3 ms·

> If a disease becomes rare enough that the probability of getting it if you're not vaccinated, is less than the probability of harmful side effects from the va

> If a disease becomes rare enough that the probability of getting it if you're not vaccinated, is less than the probability of harmful side effects from the vaccine, then it is rational for an individual not to get vaccinated. >The proper response to this at a societal level is to further reduce the risk of harmful side effects from vaccines (for example, by using refrigeration more aggressively as an alternative to preservatives which have a small, but nonzero, risk of harm), not to brand people who don't want to get vaccinated against rare diseases as crackpots. Why is it so hard for people to look at the system instead of just themselves? This inability or unwillingness also seems particularly widespread in the US.

throwaway201103 6y ago
First instincts are survival of yourself and your family. The corollary is that no system or bureaucracy will ever care about you more than you care about yourself. These things drive our motivations.
- dTal 6y ago
  Care in the emotional sense, perhaps not. But it's worth noting that bureaucracies can and do take better care of people than they do themselves. There's a reason we have mandatory seatbelt wearing, restrictions on tobacco and alcohol sales, and child protection services.
  - pdonis 6y ago
    > it's worth noting that bureaucracies can and do take better care of people than they do themselves I strongly, strongly disagree with this statement. First, even in cases like mandatory seat belt wearing, where the benefit is obvious, the rule would be better enforced by private entities like insurance companies. Get in an accident and not wearing your seat belt? Your insurance company won't pay your medical bills. People are more likely to respond to such incentives than to nanny state laws, however well intentioned. Also, once you've passed one nanny state law, it gets easier to pass more; even proponents of such laws admit that most traffic laws, for example, are just revenue sources for local police departments and have no meaningful effect on safety. Second, restrictions on tobacco and alcohol sales are mostly aimed at not allowing sales to people, like minors, who are presumed not to have developed the full capacity to evaluate the consequences of their actions. They don't stop adults from dying from lung cancer due to smoking or becoming alcoholics. People who really want to poison themselves with drugs or alcohol will find a way to do it: just look at the rising popularity of vaping. The law cannot stop people from doing it and shouldn't try; the US should have learned that lesson with Prohibition. Third, citing child protective services as an example of bureaucracy taking better care of people than people do themselves is laughable. Anyone who has had personal experience with CPS can tell you horror stories, and what statistics are available do not paint a pretty picture. Based on my own and my wife's experiences (my wife was a social worker for 20 years), I would say that roughly 80 to 90 percent of children who are taken from their families by CPS are worse off than they would have been had they been left with their families, however imperfect those families were. I suspect most people who have had personal experience with CPS would give a similar figure.
pdonis 6y ago
> Why is it so hard for people to look at the system instead of just themselves? Vaccines were never intended to benefit the system at the expense of individuals. Every vaccine was a net benefit to individuals when it was first made available. That is why there was never any serious objection to widespread adoption of vaccines. There are cases where people might have to sacrifice their own welfare for the good of society, such as military service in combat. But I don't think vaccination is, or should be, one of those cases. If a person believes their risk of harm from a vaccine outweighs the benefit, they should have the right to choose not to take it. There are also cases where people might have to forgo short-term benefits for the long-term good of society. I think far too little attention is paid to such cases, to the detriment of all of us. But vaccines are not such a case; no one is forgoing a short term benefit by taking a vaccine. Individuals gain a benefit from a vaccine, the question is whether that benefit for the individual is worth taking the small risk of harm from the vaccine. What does seem like a case where people should forgo a (perceived) short-term benefit for the long-term good of society, is trying to justify things like forcing people to get vaccinated on the basis of flawed arguments and distortions of the facts. And of course Boeing with the 737 MAX is another such case.

throwaway201103 6y ago

First instincts are survival of yourself and your family. The corollary is that no system or bureaucracy will ever care about you more than you care about yourself. These things drive our motivations.

dTal 6y ago
Care in the emotional sense, perhaps not. But it's worth noting that bureaucracies can and do take better care of people than they do themselves. There's a reason we have mandatory seatbelt wearing, restrictions on tobacco and alcohol sales, and child protection services.
- pdonis 6y ago
  > it's worth noting that bureaucracies can and do take better care of people than they do themselves I strongly, strongly disagree with this statement. First, even in cases like mandatory seat belt wearing, where the benefit is obvious, the rule would be better enforced by private entities like insurance companies. Get in an accident and not wearing your seat belt? Your insurance company won't pay your medical bills. People are more likely to respond to such incentives than to nanny state laws, however well intentioned. Also, once you've passed one nanny state law, it gets easier to pass more; even proponents of such laws admit that most traffic laws, for example, are just revenue sources for local police departments and have no meaningful effect on safety. Second, restrictions on tobacco and alcohol sales are mostly aimed at not allowing sales to people, like minors, who are presumed not to have developed the full capacity to evaluate the consequences of their actions. They don't stop adults from dying from lung cancer due to smoking or becoming alcoholics. People who really want to poison themselves with drugs or alcohol will find a way to do it: just look at the rising popularity of vaping. The law cannot stop people from doing it and shouldn't try; the US should have learned that lesson with Prohibition. Third, citing child protective services as an example of bureaucracy taking better care of people than people do themselves is laughable. Anyone who has had personal experience with CPS can tell you horror stories, and what statistics are available do not paint a pretty picture. Based on my own and my wife's experiences (my wife was a social worker for 20 years), I would say that roughly 80 to 90 percent of children who are taken from their families by CPS are worse off than they would have been had they been left with their families, however imperfect those families were. I suspect most people who have had personal experience with CPS would give a similar figure.

pdonis 6y ago

> Why is it so hard for people to look at the system instead of just themselves? Vaccines were never intended to benefit the system at the expense of individuals. Every vaccine was a net benefit to individuals when it was first made available. That is why there was never any serious objection to widespread adoption of vaccines. There are cases where people might have to sacrifice their own welfare for the good of society, such as military service in combat. But I don't think vaccination is, or should be, one of those cases. If a person believes their risk of harm from a vaccine outweighs the benefit, they should have the right to choose not to take it. There are also cases where people might have to forgo short-term benefits for the long-term good of society. I think far too little attention is paid to such cases, to the detriment of all of us. But vaccines are not such a case; no one is forgoing a short term benefit by taking a vaccine. Individuals gain a benefit from a vaccine, the question is whether that benefit for the individual is worth taking the small risk of harm from the vaccine. What does seem like a case where people should forgo a (perceived) short-term benefit for the long-term good of society, is trying to justify things like forcing people to get vaccinated on the basis of flawed arguments and distortions of the facts. And of course Boeing with the 737 MAX is another such case.