5 ms·

> I imagine vaccine hesitancy must be rising in the US as well, but this is about Africa. You strike an interesting point. From a scientific PoV, vaccine reje

> I imagine vaccine hesitancy must be rising in the US as well, but this is about Africa. You strike an interesting point. From a scientific PoV, vaccine rejection in the West is pretty much unjustifiable according to mainstream medicine. But the not-worst-case, fairly bad outcome is kinda manageable. Your child gets measles, is probably OK, but if not, goes to an expensive hospital and will probably be fine. Even without vaccinations, it's probably not a life or death scenario. I'm not saying it's good, only that the price tag is likely low. But of course it's completely different in poorer countries, many places in Africa among them. These are also places with poorer education on average, I'd imagine. And what do they think when the West is sending them (or they're buying out or scarce resources) stuff that we refuse because it's "dangerous"? And if you get a measles outbreak in Somalia, you won't be worrying about childcare and copayment, it will literally be life and death. People who peddle anti vaccine BS should think about this too.

gspr 1y ago
> From a scientific PoV, vaccine rejection in the West is pretty much unjustifiable according to mainstream medicine. But the not-worst-case, fairly bad outcome is kinda manageable. Your child gets measles, is probably OK, but if not, goes to an expensive hospital and will probably be fine. Even without vaccinations, it's probably not a life or death scenario. I'm not saying it's good, only that the price tag is likely low. What an incredibly selfish point of view. Both for ignoring the risks of measles in your own child, and more importantly, for completely leaving out of the equation the likelihood that they will spread it to someone who for medical reasons cannot be vaccinated or for whom the virus is even more dangerous.
- rich_sasha 1y ago
  Have you actually read my post? Or just the first 130 characters - and even then, maybe you missed the bit about > From a scientific PoV, vaccine rejection in the West is pretty much unjustifiable according to mainstream medicine. The post is against anti-vax.
  - gspr 1y ago
    Yes. Did you read mine? I do realize you mean to critique anti-vaxxers. That's good. But the way you paint measles as a minor inconvenience in the west is really bad.
    - rich_sasha 1y ago
      Well, measles, in a rich country with good healthcare and healthy children is mostly (mostly!) an inconvenience. You can expect to survive it without much consequence. Wikipedia quotes death rate of 0.2% in the US in the period 1985-1992. Perhaps countries with universal access to healthcare would do much better. It would surely be much better today again with better healthcare, and even the unvaccinated will mostly never get it. I quite clearly exclude the left tail from my post. But it's much worse if anyone from a poorer country takes notice and tries to copy.
      - gspr 1y ago
        > Well, measles, in a rich country with good healthcare and healthy children is mostly (mostly!) an inconvenience. … and to hell with the unhealthy children? This is what I mean. Incredibly selfish thinking. > Wikipedia quotes death rate of 0.2% in the US in the period 1985-1992. Oh, so just thousands and thousands of dead children then. "Just an inconvenience". Your comment is disgusting!
        soco 1y ago
        "some of you may die, but it's a sacrifice I'm willing to make" - mandatory Lord Farquaad quote.
      - frm88 1y ago
        Well, measles, in a rich country with good healthcare and healthy children is mostly (mostly!) an inconvenience. You can expect to survive it without much consequence. https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/measles/measles-does-long-term-damage-immune-system-studies-show https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/measles/measles-does-long-term-da... After severe measles, children lost a median of 40% (range, 11% to 62%), and after mild measles they lost 33% (range, 12% to 73%), of their total preexisting pathogen-specific antibody repertoires. Paired, healthy controls retained approximately 90% of their repertoires over similar or longer durations. You might want to rethink your above statement.
arjie 1y ago
Pity you got whacked. I think people read the "you will survive even getting the disease" and assumed you were anti-vax when the reasoning is second order: if the First World won't use these drugs it signals danger to those who don't have the tools to independently verify. An interesting angle, though I wouldn't say I agree. As one example, I believe all of us in India routinely receive the BCG vaccine against TB right after birth. It's not routinely done in the US (unless I'm wrong and don't remember it). The US choosing not to do it doesn't make Indian people want to not get it. More likely, there's something else that's making people worried about the standard vaccines.
- rich_sasha 1y ago
  I wonder if India is different to other places. One, if you look at education levels vs GDP per capita, India seems an outlier to the positive. Education seems to be (?) very good for a relatively poor country. But then my understanding is that there's in particular higher levels of distrust against Western medicine in parts of Africa, following the AIDS epidemic.
otherme123 1y ago
> Your child gets measles, is probably OK, but if not, goes to an expensive hospital and will probably be fine. Even without vaccinations, it's probably not a life or death scenario. I'm not saying it's good, only that the price tag is likely low. I don't understand this take, if you are a parent. For example, RSV (respiratory syncytial virus), rarely causes death in developed countries. But 1) like SARS-CoV-2, almost every children will get infected at least once in their first two years of age and 2) a respectable number of non-deadly consequences come from this virus, some of them long term. My point is death is not the only consequence you should weight. Just having your baby a couple of weeks in "expensive hospital" (i.e. ICU), with a chance short term consequences like respiratory problems and secondary infections, or long term non-deathly consequences like asthma and alergies, sounds like a danger serious enough to me. It seems like a very poor parent decision to not vaccinate your children against RSV, even if it's almost impossible for RSV to kill your baby.
- rich_sasha 1y ago
  That's really not my point. My point is, for the statistical parent in the West who doesn't vaccinate their children, the outcome is pretty benign (for the child, really). Median child doesn't even get sick. You'd have to go to the 99th+ percentile to get to a really nasty outcome. Most unvaccinated kids will be fine, because they're in a rich country. Not because it's a good idea, but because there's a secondary safety net that will still catch them. But not so in poor countries.
  - otherme123 1y ago
    I think I get your point. My point is that I work in health sector, and people usually get very surprised when you tell them you have 5 babies in ICU caused by preventable / vaccinable diseases. For us is another monday, for their parents is a terrible experience. The babies usually don't die, and usually get a full recovery. So it doesn't come up in the news. But you, as a parent, don't want to have your baby hospitalized or in ICU: it's very stressful, it has health consequences short and long term. My point is "don't reduce consequences to life-death", because there are a lot of in between consequences you don't want for your kid. I like your "secondary safety net" image. It's secondary because you vaccine (the first safety net), but when people trust blindly the secondary safety net so they get rid of the first safety net, you only have one primary safety net. It's like getting rid of the safety belt now the cars have airbags. This is a dilemma of the prisoner: you can "bet" your children won't get infected even without vaccine and even if he catches the infection he would get through it easily, so you don't have any risks from the vaccine. That works if non-vaccinated are only a few, but above some point the herd immunity is lost and the most vulnerable kids will have to suffer serious consequences. If I didn't want to vaccinate my kids, I would fight tooth and nail as a pro-vaccines, so the herd immunity covers them.
orwin 1y ago
The story in the third world is that vaccination campaigns are a front for the US to get their DNA. Which, I mean, was at least true for one of them. Cia, indirectly killing children since 1950 would be a great catchphrase.
_DeadFred_ 1y ago
You know measles can cause deafness, right? Loss of eyesight and other vision issues? When I was a kid there were so many more deaf people because of measles. I don't understand why we are so ok with bringing back lifetime disabilities for children that didn't get a say.
yencabulator 1y ago
> But the not-worst-case, fairly bad outcome is kinda manageable. Your child gets measles, is probably OK, [...] Just wait for polio to make a comeback. It's life-altering, has no cure, and is easy to vaccinate against. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polio

