3 ms·

The problem is the effect of the 'bad PR'. The end of the article goes into the struggles involved in distributing the vaccine and making sure it's used. If the

The problem is the effect of the 'bad PR'. The end of the article goes into the struggles involved in distributing the vaccine and making sure it's used. If the program loses credibility, those struggles could increase to the point where it's no longer effective. Honestly what's surprising to me is that they're able to overcome that resistance at all. Imagine trying to distribute a vaccine in the US that is known to trigger outbreaks of the virus it's supposed to protect against. Regardless of the fact that things would be far worse without it, all the evidence in the world wouldn't be enough to convince many people.

gvjddbnvdrbv 7y ago
People used it in the past. If your child has a real risk of contracting polio you would do anything to get them that vaccine. The anti vaccination movement has only survived because most of these diseases are so rare. If we see a return of diseases like polio the anti vaccination movement would disappear fast.
- creato 7y ago
  I don't know. We didn't have facebook the last time around.
- derekp7 7y ago
  So it's basically like seatbelt use. There are certain types of crashes where a seatbelt could cause more harm than good (such as crashing into a lake, the seatbelt gets stuck, and the victim can't get out). However these are rare enough, that the benefits of seatbelts far outweigh the risk, that most people decide to wear them (including the benefit of not getting a seatbelt violation ticket).
dsfyu404ed 7y ago
>Honestly what's surprising to me is that they're able to overcome that resistance at all. Imagine trying to distribute a vaccine in the US that is known to trigger outbreaks of the virus it's supposed to protect against. Regardless of the fact that things would be far worse without it, all the evidence in the world wouldn't be enough to convince many people. Western risk assessment is warped by the fact that a great many people never have to weigh risky decisions because for the most part society is wealthy enough that we can just defer risk of physical harm at the expense of either time or money. Of course people will freak out when they're given a decision where there's a risk of physical harm in both options.

gvjddbnvdrbv 7y ago

People used it in the past. If your child has a real risk of contracting polio you would do anything to get them that vaccine. The anti vaccination movement has only survived because most of these diseases are so rare. If we see a return of diseases like polio the anti vaccination movement would disappear fast.

creato 7y ago
I don't know. We didn't have facebook the last time around.
derekp7 7y ago
So it's basically like seatbelt use. There are certain types of crashes where a seatbelt could cause more harm than good (such as crashing into a lake, the seatbelt gets stuck, and the victim can't get out). However these are rare enough, that the benefits of seatbelts far outweigh the risk, that most people decide to wear them (including the benefit of not getting a seatbelt violation ticket).

dsfyu404ed 7y ago

>Honestly what's surprising to me is that they're able to overcome that resistance at all. Imagine trying to distribute a vaccine in the US that is known to trigger outbreaks of the virus it's supposed to protect against. Regardless of the fact that things would be far worse without it, all the evidence in the world wouldn't be enough to convince many people. Western risk assessment is warped by the fact that a great many people never have to weigh risky decisions because for the most part society is wealthy enough that we can just defer risk of physical harm at the expense of either time or money. Of course people will freak out when they're given a decision where there's a risk of physical harm in both options.