4 ms·

I am not against vaccines, it saves lives, but sometimes i have the feeling we may not get sick anymore, with all proposals for inefficient vaccines against ben

I am not against vaccines, it saves lives, but sometimes i have the feeling we may not get sick anymore, with all proposals for inefficient vaccines against benign affections. Sadly both camps (pro and anti vaccines) have too extreme positions to have a constructive debate.

raphinou 13y ago
I do not understand the downvotes here,especially with no argumentation. It only illustrates my opinion: people have too extreme opinion on the subject. I maintain that being unconditionally pro or anti vaccines is a bad approach.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  Vaccines save lives. Millions of lives. Pro-vaccine is not an extreme position, it is the sane position. I downvoted you because I think you are presenting a false compromise. An "argument to moderation": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation
  - raphinou 13y ago
    A lack of moderated opinions is hurting a lot these days. Read my answer to dalke, because I would like ask you the same question: Would you be for mandating vaccines against rota-viruses in high-income countries?
    - jlgreco 13y ago
      I don't have the expertise to make that call, and neither I suspect do you. I am comfortable with the CDC making that call. Moderated positions should not be your priority. Rather factually correct and defensible positions should be.
      - raphinou 13y ago
        Looking at the facts lead me to a moderate position. I let you feel confortable following the cdc, i prefer to keep a critical mind, though i agree it is hard for non experts like us to get good and objective information.
        pessimizer 13y ago
        >Looking at the facts lead me to a moderate position. Mention them, rather than "moderation", and people may not downvote you.
        raphinou 13y ago
        I listed an example about the rotavirus in my subsequent comments, but here's another one mentioned by Patrick_devine in the comments: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2012/09/10/flu-shot-pandemic.html http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2012/09... This illustrates that the precautionary principle[1] might sometimes be forgotten or be put on the background. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle
        pessimizer 13y ago
        That's a random fact, but not evidence in support of your thesis, which is that the currently accepted set of vaccines should be evaluated for their costs and benefits by individuals. The evidence that individuals are better equipped and are less biased than the current scientific establishment to evaluate the costs and benefits of a particular vaccine is the evidence I'm looking for. The evidence that vaccine X was crappy is not. Evidence of people trying to get a new vaccine into the market or required for children is definitely not.
        raphinou 13y ago
        You ask for facts, I give an example of what I mean but then you reject it as random and needing evidence of a thesis I never formulated.... As for your second paragraph, the scientific establishment can be very wrong. Example: 20 years ago the scientific establishment rejected the idea of exoplanets. Today, there are hundreds catalogued. Although I had no facts to support my view, the consensus felt just wrong to me. I just think there might other be cases where the scientific consensus just feels wrong, a good reason to keep a critical mind!
- tokenadult 13y ago
  Writing, as you did in the grandparent post, but sometimes i have the feeling we may not get sick anymore may not need any more response than a downvote. Perhaps if you were more explicit about what you mean, your comment would be better received.
  - raphinou 13y ago
    This formulation was not very good, I agree. Thanks for the constructive comment. What I meant is that some push for overly-broad vaccination when the benefits/risks ratio is too small. Just like rotavirus vaccination in high-income countries like I mentioned in two other comments clarifying my initial post.
- dalke 13y ago
  You have made an implication, without basis, that the immunization policies in the US are "unconditionally pro", or at least that the people here are "unconditionally pro." This is not the case. Read any of the CDC, NIH, or WHO history of vaccinations and you'll see the reasons for the decisions. You'll see the numbers of how much it costs to vaccinate, how much it costs to treat, the likelihood of disease, the likelihood of death, and the effect of side-effects. You'll see research to reduce those side-effects, like improved treatment methods for those with egg allergies. You'll see treatment policies change over time. The polio vaccine in the US use to be the more effective Sabin vaccine, which used attenuated vaccine strains that occasionally mutated to a more virulent form that gave 144 known cases of vaccine-associated paralytic polio (VAPP) between 1980 and 1999. Since polio doesn't exist in the US, we switched to the deactivated form in 2000. This isn't as effective, which is why there's now one more shot in the vaccination series, but the old treatment, if continued, would have been deadlier. There has always been a policy to allow people to opt out of vaccines, usually for religious reasons. (The last outbreak in the US was among Amish groups. The virus came from the Netherlands.) A reason why is because there will always be resistance to any mandate, and vaccines don't require 100% coverage to be effective in a population. It's better to let a few not be vaccinated than to use the indiscriminate and blunt threat of government intervention against them. This means the CDC and others have to be very cautions and sensitive. For example, even though there's no evidence that mercury preservatives in vaccines cause side effects, you'll see that the vaccines were reformulated to remove thimerosal. The general policy is to minimize objections to the process, and not to force people to comply. This is absolutely not an "unconditionally pro" policy, so you are downvoted because you're speaking out of ignorance and a blithe appeal, as jlgreco rightly points out, to an argument to moderation.
  - raphinou 13y ago
    > You have made an implication, without basis, that the > immunization policies in the US are "unconditionally pro", > or at least that the people here are "unconditionally pro." You have interpreted this. Read my comment without considering me as anti-vaccines and maybe you'll understand you over-reacted.... My reflection was about pushing administration of vaccines against for example stomach ulcers (vaccine in development) or rotaviruses in developed countries. Would you be for mandating, in high-income countries, the administration of a vaccine against rotaviruses knowing their efficiency is only 45%? Rotavirus is evaluated at 1% of children deaths in these countries [1] (from CDC, a source you mention yourself). Will you also push for a vaccine for the 99 other percent? [1] http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/9/5/02-0562_article.htm http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/9/5/02-0562_article.htm

raphinou 13y ago

I do not understand the downvotes here,especially with no argumentation. It only illustrates my opinion: people have too extreme opinion on the subject. I maintain that being unconditionally pro or anti vaccines is a bad approach.

