7 ms·

> Not giving your kid vaccinations is stupid. But on the scale of "ways you can mess up your kid," it's pretty mild. Measles and other dangerous diseases retur

> Not giving your kid vaccinations is stupid. But on the scale of "ways you can mess up your kid," it's pretty mild. Measles and other dangerous diseases returning to the US after being iradicated is not a small issue. This effects other children's lives. It's selfish and harmful and we have a safe reliable solution. People have become complacent to the horrible effects of diseases because of the protections vaccines have provided them over the last 50+ years.

aetherson 8y ago
I don't disagree that people are complacent, but on a factual level, most kids who don't get vaccinations do not get measles. Most who do get measles have a few weeks of discomfort and get over it. Most who do get measles do not give it to anyone else except maybe other unvaccinated kids. In the years before a measles vaccine, there were about 500 deaths per year from measles (in the US). This was when the population was about half of what it is now, so if we returned fully to that rate, there would be about 1,000 deaths per year from measles today. There were no deaths from measles in the years 2016 or 2017, per this document from the CDC: https://www.cdc.gov/measles/downloads/measlesdataandstatsslideset.pdf https://www.cdc.gov/measles/downloads/measlesdataandstatssli... As I said, it's dumb not to get your kids vaccinated. I wish I could get vaccinated to more things! It's like a super power! But the amount of actual harm that anti-vaxxers are causing is miniscule, certainly deeply out of proportion with the hate that they're getting. And if you do sincerely desire to keep as many people as possible from getting the measles, rather than desire to feel the rush of heaping hate on people, then again, let me suggest that the current tactics are not working, and that de-escalating the rhetoric around this will do much more to let anti-vaxxers relax and start listening to your data.
- scriptkiddy 8y ago
  > I don't disagree that people are complacent, but on a factual level, most kids who don't get vaccinations do not get measles. This is because other children do not contract measles because they have been vaccinated for Measles, as have their parents. It's not because Measles is hard to contract, it's because Measles is uncommon in the modern Western world. It's uncommon in the modern Western world because people have been vaccinated for it. > In the years before a measles vaccine, there were about 500 deaths per year from measles (in the US). This was when the population was about half of what it is now, so if we returned fully to that rate, there would be about 1,000 deaths per year from measles today. 1000 easily preventable deaths. Just because 1000 people isn't a large, scary number doesn't mean that it's a small number either. A single person dying of a preventable illness is heartbreaking. Each one of those 1000 people who die are someone's son, daughter, wife, husband, brother, sister, aunt, etc. What value do you place on human life? > There were no deaths from measles in the years 2016 or 2017, per this document from the CDC: https://www.cdc.gov/measles/downloads/measlesdataandstatssli.. https://www.cdc.gov/measles/downloads/measlesdataandstatssli.... Because of Vaccines. It even says right there in the link: "Measles remains a leading cause of vaccine-preventable infant mortality." > But the amount of actual harm that anti-vaxxers are causing is miniscule, certainly deeply out of proportion with the hate that they're getting. You say this until your child goes to kindergarten with an un-vaccinated child and contracts a deadly illness. In addition, anti-vaxxers are doing harm to their own children. A parent's responsibility is to protect their children. I understand that anti-vax parents think hey are protecting their children by refusing vaccines, but it is objectively the opposite. Anti-vax parents are exposing their children to deadly illnesses that used to kill people at an alarming rate before vaccination was common. They are doing this to a child who cannot understand the implications of these decisions. > And if you do sincerely desire to keep as many people as possible from getting the measles, rather than desire to feel the rush of heaping hate on people, then again, let me suggest that the current tactics are not working, and that de-escalating the rhetoric around this will do much more to let anti-vaxxers relax and start listening to your data. This I can partially agree with. However, cognitive bias is very real and very powerful. Clearly, hate and spite are not a good way to communicate with anti-vaxxers, but how many children need to die and how may horrible illnesses need to become common before they realize the errors of their ways?
  - aetherson 8y ago
