3 ms·

The effectiveness of vaccines rely on 'herd immunity', that is: you need more than 90% of a population immunised to stop a disease spreading (as vaccines are n

by rbourke 13y ago

The effectiveness of vaccines rely on 'herd immunity', that is: you need more than 90% of a population immunised to stop a disease spreading (as vaccines are never 100% effective)(also varies according to vaccine types/adjuvants and disease contagiousness) So by not vaccinating your self/dependents you are actually extremely selfish as you are benefiting from herd immunity whilst at the same time avoiding the (small) side reactions each vaccine may have. This is one of the most selfish things you could ever do.

ChrisAntaki 13y ago
From my research, people who avoid vaccines are usually afraid of (big) side reactions, like infertility or autism.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  Oh, those are "big" (as in, serious, though rare; or serious, but doesn't fucking happen...) but do you know what is bigger? Somebody who could not get immunized dying because you refused to get immunized. That is why it is selfish. Incredibly selfish.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - rentAchop 13y ago
    If one was forced to immunize their child, that child then dies from a reaction to that vaccine. Is that the "unselfish" act? You might of well have said it's against your "morals". Your full of it, might as well say we should cull the autistic kids from the herd, you know to protect the herd.
    - jlgreco 13y ago
      Vaccines save millions of live. If, in your personal system of morality, the veeery slight chance that your child will die takes priority over the benefit vaccines present to society, then while you are entitled to that viewpoint, I have the right to call you a selfish monster who embodies much that is wrong with modern society. Furthermore, neither autistic kids nor eugenics have fuck all to do with vaccinations. Quit peddling this bullshit.
    - aestra 13y ago
      Your comment made absolutely no sense whatsoever.
- ameister14 13y ago
  Yep, which would be valid except there is no scientific basis for those.
colonelxc 13y ago
Here is an in-browser demonstration of herd immunity[1], which I think shows the importance pretty well. It was posted on HN before[2]. [1] http://op12no2.me/toys/herd/index.php?scenario=intro http://op12no2.me/toys/herd/index.php?scenario=intro [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5190234 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5190234
drewrv 13y ago
Worse, some people can't get certain vaccines, due to health/immune issues. They actually need herd immunity to stay alive. By refusing to get vaccinated, you're putting already sick people at risk.
- girvo 13y ago
  Like me, I'm allergic to most vaccines. So I can't have them, and require herd immunity to keep me OK. Thankfully I've been fine thus far.
hrktb 13y ago
I am pro vaccination for anything that has sufficient maturity (high proof of action/low enough risk). For the sake of the point, I'll just put out that vaccination is for the good of the community, but this community might not fully commit to support members who react badly to vaccines. I don't refer to direct health concerns if something goes bad, but on the long term effects when there is some disability left. You'll vaccinate your kid to protect others as well, but if his lever doesn't stand it and became diabethic, you'll have a hard time finding schools that will provide assistance towards kids with special needs. If a vaccine has a 1% chance of going awry, commiting to do what it takes to support the 1% "unlucky" ones would help a lot lowering the resistance toward vaccines.
- samatman 13y ago
  In a conversation like this, it's important to discount hypothetical risks. Vaccination has been around for a long time. Hypothetically, there could be one with a 40% risk of long-term disability. But there isn't. Show me an example of disability caused by vaccination (they exist), complete with a percentage estimate of how many people will suffer. Then we can talk about the associated costs.
  - hrktb 13y ago
    I think you are looking at this from a statistical point of view, where you balance the risk for the group and what might happen to one person. I understand this point. What I am saying is that from an individual point of view, people won't react the same if you tell them: A - "Your kid has a 1 in 800 million have it bad, it should be OK but if it's not, tough luck, you deal with it" B - "Your kid has a really small chance to suffer from it, but it's for the group. If it goes bad the group will do everything to support you and your kid" I'd really wish it would more of the B pattern, and that everyone would be on the same page, not fearing to have to mildly go through hell if they hit the vaccine lottery. You talk about associated costs, I think some of the people refusing vaccines feel that the main cost (and that not just financial cost) in case of failure will be on them, not on the general population. You can agree or disagree, but that's a point of view that is too often overlooked I think.
marcelsalathe 13y ago
Good points. I would just add two things. First, as you say, the percentage you need to reach herd immunity depends on a lot of factors. Broadly speaking, the vaccination coverage you need is 1 - 1/R0, where R0 is the basic reproductive number of the disease (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_reproduction_number http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_reproduction_number). For diseases like measles, where the estimated R0 is above 10, you need at least 90% vaccinated, perhaps even more; for other diseases it may be lower. Second, even if you reach herd immunity, it is a concept that completely relies on a random vaccination distribution. Say your R0 is 10, and you have attained a vaccination coverage of 90%, you may still get lots of outbreaks, because the 10% that are unvaccinated may not be randomly distributed. Indeed, it's becoming quite clear that in almost all cases unvaccinated people are clustered. This is why you get these sporadic outbreaks in under-vaccinated communities. We (some of my colleagues at the Center for Infectious Disease Dynamics and I) are doing a MOOC this fall on exactly these topics: https://www.coursera.org/course/epidemics https://www.coursera.org/course/epidemics

by rbourke 13y ago

ChrisAntaki 13y ago

From my research, people who avoid vaccines are usually afraid of (big) side reactions, like infertility or autism.