gspr 1y ago

> From a scientific PoV, vaccine rejection in the West is pretty much unjustifiable according to mainstream medicine. But the not-worst-case, fairly bad outcome is kinda manageable. Your child gets measles, is probably OK, but if not, goes to an expensive hospital and will probably be fine. Even without vaccinations, it's probably not a life or death scenario. I'm not saying it's good, only that the price tag is likely low. What an incredibly selfish point of view. Both for ignoring the risks of measles in your own child, and more importantly, for completely leaving out of the equation the likelihood that they will spread it to someone who for medical reasons cannot be vaccinated or for whom the virus is even more dangerous.

rich_sasha 1y ago
Have you actually read my post? Or just the first 130 characters - and even then, maybe you missed the bit about > From a scientific PoV, vaccine rejection in the West is pretty much unjustifiable according to mainstream medicine. The post is against anti-vax.
- gspr 1y ago
  Yes. Did you read mine? I do realize you mean to critique anti-vaxxers. That's good. But the way you paint measles as a minor inconvenience in the west is really bad.
  - rich_sasha 1y ago
    Well, measles, in a rich country with good healthcare and healthy children is mostly (mostly!) an inconvenience. You can expect to survive it without much consequence. Wikipedia quotes death rate of 0.2% in the US in the period 1985-1992. Perhaps countries with universal access to healthcare would do much better. It would surely be much better today again with better healthcare, and even the unvaccinated will mostly never get it. I quite clearly exclude the left tail from my post. But it's much worse if anyone from a poorer country takes notice and tries to copy.
    - gspr 1y ago
      > Well, measles, in a rich country with good healthcare and healthy children is mostly (mostly!) an inconvenience. … and to hell with the unhealthy children? This is what I mean. Incredibly selfish thinking. > Wikipedia quotes death rate of 0.2% in the US in the period 1985-1992. Oh, so just thousands and thousands of dead children then. "Just an inconvenience". Your comment is disgusting!
      - soco 1y ago
        "some of you may die, but it's a sacrifice I'm willing to make" - mandatory Lord Farquaad quote.
    - frm88 1y ago
      Well, measles, in a rich country with good healthcare and healthy children is mostly (mostly!) an inconvenience. You can expect to survive it without much consequence. https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/measles/measles-does-long-term-damage-immune-system-studies-show https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/measles/measles-does-long-term-da... After severe measles, children lost a median of 40% (range, 11% to 62%), and after mild measles they lost 33% (range, 12% to 73%), of their total preexisting pathogen-specific antibody repertoires. Paired, healthy controls retained approximately 90% of their repertoires over similar or longer durations. You might want to rethink your above statement.