jlgreco 13y ago
Vaccines save lives. Millions of lives. Pro-vaccine is not an extreme position, it is the sane position. I downvoted you because I think you are presenting a false compromise. An "argument to moderation": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation
- raphinou 13y ago
  A lack of moderated opinions is hurting a lot these days. Read my answer to dalke, because I would like ask you the same question: Would you be for mandating vaccines against rota-viruses in high-income countries?
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    I don't have the expertise to make that call, and neither I suspect do you. I am comfortable with the CDC making that call. Moderated positions should not be your priority. Rather factually correct and defensible positions should be.
    - raphinou 13y ago
      Looking at the facts lead me to a moderate position. I let you feel confortable following the cdc, i prefer to keep a critical mind, though i agree it is hard for non experts like us to get good and objective information.
      - pessimizer 13y ago
        >Looking at the facts lead me to a moderate position. Mention them, rather than "moderation", and people may not downvote you.
        raphinou 13y ago
        I listed an example about the rotavirus in my subsequent comments, but here's another one mentioned by Patrick_devine in the comments: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2012/09/10/flu-shot-pandemic.html http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2012/09... This illustrates that the precautionary principle[1] might sometimes be forgotten or be put on the background. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle
        pessimizer 13y ago
        That's a random fact, but not evidence in support of your thesis, which is that the currently accepted set of vaccines should be evaluated for their costs and benefits by individuals. The evidence that individuals are better equipped and are less biased than the current scientific establishment to evaluate the costs and benefits of a particular vaccine is the evidence I'm looking for. The evidence that vaccine X was crappy is not. Evidence of people trying to get a new vaccine into the market or required for children is definitely not.
        raphinou 13y ago
        You ask for facts, I give an example of what I mean but then you reject it as random and needing evidence of a thesis I never formulated.... As for your second paragraph, the scientific establishment can be very wrong. Example: 20 years ago the scientific establishment rejected the idea of exoplanets. Today, there are hundreds catalogued. Although I had no facts to support my view, the consensus felt just wrong to me. I just think there might other be cases where the scientific consensus just feels wrong, a good reason to keep a critical mind!
tokenadult 13y ago
Writing, as you did in the grandparent post, but sometimes i have the feeling we may not get sick anymore may not need any more response than a downvote. Perhaps if you were more explicit about what you mean, your comment would be better received.
- raphinou 13y ago
  This formulation was not very good, I agree. Thanks for the constructive comment. What I meant is that some push for overly-broad vaccination when the benefits/risks ratio is too small. Just like rotavirus vaccination in high-income countries like I mentioned in two other comments clarifying my initial post.
dalke 13y ago
You have made an implication, without basis, that the immunization policies in the US are "unconditionally pro", or at least that the people here are "unconditionally pro." This is not the case. Read any of the CDC, NIH, or WHO history of vaccinations and you'll see the reasons for the decisions. You'll see the numbers of how much it costs to vaccinate, how much it costs to treat, the likelihood of disease, the likelihood of death, and the effect of side-effects. You'll see research to reduce those side-effects, like improved treatment methods for those with egg allergies. You'll see treatment policies change over time. The polio vaccine in the US use to be the more effective Sabin vaccine, which used attenuated vaccine strains that occasionally mutated to a more virulent form that gave 144 known cases of vaccine-associated paralytic polio (VAPP) between 1980 and 1999. Since polio doesn't exist in the US, we switched to the deactivated form in 2000. This isn't as effective, which is why there's now one more shot in the vaccination series, but the old treatment, if continued, would have been deadlier. There has always been a policy to allow people to opt out of vaccines, usually for religious reasons. (The last outbreak in the US was among Amish groups. The virus came from the Netherlands.) A reason why is because there will always be resistance to any mandate, and vaccines don't require 100% coverage to be effective in a population. It's better to let a few not be vaccinated than to use the indiscriminate and blunt threat of government intervention against them. This means the CDC and others have to be very cautions and sensitive. For example, even though there's no evidence that mercury preservatives in vaccines cause side effects, you'll see that the vaccines were reformulated to remove thimerosal. The general policy is to minimize objections to the process, and not to force people to comply. This is absolutely not an "unconditionally pro" policy, so you are downvoted because you're speaking out of ignorance and a blithe appeal, as jlgreco rightly points out, to an argument to moderation.
- raphinou 13y ago
  > You have made an implication, without basis, that the > immunization policies in the US are "unconditionally pro", > or at least that the people here are "unconditionally pro." You have interpreted this. Read my comment without considering me as anti-vaccines and maybe you'll understand you over-reacted.... My reflection was about pushing administration of vaccines against for example stomach ulcers (vaccine in development) or rotaviruses in developed countries. Would you be for mandating, in high-income countries, the administration of a vaccine against rotaviruses knowing their efficiency is only 45%? Rotavirus is evaluated at 1% of children deaths in these countries [1] (from CDC, a source you mention yourself). Will you also push for a vaccine for the 99 other percent? [1] http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/9/5/02-0562_article.htm http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/9/5/02-0562_article.htm