7 ms·

This is excellent. I'm going to add it to my little bag of arguments for those times I encounter anti-vaccine types. Its futile to argue with them that vaccine

This is excellent. I'm going to add it to my little bag of arguments for those times I encounter anti-vaccine types. Its futile to argue with them that vaccines aren't (statistically) harmful, they've already made up their minds. So I agree. All medical interventions are harmful in some cases. Instead, I simply ask them what makes them special that they should be allowed to avoid the small risk of the vaccine as opposed to everyone else. After all, if no one was vaccinated, there would be polio epidemics, which most will concede are worse than the risks posed by vaccines. Asking them why they are exempt from preventing polio while everyone else must shoulder the burden often turns a mindless stream of conspiracy jargon into an almost stunned pause. I'd pay for an app that runs this simulation just to make this point sharper.

toolz 14y ago
http://www.vaclib.org/intro/present/polio.gif http://www.vaclib.org/intro/present/polio.gif I'm not anti-vaccine, but I am anti-sensational unsubstantiated claims, such as without the polio vaccine there would be epidemics.
- JumpCrisscross 14y ago
  That's a graph of the death rate from polio, not the number of deaths from polio. Polio drugs existed before the polio vaccine (and still exist today). Similarly, one could graph U.S. mortality rates over the 20th century, observe its generally smooth downward slope, and conclude that nothing done after 1980 had any effect on anything. Or graph world mortality rates over the second millenium and similarly write off the 20th century. Maybe this is just a case for logarithms?
  - toolz 14y ago
    Precisely my point. The vaccination had no critical effect on any graph and the decreased incidents of polio following suggest a natural progression of technology and disease knowledge and awareness. The drugs that existed before the vaccine were not in wide scale production and play no relevant part in considering the impact of polio on the public.
  - tedunangst 14y ago
    Comparing with other graphs, it is number of deaths. Unless measles had a 600% death rate. http://www.vaclib.org/intro/present/index.htm#8 http://www.vaclib.org/intro/present/index.htm#8 But as I alluded to in my other comment, the range of years for each disease is different. Almost as if each graph were cherry zoomed, as it were. Also worth mentioning, the decline in typhoid and scarlet fever wouldn't have anything to do with the development of antibiotics and chlorination of the public water supply, would they? Thinking that because some bacterial diseases had non-vaccine cures, therefore all diseases can be similarly cured is... what it is.
    - JumpCrisscross 14y ago
      Rates, particularly in epidemiology, are often rescaled as deaths per thousand or hundred thousand.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- tedunangst 14y ago
  What is the source of that graph? Why does it only cover a period of about 16 years?
  - toolz 14y ago
    I've found multiple graphs that show many different timelines. This page has a very similar graph at the very bottom that gives a reference. https://wiki.ecdc.europa.eu/fem/w/fem/line-graphs.aspx https://wiki.ecdc.europa.eu/fem/w/fem/line-graphs.aspx
- noonespecial 14y ago
  I don't have the data to definitively suggest that the epidemics could have been eradicated by methods other than vaccine. Its entirely possible that they could. But while we're talking about vaccines and personal freedoms and all that yap, do lets remember that some of those other methods they were using to combat these epidemics back then were forced quarantines on pain of arrest, interstate travel restrictions, and the closing of public buildings like pools, libraries and schools.
- Someone 14y ago