arjie 1y ago

Pity you got whacked. I think people read the "you will survive even getting the disease" and assumed you were anti-vax when the reasoning is second order: if the First World won't use these drugs it signals danger to those who don't have the tools to independently verify. An interesting angle, though I wouldn't say I agree. As one example, I believe all of us in India routinely receive the BCG vaccine against TB right after birth. It's not routinely done in the US (unless I'm wrong and don't remember it). The US choosing not to do it doesn't make Indian people want to not get it. More likely, there's something else that's making people worried about the standard vaccines.

rich_sasha 1y ago
I wonder if India is different to other places. One, if you look at education levels vs GDP per capita, India seems an outlier to the positive. Education seems to be (?) very good for a relatively poor country. But then my understanding is that there's in particular higher levels of distrust against Western medicine in parts of Africa, following the AIDS epidemic.

otherme123 1y ago

> Your child gets measles, is probably OK, but if not, goes to an expensive hospital and will probably be fine. Even without vaccinations, it's probably not a life or death scenario. I'm not saying it's good, only that the price tag is likely low. I don't understand this take, if you are a parent. For example, RSV (respiratory syncytial virus), rarely causes death in developed countries. But 1) like SARS-CoV-2, almost every children will get infected at least once in their first two years of age and 2) a respectable number of non-deadly consequences come from this virus, some of them long term. My point is death is not the only consequence you should weight. Just having your baby a couple of weeks in "expensive hospital" (i.e. ICU), with a chance short term consequences like respiratory problems and secondary infections, or long term non-deathly consequences like asthma and alergies, sounds like a danger serious enough to me. It seems like a very poor parent decision to not vaccinate your children against RSV, even if it's almost impossible for RSV to kill your baby.

rich_sasha 1y ago
That's really not my point. My point is, for the statistical parent in the West who doesn't vaccinate their children, the outcome is pretty benign (for the child, really). Median child doesn't even get sick. You'd have to go to the 99th+ percentile to get to a really nasty outcome. Most unvaccinated kids will be fine, because they're in a rich country. Not because it's a good idea, but because there's a secondary safety net that will still catch them. But not so in poor countries.
- otherme123 1y ago
  I think I get your point. My point is that I work in health sector, and people usually get very surprised when you tell them you have 5 babies in ICU caused by preventable / vaccinable diseases. For us is another monday, for their parents is a terrible experience. The babies usually don't die, and usually get a full recovery. So it doesn't come up in the news. But you, as a parent, don't want to have your baby hospitalized or in ICU: it's very stressful, it has health consequences short and long term. My point is "don't reduce consequences to life-death", because there are a lot of in between consequences you don't want for your kid. I like your "secondary safety net" image. It's secondary because you vaccine (the first safety net), but when people trust blindly the secondary safety net so they get rid of the first safety net, you only have one primary safety net. It's like getting rid of the safety belt now the cars have airbags. This is a dilemma of the prisoner: you can "bet" your children won't get infected even without vaccine and even if he catches the infection he would get through it easily, so you don't have any risks from the vaccine. That works if non-vaccinated are only a few, but above some point the herd immunity is lost and the most vulnerable kids will have to suffer serious consequences. If I didn't want to vaccinate my kids, I would fight tooth and nail as a pro-vaccines, so the herd immunity covers them.

orwin 1y ago

The story in the third world is that vaccination campaigns are a front for the US to get their DNA. Which, I mean, was at least true for one of them. Cia, indirectly killing children since 1950 would be a great catchphrase.

_DeadFred_ 1y ago

You know measles can cause deafness, right? Loss of eyesight and other vision issues? When I was a kid there were so many more deaf people because of measles. I don't understand why we are so ok with bringing back lifetime disabilities for children that didn't get a say.

yencabulator 1y ago

> But the not-worst-case, fairly bad outcome is kinda manageable. Your child gets measles, is probably OK, [...] Just wait for polio to make a comeback. It's life-altering, has no cure, and is easy to vaccinate against. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polio