jlgreco 13y ago
Oh, those are "big" (as in, serious, though rare; or serious, but doesn't fucking happen...) but do you know what is bigger? Somebody who could not get immunized dying because you refused to get immunized. That is why it is selfish. Incredibly selfish.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- rentAchop 13y ago
  If one was forced to immunize their child, that child then dies from a reaction to that vaccine. Is that the "unselfish" act? You might of well have said it's against your "morals". Your full of it, might as well say we should cull the autistic kids from the herd, you know to protect the herd.
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    Vaccines save millions of live. If, in your personal system of morality, the veeery slight chance that your child will die takes priority over the benefit vaccines present to society, then while you are entitled to that viewpoint, I have the right to call you a selfish monster who embodies much that is wrong with modern society. Furthermore, neither autistic kids nor eugenics have fuck all to do with vaccinations. Quit peddling this bullshit.
  - aestra 13y ago
    Your comment made absolutely no sense whatsoever.
ameister14 13y ago
Yep, which would be valid except there is no scientific basis for those.

colonelxc 13y ago

Here is an in-browser demonstration of herd immunity[1], which I think shows the importance pretty well. It was posted on HN before[2]. [1] http://op12no2.me/toys/herd/index.php?scenario=intro http://op12no2.me/toys/herd/index.php?scenario=intro [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5190234 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5190234

drewrv 13y ago

Worse, some people can't get certain vaccines, due to health/immune issues. They actually need herd immunity to stay alive. By refusing to get vaccinated, you're putting already sick people at risk.

girvo 13y ago
Like me, I'm allergic to most vaccines. So I can't have them, and require herd immunity to keep me OK. Thankfully I've been fine thus far.

hrktb 13y ago

I am pro vaccination for anything that has sufficient maturity (high proof of action/low enough risk). For the sake of the point, I'll just put out that vaccination is for the good of the community, but this community might not fully commit to support members who react badly to vaccines. I don't refer to direct health concerns if something goes bad, but on the long term effects when there is some disability left. You'll vaccinate your kid to protect others as well, but if his lever doesn't stand it and became diabethic, you'll have a hard time finding schools that will provide assistance towards kids with special needs. If a vaccine has a 1% chance of going awry, commiting to do what it takes to support the 1% "unlucky" ones would help a lot lowering the resistance toward vaccines.

samatman 13y ago
In a conversation like this, it's important to discount hypothetical risks. Vaccination has been around for a long time. Hypothetically, there could be one with a 40% risk of long-term disability. But there isn't. Show me an example of disability caused by vaccination (they exist), complete with a percentage estimate of how many people will suffer. Then we can talk about the associated costs.
- hrktb 13y ago
  I think you are looking at this from a statistical point of view, where you balance the risk for the group and what might happen to one person. I understand this point. What I am saying is that from an individual point of view, people won't react the same if you tell them: A - "Your kid has a 1 in 800 million have it bad, it should be OK but if it's not, tough luck, you deal with it" B - "Your kid has a really small chance to suffer from it, but it's for the group. If it goes bad the group will do everything to support you and your kid" I'd really wish it would more of the B pattern, and that everyone would be on the same page, not fearing to have to mildly go through hell if they hit the vaccine lottery. You talk about associated costs, I think some of the people refusing vaccines feel that the main cost (and that not just financial cost) in case of failure will be on them, not on the general population. You can agree or disagree, but that's a point of view that is too often overlooked I think.

marcelsalathe 13y ago

Good points. I would just add two things. First, as you say, the percentage you need to reach herd immunity depends on a lot of factors. Broadly speaking, the vaccination coverage you need is 1 - 1/R0, where R0 is the basic reproductive number of the disease (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_reproduction_number http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_reproduction_number). For diseases like measles, where the estimated R0 is above 10, you need at least 90% vaccinated, perhaps even more; for other diseases it may be lower. Second, even if you reach herd immunity, it is a concept that completely relies on a random vaccination distribution. Say your R0 is 10, and you have attained a vaccination coverage of 90%, you may still get lots of outbreaks, because the 10% that are unvaccinated may not be randomly distributed. Indeed, it's becoming quite clear that in almost all cases unvaccinated people are clustered. This is why you get these sporadic outbreaks in under-vaccinated communities. We (some of my colleagues at the Center for Infectious Disease Dynamics and I) are doing a MOOC this fall on exactly these topics: https://www.coursera.org/course/epidemics https://www.coursera.org/course/epidemics