  That's a graph of the death rate from polio, not of polio incidence. I don't know this for sure, but think it likely that incidence stayed the same while death rates went down. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_poliomyelitis#Iron_lung http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_poliomyelitis#Iron_l...: "even with an iron lung the fatality rate for patients with bulbar polio exceeded 90% [...] Positive pressure ventilators reduced mortality in bulbar patients from 90% to 20%. In the Copenhagen epidemic of 1952, large numbers of patients were ventilated by hand" That 1952 epidemic is better described at http://jap.physiology.org/content/99/2/424.full http://jap.physiology.org/content/99/2/424.full, about a 1952 epidemic in Copenhagen: "The bold solution was to manually ventilate the patients by squeezing a rubber bag attached to a tracheostomy tube inserted through an incision just below the larynx. [...] the mortality rate is said to have dropped from ∼90% to ∼25% as a result of this heroic intervention."
- zekenie 14y ago
  Epidemics are noisy... This graph doesn't reflect that. Consider this. A ton of people get polio. Then we have herd immunity for 25 years until the percentage of the population that hasn't been exposed rises. Then we have a huge epidemic again. Since the vaccine, we haven't seen a large epidemic except in populations without high vaccination rates.
- ebrenes 14y ago
  That's also a death rate chart, it doesn't take into account how many people got infected and then had to deal with the crippling after effects of a polio infection such as permanent muscle paralysis, disability and deformity. The death rate for soldiers has likewise been lowered due to the great advances in medicine, but many of these survivors are now living (thankfully) and facing a new set of problems like missing limbs and other body parts.
mindslight 14y ago
> Its futile to argue with them that vaccines aren't (statistically) harmful, they've already made up their minds It's ignorance trying to defend freedom, backfitting the "facts" to their beliefs - the basis of most nutty theories. What they're really trying to defend is that government has no right dictating what one must or cannot put in their own body. But they lack the learning to be able to articulate and argue at this philosophical level (for if they had that kind of education, they'd most likely have ended up believing that society should be engineered). It's not a good thing that these people don't vaccinate their kids and end up feeding them bleach or whatever instead, but one would be a lot better off trying to address the root causes of what makes them take an adversarial position against modern medical science, rather than wishing to paper over the symptoms with dictatorial fiats. Also, I don't see how this is a very good simulation. As its rules are laid out, if you don't want polio, simply get vaccinated. Doesn't a large part of herd immunity have to do with even immunized people being susceptible under repeated contact with infected people? Furthermore, it deviates from objectivity with an implicit value judgment that unvaccinated people either "cannot be vaccinated" or "are freeloaders", when it's really just individuals' utility functions. The problem with this assumption will be lost on those who'd like to engineer society, but it highlights the grave philosophical leap of the entire argument.
- DannoHung 14y ago
  > What they're really trying to defend is that government has no right dictating what one must or cannot put in their own body Talking about rights like this is useless. You have to assume some basic moral principles to proscribe who has a right to what. If I disagree with yours, then we'll just be shouting up a tree for hours. For one, I completely disagree with the idea that the government has no right to tell people what they can or cannot put in their own body. Depending on the moral principles that a government is founded on, it very well may have that right. > individuals' utility functions Invoking "utlity functions" is such an appeal to naturalism. All that means is that they don't give a shit about anyone else.
  - mindslight 14y ago
    Better off to disagree or debate philosophically than pretend common ground can be had, clouding the situation with dishonest arguments and fabricated 'facts'. In most political arguments with nutty theories on one side, those on the science-backed side think they are fighting for truth against ignorance. But what they are actually advocating is an implicit philosophy of deprecating personal autonomy in favor of an engineered society. This should at least be explicit, for the benefit of all. Analyzing utility functions obviously puts oneself first, but you overstep in trying to handwave them away as only not giving "a shit about anyone else". If we wish for systems of rules to be grounded in relation to reality (rather than taking on a self-perpetuating arbitrary life of their own), then we must consider the base case of self interest. Only after that is aligned properly can we examine emergent phenomena like societal good.
