wander the streets attacking people, you'll be arrested. This is just another case of people creating negative externalities that everyone else has to deal with, and then hiding behind the idea that personal freedoms mean they can do whatever they want without limit
      - downer60 8y ago
        Well, the argument goes something like: I'd euthanize my kids and spend the rest of my waking life in one of your jails, dying childless, rather than let them live in your world, raised by you, and not me. If I'm in your jail, I'd rather dispell all illusions about it, and not live a life pretending my children are more than your playthings. Furthermore I wouldn't even want kids, if they'll be raised by you. They're better of dead or aborted. Let's be clear, I'm playing devil's advocate, and I don't really think or believe this myself, but this is the root of the argument. My reason for surfacing the foundation of the premise for such behavior, is because I think different strategies are needed to confront emerging biological hazards of the future. It's not going to be enough to just ask people to jump on a band wagon, and it's barking up the wrong tree, to remove an individual's choice from the equation. People have to want to live, and biological epidemics have to be attacked with a variety of strategies. Vaccinations are good, and so are antibiotics, but they won't save us in all cases, and they won't save all of us even when they do work. Other brute force methods like area denial take over, when the sophisticated medical tactics fail. It's important to look ahead, and recognize that in scenarios where vaccines and antibiotics don't work, to consider the situations that emerge even when other plans fail. Basically, the oldest option on the table is quarantine. It's low tech and appeals to biblical sensibilities. Some people are willing to try it instead. The argument is going to go that way. Strategies for dealing with people who think like that are going to have to chart a different course. My actual position is that life sciences are going to radically change in the next decade or so, anyway. Why bother haranguing people about vaccinations, when five years from now, biological agents might very well be a solved problem, rendering vaccinations as obsolete as brute force quarantines?

rixrax 8y ago

URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfdZTZQvuCo& https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfdZTZQvuCo& Penn and Teller on Vaccinations. This really drives home the point of herd immunity ( in ~ 90 seconds ).

downer60 8y ago

It's great to say "but what about the children" and all, but immunized individuals really don't need to involve themselves in the lives of those choosing to avoid medical treatment. By definition, the immune won't be harmed by my choice to not immunize myself. If I get sick, and you are immune, my choice to take risks won't harm you. If you're worried about those other than yourself, who might be harmed by my hypothetical decision to risk illness and injury, your advice should be phrased to them as an audience. Meanwhile, the waters are still muddier. There are a wide array of other terrible personal choices that are defended maximally, despite conceptual harm being part of the package. The choice to consult a doctor, or not, the choice to not be resuscitated, to not seek treatment for terminal diseases, to not suffer treatment when quality of life is not rewarding. All of these choices matter as much as choosing to have a child at all. Ultimately, I think some children would be better off as orphans in foster care, but I'm not about to try and make that happen. I think it's more about letting nature take its course. The immune live. The others die. Darwin's theory prevails.

wolf550e 8y ago
Some children are at an age when they are both too young to get vaccinated and too old to be protected by antibodies from their mother. They rely on herd immunity to not get infected. Vaccinations don't always take, so some people who have been vaccinated are not immune and rely on herd immunity to not get infected. Some people are immunocompromised and cannot take vaccinations and rely on herd immunity to not get infected.
- downer60 8y ago
  If my quality of life is low, even while otherwise healthy, what do I care about the well-being of the herd? If I'm held down, and made to work two or more low-paying jobs, and still can't escape poverty, you're going to have to hold me down even harder, and force me to take care of myself. If I'm unhappy in life, I'm not going to see a doctor to keep that life going. Does this make sense yet?
  - lovich 8y ago
    That does make a point, but it's not what's happening here. You don't get to 30 years old before you decide to get vaccinated. You get them as young children. Following your analogy it would be more like "I don't like my life, so I'm not going to take care of my children" Also we do take steps to hold people down and make them take care of themselves or just do it ourselves, when it's gets so bad that they affect other people. If you let your home start collapsing it'll get condemned. If you let trash pile up on your property and attract dangerous animals into the neighborhood you'll get increasing fines until your forced to clean up. If you go into a drug fueled bender all the time and wander the streets attacking people, you'll be arrested. This is just another case of people creating negative externalities that everyone else has to deal with, and then hiding behind the idea that personal freedoms mean they can do whatever they want without limit
    - downer60 8y ago
      Well, the argument goes something like: I'd euthanize my kids and spend the rest of my waking life in one of your jails, dying childless, rather than let them live in your world, raised by you, and not me. If I'm in your jail, I'd rather dispell all illusions about it, and not live a life pretending my children are more than your playthings. Furthermore I wouldn't even want kids, if they'll be raised by you. They're better of dead or aborted. Let's be clear, I'm playing devil's advocate, and I don't really think or believe this myself, but this is the root of the argument. My reason for surfacing the foundation of the premise for such behavior, is because I think different strategies are needed to confront emerging biological hazards of the future. It's not going to be enough to just ask people to jump on a band wagon, and it's barking up the wrong tree, to remove an individual's choice from the equation. People have to want to live, and biological epidemics have to be attacked with a variety of strategies. Vaccinations are good, and so are antibiotics, but they won't save us in all cases, and they won't save all of us even when they do work. Other brute force methods like area denial take over, when the sophisticated medical tactics fail. It's important to look ahead, and recognize that in scenarios where vaccines and antibiotics don't work, to consider the situations that emerge even when other plans fail. Basically, the oldest option on the table is quarantine. It's low tech and appeals to biblical sensibilities. Some people are willing to try it instead. The argument is going to go that way. Strategies for dealing with people who think like that are going to have to chart a different course. My actual position is that life sciences are going to radically change in the next decade or so, anyway. Why bother haranguing people about vaccinations, when five years from now, biological agents might very well be a solved problem, rendering vaccinations as obsolete as brute force quarantines?