7 ms·

So, what's the big deal here? The only people affected should be those who were too stupid to take the vaccine. The rest of us can rest easy and let Darwin do h

So, what's the big deal here? The only people affected should be those who were too stupid to take the vaccine. The rest of us can rest easy and let Darwin do his work.

chrisBob 7y ago
Or infants who aren’t old enough to get the vaccine, but screw them, right?
- aassddffasdf 7y ago
  In this climate, if I had an infant I'd consider quarantining him or her until old enough to get the vaccine.
dragonwriter 7y ago
> The only people affected should be those who were too stupid to take the vaccine. One dose (normally scheduled at 12-15 months) is 93% effective, two doses (the second usually scheduled at 4-6 years) are 97% effective, and there are people too young or with other non-stupidity reasons for not having (yet, in the case of age alone) even the first dose, so, no, it's not just stupid people at risk.
tunesmith 7y ago
There are a collection of people who are unable to take vaccines for medical or age reasons. They rely on herd immunity. If herd immunity is compromised, then their risk increases. For someone considering to avoid vaccination for personal reasons, this is an example of moral hazard.
lake99 7y ago
Cancer patients, AIDS patients, organ recipients all have compromised immune systems. They'd all be at risk because of irrational choices their colleagues made.
- randyrand 7y ago
  just a side note: Measles vaccine is given at 1-1.5 years of age. Hopefully not too many babies have cancer, aids, and organ transplants.
  - lake99 7y ago
    Doesn't matter if they were previously immunized. A compromised immune system can wipe out previous immunity.
    - briantakita 7y ago
      That begs the question, shouldn't we be more focused on promoting strong immune systems? "wiping out a previous immunity" doesn't sound like an immunity to me.
      - lake99 7y ago
        Nothing in medicine is as straightforward as that. Most cancer treatments end up wiping out or suppressing many different kinds of cells, and a temporary suppression of white blood cells is considered an acceptable side effect. AIDS will have to be cured. A strong immune system often attacks donor organ cells, so the immune system is intentionally weakened. We may eventually develop solutions for all three issues, but I don't expect it to happen in our lifetimes. Heck, I predict we'll be cloning body parts in labs to obviate the need for anti-rejection meds long before we learn to fine-tune our immune response.
        briantakita 7y ago
        > Nothing in medicine is as straightforward as that Which begs the question, why do we make an exception with vaccines? It seems like vaccines are being presented as completely safe & completely effective by some proponents. You see nuance in this issue, but then, why are critics of vaccines silenced & ridiculed? I thought "nothing in medicine is straightforward"...

So, what's the big deal here? The only people affected should be those who were too stupid to take the vaccine. The rest of us can rest easy and let Darwin do his work.

chrisBob 7y ago

Or infants who aren’t old enough to get the vaccine, but screw them, right?

aassddffasdf 7y ago
In this climate, if I had an infant I'd consider quarantining him or her until old enough to get the vaccine.

dragonwriter 7y ago

> The only people affected should be those who were too stupid to take the vaccine. One dose (normally scheduled at 12-15 months) is 93% effective, two doses (the second usually scheduled at 4-6 years) are 97% effective, and there are people too young or with other non-stupidity reasons for not having (yet, in the case of age alone) even the first dose, so, no, it's not just stupid people at risk.

tunesmith 7y ago

There are a collection of people who are unable to take vaccines for medical or age reasons. They rely on herd immunity. If herd immunity is compromised, then their risk increases. For someone considering to avoid vaccination for personal reasons, this is an example of moral hazard.

lake99 7y ago

Cancer patients, AIDS patients, organ recipients all have compromised immune systems. They'd all be at risk because of irrational choices their colleagues made.

randyrand 7y ago
just a side note: Measles vaccine is given at 1-1.5 years of age. Hopefully not too many babies have cancer, aids, and organ transplants.
- lake99 7y ago
  Doesn't matter if they were previously immunized. A compromised immune system can wipe out previous immunity.
  - briantakita 7y ago
    That begs the question, shouldn't we be more focused on promoting strong immune systems? "wiping out a previous immunity" doesn't sound like an immunity to me.
    - lake99 7y ago
      Nothing in medicine is as straightforward as that. Most cancer treatments end up wiping out or suppressing many different kinds of cells, and a temporary suppression of white blood cells is considered an acceptable side effect. AIDS will have to be cured. A strong immune system often attacks donor organ cells, so the immune system is intentionally weakened. We may eventually develop solutions for all three issues, but I don't expect it to happen in our lifetimes. Heck, I predict we'll be cloning body parts in labs to obviate the need for anti-rejection meds long before we learn to fine-tune our immune response.
      - briantakita 7y ago
        > Nothing in medicine is as straightforward as that Which begs the question, why do we make an exception with vaccines? It seems like vaccines are being presented as completely safe & completely effective by some proponents. You see nuance in this issue, but then, why are critics of vaccines silenced & ridiculed? I thought "nothing in medicine is straightforward"...