patrickgzill 14y ago
Do remember that the current flu vaccine (as an example) has an efficacy rate of less than 65%. So even if 100% of the population were vaccinated, herd immunity would not be possible. Herd immunity requires about 75% + efficacy of the vaccines (and assuming 100% of the target population is vaccinated), from what I can understand (it varies based on how the disease being vaccinated against, is spread). There are vaccines being sold and marketed, that have efficacy rates as low as 35%.
- patmcguire 14y ago
  Is efficacy binary? A partially protected person could spread less and recover more quickly than someone who isn't protected. I'm not sure enough of the math to know whether 100% of people being 65% protected works the same as 65% of the people being 100% protected, but it might not be.
  - fnordfnordfnord 14y ago
    It may not be, but I think that is the way it is modeled.
  - tedunangst 14y ago
    Mostly binary. The flu vaccine protects ~99% against some strains and 0% against others.
hakaaaaak 14y ago
Yes, except for vaccines that target virus(es) that are part of a group in which there may be only a 15-59% chance that it will protect outside of the laboratory. Per the Lancet and per the CDC, this is the case with seasonal flu vaccines. And, you have a small percentage actually die or have ongoing health problems because of problems with the vaccine. References: "The Lancet medical journal, the study found the seasonal flu jab, available free to seniors, is only 59 per cent effective...": http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/seasonal-flu-vaccine-works-in-only-59-pct-of-cases-study-shows/story-e6frg8y6-1226177234715 http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/seasonal... "Influenza vaccine would be estimated to be only 15% effective": http://www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/vaccination/effectivenessqa.htm http://www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/vaccination/effectivene... http://www.cdc.gov/flu/protect/keyfacts.htm#side-effects http://www.cdc.gov/flu/protect/keyfacts.htm#side-effects
- cma 14y ago
  59% may be perfectly adequate to provide herd immunity, passing the phase transition threshold. It depends on a lot more detail than "59%".
stcredzero 14y ago
> I'd pay for an app that runs this simulation just to make this point sharper. My sister wants an app to help explain to clients who don't understand cash flow problems. "How can I be broke? I make more money than I spend!" (Not this month, you didn't) I'll see what I can do with Cocos 2D. It'll be like my Wa-Tor inspired A-Life programs from middle school. EDIT: BTW, this applet runs just fine on my iPad as it is.
- hshshzjaj 14y ago
  Can you confirm that? You can run an applet inside your ipad? You mean a Java application?
  - jewbacca 14y ago
    The demo in the link is an HTML5 canvas element animated with Javascript.
    - stcredzero 14y ago
      Yes, and it runs just fine on both the iPad and my iPhone 5. Sorry for the confusing terminology. I remember the time everyone would do that kind of thing in a Java applet.
DanBC 14y ago
Measles cases are at "an 18 year high" in the UK because people don't immunise. (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/measles-cases-at-18year-high-as-children-are-left-unvaccinated-8486573.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/measles-cases...)
Someone 14y ago
You should be aware that there are different reasons why people oppose vaccination. There's the group that claims it is unhealthy, but there also are groups that oppose vaccination for religious reasons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_controversies#Religion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_controversies#Religion). You will need a religious argument to convince members of those groups (well, some members. There are indications that some of them have their children vaccinated in secret, but keep that hidden from their church members because of peer pressure)

