7 ms·

Looking at this from a glass half full mindset, a decade from now we should have a pretty interesting data set from a public health policy perspective. Prior t

Looking at this from a glass half full mindset, a decade from now we should have a pretty interesting data set from a public health policy perspective. Prior to this, to get such a large subset of children to not take vaccines for an epidemiological study would probably be illegal or at best be considered highly unethical. Convincing parents to enroll their children in such a study in the name of science and for a small stipend would probably be next to impossible considering the potential lifetime impacts. I posit that the challenge has been that in order to prove vaccine efficacy on a continuing/updated basis, you need access to a non-vaccinated control group that controls for developed world socio-economic conditions which didn't exist (until now). Thus there hasn't been an easy way to do large population scale studies on vaccine efficacy - so it did somewhat become a "trust us" tautology (until now).

pavel_lishin 1y ago
I'd argue that the current situation is pretty damn unethical.
- triceratops 1y ago
  Scientists have to answer to ethics boards. Politicians do not.
- Dig1t 1y ago
  Please don’t flame me, this is an honest question. Why is this unethical and for whom? The vaccines work, so parents who choose to vaccinate their kids will be protected. Parents who don’t trust the vaccine for whatever reason, they feel strongly that they might harm their child. Isn’t it sort of unethical to force parents to inject their child with something they think is dangerous? You’re basically asking parents to willfully harm (in their mind they think it’s harmful, I’m not saying it’s actually harmful) their own child, from their perspective why should they make that choice? I just don’t see how this problem can be solved other than going back to square one and trying to educate people and convince them that vaccines are not harmful. The alternative is to force people to accept these injections even though people believe they are harmful, which just isn’t going to work well in the United States.
  - fzeroracer 1y ago
    > Isn’t it sort of unethical to force parents to inject their child with something they think is dangerous? Is it unethical to say parents should feed their kids if they believe food to be dangerous? Is it unethical to stop them from giving their kids bleach if they believe it to be a cure? The answer is that as a society we have limits around what a parent can or cannot do for the sake of the overall well-being of their children. If a parent refuses to vaccinate their child without a very good reason why (such as other exacerbating health issues or allergic reactions), it should be treated as child abuse. Because it is.
    - n4r9 1y ago
      > parents should feed their kids if they believe food to be dangerous? In case anyone thinks this is purely hypothetical: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c62v59621dro https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c62v59621dro
  - zippothrowaway 1y ago
    No one is forcing parents to vaccinate your kids. It's just that in sane societies we say you can't use a public school if you're not vaccinated and otherwise healthy. A moment's thought will tell you that it's to protect kids that are at risk from infectious diseases (e.g. immunocompromised cancer patients) that cannot be vaccinated. So most people would agree that it's unfair that a cancer patient cannot attend a public school, through no fault of their own, because a parent wants their healthy kid to attend the school unvaccinated. We balance the rules accordingly.
    - SilverElfin 1y ago
      > No one is forcing parents to vaccinate your kids. Yes, they are. If your kids are not allowed to attend school, then you are being forced to vaccinate them because you may not have other options. Claiming otherwise is gaslighting. > It's just that in sane societies we say you can't use a public school if you're not vaccinated and otherwise healthy. So do those parents get a voucher for the funds pertaining to their child’s public education, if they’re prevented?
- aredox 1y ago
  Ethics board have already discussed the topic at length, where you "argue" with a single sentence - but ok, let's admit vaccination obligations are unethical. Then you do admit infecting others is unethical as well? Now, science has advanced far enough we can retrace who I texted who through genetics; therefore, if you want to abandon compulsory vaccination, it must be compulsory that each and every infection must be investigated like a poisoning is and people who infect others be prosecuted as severely as polluters.
aagha 1y ago
Isn't there too much intra-state travel to allow for us to have comparative sets in the future? The problem with FL not vaccinating is that people who are sick will spread disease (and die) at different rates than those who are vaccinated.

pavel_lishin 1y ago

I'd argue that the current situation is pretty damn unethical.

triceratops 1y ago
Scientists have to answer to ethics boards. Politicians do not.
Dig1t 1y ago
Please don’t flame me, this is an honest question. Why is this unethical and for whom? The vaccines work, so parents who choose to vaccinate their kids will be protected. Parents who don’t trust the vaccine for whatever reason, they feel strongly that they might harm their child. Isn’t it sort of unethical to force parents to inject their child with something they think is dangerous? You’re basically asking parents to willfully harm (in their mind they think it’s harmful, I’m not saying it’s actually harmful) their own child, from their perspective why should they make that choice? I just don’t see how this problem can be solved other than going back to square one and trying to educate people and convince them that vaccines are not harmful. The alternative is to force people to accept these injections even though people believe they are harmful, which just isn’t going to work well in the United States.
- fzeroracer 1y ago
  > Isn’t it sort of unethical to force parents to inject their child with something they think is dangerous? Is it unethical to say parents should feed their kids if they believe food to be dangerous? Is it unethical to stop them from giving their kids bleach if they believe it to be a cure? The answer is that as a society we have limits around what a parent can or cannot do for the sake of the overall well-being of their children. If a parent refuses to vaccinate their child without a very good reason why (such as other exacerbating health issues or allergic reactions), it should be treated as child abuse. Because it is.
  - n4r9 1y ago
    > parents should feed their kids if they believe food to be dangerous? In case anyone thinks this is purely hypothetical: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c62v59621dro https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c62v59621dro
- zippothrowaway 1y ago
  No one is forcing parents to vaccinate your kids. It's just that in sane societies we say you can't use a public school if you're not vaccinated and otherwise healthy. A moment's thought will tell you that it's to protect kids that are at risk from infectious diseases (e.g. immunocompromised cancer patients) that cannot be vaccinated. So most people would agree that it's unfair that a cancer patient cannot attend a public school, through no fault of their own, because a parent wants their healthy kid to attend the school unvaccinated. We balance the rules accordingly.
  - SilverElfin 1y ago
    > No one is forcing parents to vaccinate your kids. Yes, they are. If your kids are not allowed to attend school, then you are being forced to vaccinate them because you may not have other options. Claiming otherwise is gaslighting. > It's just that in sane societies we say you can't use a public school if you're not vaccinated and otherwise healthy. So do those parents get a voucher for the funds pertaining to their child’s public education, if they’re prevented?
aredox 1y ago
Ethics board have already discussed the topic at length, where you "argue" with a single sentence - but ok, let's admit vaccination obligations are unethical. Then you do admit infecting others is unethical as well? Now, science has advanced far enough we can retrace who I texted who through genetics; therefore, if you want to abandon compulsory vaccination, it must be compulsory that each and every infection must be investigated like a poisoning is and people who infect others be prosecuted as severely as polluters.

aagha 1y ago

Isn't there too much intra-state travel to allow for us to have comparative sets in the future? The problem with FL not vaccinating is that people who are sick will spread disease (and die) at different rates than those who are vaccinated.