    You appear to imagine that I don't understand how vaccines work. I do understand them! Also, my kids (who go to preschool and daycare right now) won't contract measles or other diseases-that-could-be-vaccinated-against from their unvaccinated peers, because... They're vaccinated. Lots of people do lots of harm to their children. The amount of harm that anti-vaxxers do to their children is small. The amount of harm that anti-vaxxers do to anyone else's children is like 100x smaller. Lightning strikes kill more people in the United States every year than measles does. Probably -- though I don't know how to get the statistics for this -- than every disease that might be vaccinated against that people decline. This is not the threat that we need to compromise our principles over.
- snowwrestler 8y ago
  > I don't disagree that people are complacent, Good, because you're an example of someone who is complacent. This is what complacency looks like: > but on a factual level, most kids who don't get vaccinations do not get measles. Most who do get measles have a few weeks of discomfort and get over it. Most who do get measles do not give it to anyone else except maybe other unvaccinated kids. "Most." "Most." "Most." Let's say only one child in the entire U.S. will die of measles over the next 10 years. Now, let's say you know it will be your child, or your neice, or your friend's child. Still seem acceptable? The point is, there is no acceptable level of measles incidence in the U.S. Zero. Period. > de-escalating the rhetoric around this will do much more to let anti-vaxxers relax and start listening to your data. This is not true. The rhetoric around vaccines started out de-escalated, because everyone thought the benefits were so obvious they did not need defending. That's what allowed anti-vaccine scammers to gain mindshare in the first place. Only by aggressive counteracting the anti-vaccine message will that be reversed.
  - aetherson 8y ago
    My child won't get measles because my children are vaccinated. But my children will get other diseases because most diseases can't be vaccinated against. And also because I'm not willing to sacrifice every part of my life to make sure that my children have the minimal possible risk of disease. So my kids will, for example, go to school rather than be home-schooled or tutored. My kids are allowed to travel on BART, despite their propensity for touching everything and putting their hands in their mouths. And, like, I'll try to teach them not to do that, but it's not like I'll smack their hands. My kids will probably at some point travel abroad to places where there are disease risks that there aren't in the United States, and while if travel vaccinations are available we'll certainly take advantage of them, we won't refuse to travel to Africa because malaria exists. Also, my children are allowed to travel by car -- even in the cars of say their friends' parents who I haven't extensively vetted for maximally safe driving habits. And they're allowed to go into San Francisco and Oakland, cities that are statistically more violent than their home town of San Bruno. You can't remove all risk from people's lives -- even your own children's -- and if you try to, you end up making bad decisions. This is a microcosm of what happens when you try to make policy around zero tolerance policies. Look, I wish that everyone would vaccinate their kids. But it simply doesn't make sense to sacrifice every other priority in the world to try to chase down a very small number of people who object to doing that. And aggressively countering the message isn't working -- which we would have expected if we had seen every other case of aggressive messaging, which broadly speaking is more about virtue signaling than convincing people. Anti-vaxxers today are much, much, much more rooted in their opinions than they were at the beginning.
esaym 8y ago
Measles was mostly benign before some money making corporation told you otherwise: https://youtu.be/d3hP84qQz4o https://youtu.be/d3hP84qQz4o
- baddox 8y ago
  I mean, I'm not sure what a fictional show proves. It was certainly treatable in the 1960s and 70s, especially in a country with advanced modern medicine like the United States. But measles still killed a lot of people.
- hellllllllooo 8y ago
  https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/measles https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/measles
- snowwrestler 8y ago
  There's no such thing as a benign disease. That's kind of inherent to the definition. Some diseases are more acute than others, but if we can eliminate even non-acute diseases, why wouldn't we? And to be clear: we know we can eliminate measles because we already did it once.
- _underfl0w_ 8y ago
  "Money making corporation" They're really an outlier there, huh?
- astura 8y ago
  Soooo... your source is the Brady Bunch?????????? Measles is highly, highly, absurdly contagious and you spread the disease for up to four days before symptoms appear. Therefore, even if its "mostly benign" in healthy individuals, it has a very high potential to infect immunocompromised individuals, so it's a public health concern.