toolz 14y ago

http://www.vaclib.org/intro/present/polio.gif http://www.vaclib.org/intro/present/polio.gif I'm not anti-vaccine, but I am anti-sensational unsubstantiated claims, such as without the polio vaccine there would be epidemics.

JumpCrisscross 14y ago
That's a graph of the death rate from polio, not the number of deaths from polio. Polio drugs existed before the polio vaccine (and still exist today). Similarly, one could graph U.S. mortality rates over the 20th century, observe its generally smooth downward slope, and conclude that nothing done after 1980 had any effect on anything. Or graph world mortality rates over the second millenium and similarly write off the 20th century. Maybe this is just a case for logarithms?
- toolz 14y ago
  Precisely my point. The vaccination had no critical effect on any graph and the decreased incidents of polio following suggest a natural progression of technology and disease knowledge and awareness. The drugs that existed before the vaccine were not in wide scale production and play no relevant part in considering the impact of polio on the public.
- tedunangst 14y ago
  Comparing with other graphs, it is number of deaths. Unless measles had a 600% death rate. http://www.vaclib.org/intro/present/index.htm#8 http://www.vaclib.org/intro/present/index.htm#8 But as I alluded to in my other comment, the range of years for each disease is different. Almost as if each graph were cherry zoomed, as it were. Also worth mentioning, the decline in typhoid and scarlet fever wouldn't have anything to do with the development of antibiotics and chlorination of the public water supply, would they? Thinking that because some bacterial diseases had non-vaccine cures, therefore all diseases can be similarly cured is... what it is.
  - JumpCrisscross 14y ago
    Rates, particularly in epidemiology, are often rescaled as deaths per thousand or hundred thousand.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
tedunangst 14y ago
What is the source of that graph? Why does it only cover a period of about 16 years?
- toolz 14y ago
  I've found multiple graphs that show many different timelines. This page has a very similar graph at the very bottom that gives a reference. https://wiki.ecdc.europa.eu/fem/w/fem/line-graphs.aspx https://wiki.ecdc.europa.eu/fem/w/fem/line-graphs.aspx
noonespecial 14y ago
I don't have the data to definitively suggest that the epidemics could have been eradicated by methods other than vaccine. Its entirely possible that they could. But while we're talking about vaccines and personal freedoms and all that yap, do lets remember that some of those other methods they were using to combat these epidemics back then were forced quarantines on pain of arrest, interstate travel restrictions, and the closing of public buildings like pools, libraries and schools.
Someone 14y ago
That's a graph of the death rate from polio, not of polio incidence. I don't know this for sure, but think it likely that incidence stayed the same while death rates went down. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_poliomyelitis#Iron_lung http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_poliomyelitis#Iron_l...: "even with an iron lung the fatality rate for patients with bulbar polio exceeded 90% [...] Positive pressure ventilators reduced mortality in bulbar patients from 90% to 20%. In the Copenhagen epidemic of 1952, large numbers of patients were ventilated by hand" That 1952 epidemic is better described at http://jap.physiology.org/content/99/2/424.full http://jap.physiology.org/content/99/2/424.full, about a 1952 epidemic in Copenhagen: "The bold solution was to manually ventilate the patients by squeezing a rubber bag attached to a tracheostomy tube inserted through an incision just below the larynx. [...] the mortality rate is said to have dropped from ∼90% to ∼25% as a result of this heroic intervention."
zekenie 14y ago
Epidemics are noisy... This graph doesn't reflect that. Consider this. A ton of people get polio. Then we have herd immunity for 25 years until the percentage of the population that hasn't been exposed rises. Then we have a huge epidemic again. Since the vaccine, we haven't seen a large epidemic except in populations without high vaccination rates.
ebrenes 14y ago
That's also a death rate chart, it doesn't take into account how many people got infected and then had to deal with the crippling after effects of a polio infection such as permanent muscle paralysis, disability and deformity. The death rate for soldiers has likewise been lowered due to the great advances in medicine, but many of these survivors are now living (thankfully) and facing a new set of problems like missing limbs and other body parts.

mindslight 14y ago

> Its futile to argue with them that vaccines aren't (statistically) harmful, they've already made up their minds It's ignorance trying to defend freedom, backfitting the "facts" to their beliefs - the basis of most nutty theories. What they're really trying to defend is that government has no right dictating what one must or cannot put in their own body. But they lack the learning to be able to articulate and argue at this philosophical level (for if they had that kind of education, they'd most likely have ended up believing that society should be engineered). It's not a good thing that these people don't vaccinate their kids and end up feeding them bleach or whatever instead, but one would be a lot better off trying to address the root causes of what makes them take an adversarial position against modern medical science, rather than wishing to paper over the symptoms with dictatorial fiats. Also, I don't see how this is a very good simulation. As its rules are laid out, if you don't want polio, simply get vaccinated. Doesn't a large part of herd immunity have to do with even immunized people being susceptible under repeated contact with infected people? Furthermore, it deviates from objectivity with an implicit value judgment that unvaccinated people either "cannot be vaccinated" or "are freeloaders", when it's really just individuals' utility functions. The problem with this assumption will be lost on those who'd like to engineer society, but it highlights the grave philosophical leap of the entire argument.

