5 ms·
Although rare, vaccines can still have negative side effects, sometimes very severe ones, even in healthy children. I think that state shouldn't have the right
by Hitton 7y ago
Although rare, vaccines can still have negative side effects, sometimes very severe ones, even in healthy children. I think that state shouldn't have the right to kill your kid, however small is the chance. As for children who can't be vaccinated and have to depend on collective immunity, they are as big danger as antivaxxers' kids.
You wouldn't force it on the first group, what gives you right to force it on second group?
- noonespecial 7y agoJust a reminder that Measles also has negative side effects, and refusing a vaccination may force it on someone else less able to withstand those effects.
- Hitton 7y agoObviously. But the question is to whom do you feel you have bigger obligations - to yourself/your kid or some rando? Related neighbour thread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20837940 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20837940
- lolc 7y agoI would feel very sorry if I (or my children) infected somebody else with an easily preventable disease. And I would be super pissed if "some rando" did it to me!
- rscho 7y agoMeasles can still have negative side effects, sometimes very severe ones. Measles causes grave neurologic damage in approximately 1:10^5 and death in approximately 1:10^6 of naive children. The complication profile is far worse in adults. That's far more than the vaccine. What do you prefer?
- Hitton 7y agoDunno why you think that I am antivaxxer. I tried to represent other, in fact quite valid point of view. Personally I would obviously prefer vaccine. But even more I prefer right to choose and not having government's decisions forced upon me.
- rscho 7y agoWell no, the point of view you exposed has no logical basis. It stands on the fact that vaccinating one particular kid makes this particular kid at higher risk compared to others. Given that the herd immunity threshold is not achieved in most kids' communities, this results in a false assertion by a wide margin regarding risk of severe disability or death. It would be a true assertion if you argued an increased risk of minor symptoms or complication.
- Hitton 7y agoNo. Your assertion is wrong because it assumes where does given person live. I'm from country where are measles considered eradicated and there it's completely valid strategy. If you're from country where is 1 case of measles in million each year, combined with the risks of severe harm as you listed, you'll find out there is orders of magnitude higher chance of being hit by lightning than suffering from adverse effects of measles.
- rscho 7y agoOk, we disagree based upon numbers. However, "eradicated" status just means "not endemic any more" really, and unvaccinated individuals tend to cluster in communities. Plus, the herd immunity threshold for measles is 95% and the chance of living in a community above that is certainly much lower than you think. Including in your country.
- Hitton 7y agoIt's annoying how you keep assuming facts that you know nothing about. I happen to live in country where vaccinations are mandatory and parents have to go through significant trouble to avoid them. That incidentally means the chance of living in such community is much bigger than you think.