4 ms·

> Why? The alternatives in pretty much all cases are death. This seems like a huge exaggeration to me. There's a chickenpox vaccine nowadays which wasn't wide

> Why? The alternatives in pretty much all cases are death. This seems like a huge exaggeration to me. There's a chickenpox vaccine nowadays which wasn't widely available when I was a kid. As a result, my siblings and I all contracted chickenpox at one point or another. Chickenpox is only very rarely a serious illness for children. Even with regard to more serious illnesses that have been made rare by vaccination (measles and mumps), death is quite rare (less than 1% according to wikipedia). Overall, I find your tone a bit disturbing. I'm very pro-vaccine, but I sometimes wonder if a kinder, gentler approach wouldn't be more effective. When you yell at people, they are much less likely to listen to you. When you use dishonest arguments like you've done here you just provide anti-vaxxers with ammunition.

orbifold 8y ago
Some diseases are not a big deal for most children but can outright kill others. They are sometimes really dangerous to any adult and typically all kinds of immune compromised people. Herd immunity is in some cases the only way they can be protected.
- leftyted 8y ago
  > Some diseases are not a big deal for most children but can outright kill others. This is exactly what I wrote, isn't it? The person I was responding to wrote: > The alternatives in pretty much all cases are death. Which side effect is better than your child being dead? I'm not arguing against vaccinations. I'm arguing against exaggeration.
  - orbifold 8y ago
    My point is that even if a disease is not dangerous to everyone it is worth to vaccinate everyone so that the rest benefits from herd immunity. In the cases where a disease is not dangerous to most children but dangerous to most adults things are even more complicated because once you have vaccinated sufficiently many people the disease becomes rare so it is more likely that someone unvaccinated contracts it as an adult.
- RobertRoberts 8y ago
  > Some diseases are not a big deal for most children but can outright kill others. And some vaccines are not a big deal for most children but can outright kill others. Don't you think a scientific view of the cost/benefits of vaccines should be common narrative?

orbifold 8y ago

Some diseases are not a big deal for most children but can outright kill others. They are sometimes really dangerous to any adult and typically all kinds of immune compromised people. Herd immunity is in some cases the only way they can be protected.

leftyted 8y ago
> Some diseases are not a big deal for most children but can outright kill others. This is exactly what I wrote, isn't it? The person I was responding to wrote: > The alternatives in pretty much all cases are death. Which side effect is better than your child being dead? I'm not arguing against vaccinations. I'm arguing against exaggeration.
- orbifold 8y ago
  My point is that even if a disease is not dangerous to everyone it is worth to vaccinate everyone so that the rest benefits from herd immunity. In the cases where a disease is not dangerous to most children but dangerous to most adults things are even more complicated because once you have vaccinated sufficiently many people the disease becomes rare so it is more likely that someone unvaccinated contracts it as an adult.
RobertRoberts 8y ago
> Some diseases are not a big deal for most children but can outright kill others. And some vaccines are not a big deal for most children but can outright kill others. Don't you think a scientific view of the cost/benefits of vaccines should be common narrative?