aetherson 8y ago

I don't disagree that people are complacent, but on a factual level, most kids who don't get vaccinations do not get measles. Most who do get measles have a few weeks of discomfort and get over it. Most who do get measles do not give it to anyone else except maybe other unvaccinated kids. In the years before a measles vaccine, there were about 500 deaths per year from measles (in the US). This was when the population was about half of what it is now, so if we returned fully to that rate, there would be about 1,000 deaths per year from measles today. There were no deaths from measles in the years 2016 or 2017, per this document from the CDC: https://www.cdc.gov/measles/downloads/measlesdataandstatsslideset.pdf https://www.cdc.gov/measles/downloads/measlesdataandstatssli... As I said, it's dumb not to get your kids vaccinated. I wish I could get vaccinated to more things! It's like a super power! But the amount of actual harm that anti-vaxxers are causing is miniscule, certainly deeply out of proportion with the hate that they're getting. And if you do sincerely desire to keep as many people as possible from getting the measles, rather than desire to feel the rush of heaping hate on people, then again, let me suggest that the current tactics are not working, and that de-escalating the rhetoric around this will do much more to let anti-vaxxers relax and start listening to your data.

scriptkiddy 8y ago
> I don't disagree that people are complacent, but on a factual level, most kids who don't get vaccinations do not get measles. This is because other children do not contract measles because they have been vaccinated for Measles, as have their parents. It's not because Measles is hard to contract, it's because Measles is uncommon in the modern Western world. It's uncommon in the modern Western world because people have been vaccinated for it. > In the years before a measles vaccine, there were about 500 deaths per year from measles (in the US). This was when the population was about half of what it is now, so if we returned fully to that rate, there would be about 1,000 deaths per year from measles today. 1000 easily preventable deaths. Just because 1000 people isn't a large, scary number doesn't mean that it's a small number either. A single person dying of a preventable illness is heartbreaking. Each one of those 1000 people who die are someone's son, daughter, wife, husband, brother, sister, aunt, etc. What value do you place on human life? > There were no deaths from measles in the years 2016 or 2017, per this document from the CDC: https://www.cdc.gov/measles/downloads/measlesdataandstatssli.. https://www.cdc.gov/measles/downloads/measlesdataandstatssli.... Because of Vaccines. It even says right there in the link: "Measles remains a leading cause of vaccine-preventable infant mortality." > But the amount of actual harm that anti-vaxxers are causing is miniscule, certainly deeply out of proportion with the hate that they're getting. You say this until your child goes to kindergarten with an un-vaccinated child and contracts a deadly illness. In addition, anti-vaxxers are doing harm to their own children. A parent's responsibility is to protect their children. I understand that anti-vax parents think hey are protecting their children by refusing vaccines, but it is objectively the opposite. Anti-vax parents are exposing their children to deadly illnesses that used to kill people at an alarming rate before vaccination was common. They are doing this to a child who cannot understand the implications of these decisions. > And if you do sincerely desire to keep as many people as possible from getting the measles, rather than desire to feel the rush of heaping hate on people, then again, let me suggest that the current tactics are not working, and that de-escalating the rhetoric around this will do much more to let anti-vaxxers relax and start listening to your data. This I can partially agree with. However, cognitive bias is very real and very powerful. Clearly, hate and spite are not a good way to communicate with anti-vaxxers, but how many children need to die and how may horrible illnesses need to become common before they realize the errors of their ways?
- aetherson 8y ago
  You appear to imagine that I don't understand how vaccines work. I do understand them! Also, my kids (who go to preschool and daycare right now) won't contract measles or other diseases-that-could-be-vaccinated-against from their unvaccinated peers, because... They're vaccinated. Lots of people do lots of harm to their children. The amount of harm that anti-vaxxers do to their children is small. The amount of harm that anti-vaxxers do to anyone else's children is like 100x smaller. Lightning strikes kill more people in the United States every year than measles does. Probably -- though I don't know how to get the statistics for this -- than every disease that might be vaccinated against that people decline. This is not the threat that we need to compromise our principles over.