DannoHung 14y ago
> What they're really trying to defend is that government has no right dictating what one must or cannot put in their own body Talking about rights like this is useless. You have to assume some basic moral principles to proscribe who has a right to what. If I disagree with yours, then we'll just be shouting up a tree for hours. For one, I completely disagree with the idea that the government has no right to tell people what they can or cannot put in their own body. Depending on the moral principles that a government is founded on, it very well may have that right. > individuals' utility functions Invoking "utlity functions" is such an appeal to naturalism. All that means is that they don't give a shit about anyone else.
- mindslight 14y ago
  Better off to disagree or debate philosophically than pretend common ground can be had, clouding the situation with dishonest arguments and fabricated 'facts'. In most political arguments with nutty theories on one side, those on the science-backed side think they are fighting for truth against ignorance. But what they are actually advocating is an implicit philosophy of deprecating personal autonomy in favor of an engineered society. This should at least be explicit, for the benefit of all. Analyzing utility functions obviously puts oneself first, but you overstep in trying to handwave them away as only not giving "a shit about anyone else". If we wish for systems of rules to be grounded in relation to reality (rather than taking on a self-perpetuating arbitrary life of their own), then we must consider the base case of self interest. Only after that is aligned properly can we examine emergent phenomena like societal good.

patrickgzill 14y ago

Do remember that the current flu vaccine (as an example) has an efficacy rate of less than 65%. So even if 100% of the population were vaccinated, herd immunity would not be possible. Herd immunity requires about 75% + efficacy of the vaccines (and assuming 100% of the target population is vaccinated), from what I can understand (it varies based on how the disease being vaccinated against, is spread). There are vaccines being sold and marketed, that have efficacy rates as low as 35%.

patmcguire 14y ago
Is efficacy binary? A partially protected person could spread less and recover more quickly than someone who isn't protected. I'm not sure enough of the math to know whether 100% of people being 65% protected works the same as 65% of the people being 100% protected, but it might not be.
- fnordfnordfnord 14y ago
  It may not be, but I think that is the way it is modeled.
- tedunangst 14y ago
  Mostly binary. The flu vaccine protects ~99% against some strains and 0% against others.

hakaaaaak 14y ago

Yes, except for vaccines that target virus(es) that are part of a group in which there may be only a 15-59% chance that it will protect outside of the laboratory. Per the Lancet and per the CDC, this is the case with seasonal flu vaccines. And, you have a small percentage actually die or have ongoing health problems because of problems with the vaccine. References: "The Lancet medical journal, the study found the seasonal flu jab, available free to seniors, is only 59 per cent effective...": http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/seasonal-flu-vaccine-works-in-only-59-pct-of-cases-study-shows/story-e6frg8y6-1226177234715 http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/seasonal... "Influenza vaccine would be estimated to be only 15% effective": http://www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/vaccination/effectivenessqa.htm http://www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/vaccination/effectivene... http://www.cdc.gov/flu/protect/keyfacts.htm#side-effects http://www.cdc.gov/flu/protect/keyfacts.htm#side-effects

cma 14y ago
59% may be perfectly adequate to provide herd immunity, passing the phase transition threshold. It depends on a lot more detail than "59%".

stcredzero 14y ago

> I'd pay for an app that runs this simulation just to make this point sharper. My sister wants an app to help explain to clients who don't understand cash flow problems. "How can I be broke? I make more money than I spend!" (Not this month, you didn't) I'll see what I can do with Cocos 2D. It'll be like my Wa-Tor inspired A-Life programs from middle school. EDIT: BTW, this applet runs just fine on my iPad as it is.

hshshzjaj 14y ago
Can you confirm that? You can run an applet inside your ipad? You mean a Java application?
- jewbacca 14y ago
  The demo in the link is an HTML5 canvas element animated with Javascript.
  - stcredzero 14y ago
    Yes, and it runs just fine on both the iPad and my iPhone 5. Sorry for the confusing terminology. I remember the time everyone would do that kind of thing in a Java applet.

DanBC 14y ago

Measles cases are at "an 18 year high" in the UK because people don't immunise. (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/measles-cases-at-18year-high-as-children-are-left-unvaccinated-8486573.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/measles-cases...)

Someone 14y ago

You should be aware that there are different reasons why people oppose vaccination. There's the group that claims it is unhealthy, but there also are groups that oppose vaccination for religious reasons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_controversies#Religion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_controversies#Religion). You will need a religious argument to convince members of those groups (well, some members. There are indications that some of them have their children vaccinated in secret, but keep that hidden from their church members because of peer pressure)