3 ms·

For a start, 'MMR' isn't a disease. It's an acronym for the vaccine which is Measles, Mumps and Rubella. Each of which is thought of as a benign disease, but

by brc 16y ago

For a start, 'MMR' isn't a disease. It's an acronym for the vaccine which is Measles, Mumps and Rubella. Each of which is thought of as a benign disease, but can have bad consequences. Measles has a death rate of healthy adults of 3 in 1000. It is deadly for people with compromised immune systems, such as someone with AIDS. Mumps is less of a threat but can still lead to other complications such as testicular infection and possibile sterility in young men. Rubella is generally benign but if a pregnant woman contracts the disease in the first trimester it has a 1 in 5 chance of miscarriage, and in the remaining surviving cases the infant can be severely handicapped including sight, heart, bone and organ problems. You absolutely do want Rubella immunity amongst all women of childbearing age. So I don't understand the anti-vaccine crowd either. Because the range of possible outcomes can be also very bad, and the chances are much higher of contracting one of the diseases than of developing Autism.

brudgers 16y ago
I have corrected the grammatical error. It now says, "MMR are temporary." I was fully aware of what MMR stands for, and thank you for pointing out my lack of clarity. With a mortality rate of 3 in 1000 and an incidence of ~.2 cases per 1,000,000 per year in the US, one would predict a death from measles about every 5 years or so. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5331a3.htm http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5331a3.htm Given claims in the media that 1 in every 150 people is effected by Autism, a reasonable person might calculate that their child is 33,333 times more likely to be autistic than to die from measles. http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2007-02-08-autism_x.htm http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2007-02-08-autism_x.htm Even if one believes there is only 0.1% chance that there is a causal link between MMR vaccines and autism, the probable risk of autism is still orders of magnitude higher than dying from measles. It is only if one believes that the probability of a causal link between the MMR vaccine and autism is approximately zero that the risk of death from measles is greater than that of autism. Once one believes that there is even a slight possibility of a link, then there can be a justified belief that the benefits of no vaccination outweigh the risks. Even if I believe otherwise.
- brc 16y ago
  Yes, but it is wrong to compare the current measles infection rate with MMR vaccines to the autism rate. If you remove Measles vaccination, the figures will return to much, much higher rates of infection in a short space of time. To use your prior analogy, it would be using crash statistics from an SUV-free highway to argue for or against the introduction of SUVs. You can't use the current measles infection rate to make valid arguments to removing vaccines. The correct comparison is the pre-vaccination measles infection and death rates, which are probably 20 times higher. Besides, a 'claim in the media' of 1 in 150 isn't a strong enough number for this debate.
  - brudgers 16y ago
    I'm not debating the merits of MMR vaccines or arguing against vaccination. I'm not even making a statistical argument. All I'm saying is that the decision of people who forgo vaccination is often a justified rational belief, even if it is incorrect. Keep in mind that most parents know a child with autism and very few know a child who died from MM or R.
    - bigfudge 16y ago
      How is it a justified, rational belief if incorrect?
      - brudgers 16y ago
        While driving, it is rational and justified to believe that the vehicle's speed is 60mph when the speedometer reads "60mph." However, if the speedometer is miscalibrated your belief is incorrect.
        isleyaardvark 16y ago
        It cannot be said that being anti-vaccine is a justified rational belief when it has an unjustified irrational basis. It is justified and rational to believe you're going 60mph when the speedometer says so because we all have experience with the reliability of speedometers, even though it's possible to be incorrect. To use a different analogy, imagine I believed carpet was lava and stepping on it would burn me and break my mother's back. While this would explain why I'd avoid stepping on carpet, it would hardly be accurate to describe it as a justified, rational belief.

by brc 16y ago

brudgers 16y ago

I have corrected the grammatical error. It now says, "MMR are temporary." I was fully aware of what MMR stands for, and thank you for pointing out my lack of clarity. With a mortality rate of 3 in 1000 and an incidence of ~.2 cases per 1,000,000 per year in the US, one would predict a death from measles about every 5 years or so. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5331a3.htm http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5331a3.htm Given claims in the media that 1 in every 150 people is effected by Autism, a reasonable person might calculate that their child is 33,333 times more likely to be autistic than to die from measles. http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2007-02-08-autism_x.htm http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2007-02-08-autism_x.htm Even if one believes there is only 0.1% chance that there is a causal link between MMR vaccines and autism, the probable risk of autism is still orders of magnitude higher than dying from measles. It is only if one believes that the probability of a causal link between the MMR vaccine and autism is approximately zero that the risk of death from measles is greater than that of autism. Once one believes that there is even a slight possibility of a link, then there can be a justified belief that the benefits of no vaccination outweigh the risks. Even if I believe otherwise.

brc 16y ago
Yes, but it is wrong to compare the current measles infection rate with MMR vaccines to the autism rate. If you remove Measles vaccination, the figures will return to much, much higher rates of infection in a short space of time. To use your prior analogy, it would be using crash statistics from an SUV-free highway to argue for or against the introduction of SUVs. You can't use the current measles infection rate to make valid arguments to removing vaccines. The correct comparison is the pre-vaccination measles infection and death rates, which are probably 20 times higher. Besides, a 'claim in the media' of 1 in 150 isn't a strong enough number for this debate.
- brudgers 16y ago
  I'm not debating the merits of MMR vaccines or arguing against vaccination. I'm not even making a statistical argument. All I'm saying is that the decision of people who forgo vaccination is often a justified rational belief, even if it is incorrect. Keep in mind that most parents know a child with autism and very few know a child who died from MM or R.
  - bigfudge 16y ago
    How is it a justified, rational belief if incorrect?
    - brudgers 16y ago
      While driving, it is rational and justified to believe that the vehicle's speed is 60mph when the speedometer reads "60mph." However, if the speedometer is miscalibrated your belief is incorrect.
      - isleyaardvark 16y ago
        It cannot be said that being anti-vaccine is a justified rational belief when it has an unjustified irrational basis. It is justified and rational to believe you're going 60mph when the speedometer says so because we all have experience with the reliability of speedometers, even though it's possible to be incorrect. To use a different analogy, imagine I believed carpet was lava and stepping on it would burn me and break my mother's back. While this would explain why I'd avoid stepping on carpet, it would hardly be accurate to describe it as a justified, rational belief.