snowwrestler 8y ago
> I don't disagree that people are complacent, Good, because you're an example of someone who is complacent. This is what complacency looks like: > but on a factual level, most kids who don't get vaccinations do not get measles. Most who do get measles have a few weeks of discomfort and get over it. Most who do get measles do not give it to anyone else except maybe other unvaccinated kids. "Most." "Most." "Most." Let's say only one child in the entire U.S. will die of measles over the next 10 years. Now, let's say you know it will be your child, or your neice, or your friend's child. Still seem acceptable? The point is, there is no acceptable level of measles incidence in the U.S. Zero. Period. > de-escalating the rhetoric around this will do much more to let anti-vaxxers relax and start listening to your data. This is not true. The rhetoric around vaccines started out de-escalated, because everyone thought the benefits were so obvious they did not need defending. That's what allowed anti-vaccine scammers to gain mindshare in the first place. Only by aggressive counteracting the anti-vaccine message will that be reversed.
- aetherson 8y ago
  My child won't get measles because my children are vaccinated. But my children will get other diseases because most diseases can't be vaccinated against. And also because I'm not willing to sacrifice every part of my life to make sure that my children have the minimal possible risk of disease. So my kids will, for example, go to school rather than be home-schooled or tutored. My kids are allowed to travel on BART, despite their propensity for touching everything and putting their hands in their mouths. And, like, I'll try to teach them not to do that, but it's not like I'll smack their hands. My kids will probably at some point travel abroad to places where there are disease risks that there aren't in the United States, and while if travel vaccinations are available we'll certainly take advantage of them, we won't refuse to travel to Africa because malaria exists. Also, my children are allowed to travel by car -- even in the cars of say their friends' parents who I haven't extensively vetted for maximally safe driving habits. And they're allowed to go into San Francisco and Oakland, cities that are statistically more violent than their home town of San Bruno. You can't remove all risk from people's lives -- even your own children's -- and if you try to, you end up making bad decisions. This is a microcosm of what happens when you try to make policy around zero tolerance policies. Look, I wish that everyone would vaccinate their kids. But it simply doesn't make sense to sacrifice every other priority in the world to try to chase down a very small number of people who object to doing that. And aggressively countering the message isn't working -- which we would have expected if we had seen every other case of aggressive messaging, which broadly speaking is more about virtue signaling than convincing people. Anti-vaxxers today are much, much, much more rooted in their opinions than they were at the beginning.

esaym 8y ago

Measles was mostly benign before some money making corporation told you otherwise: https://youtu.be/d3hP84qQz4o https://youtu.be/d3hP84qQz4o

baddox 8y ago
I mean, I'm not sure what a fictional show proves. It was certainly treatable in the 1960s and 70s, especially in a country with advanced modern medicine like the United States. But measles still killed a lot of people.
hellllllllooo 8y ago
https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/measles https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/measles
snowwrestler 8y ago
There's no such thing as a benign disease. That's kind of inherent to the definition. Some diseases are more acute than others, but if we can eliminate even non-acute diseases, why wouldn't we? And to be clear: we know we can eliminate measles because we already did it once.
_underfl0w_ 8y ago
"Money making corporation" They're really an outlier there, huh?
astura 8y ago
Soooo... your source is the Brady Bunch?????????? Measles is highly, highly, absurdly contagious and you spread the disease for up to four days before symptoms appear. Therefore, even if its "mostly benign" in healthy individuals, it has a very high potential to infect immunocompromised individuals, so it's a public health concern.