3 ms·

> 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 "u

> 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

dalke 13y ago
"Read my comment without considering me as anti-vaccines" I didn't regard you as such in the first place. I regarded you as making the incorrect appeal to argument by moderation. Now you have switched the topic, from the implication that the US health policy and/or supporters in this forum are "unconditionally pro" vaccination, to a question about a specific vaccine and disease. I do not wish to discuss this new topic.
- raphinou 13y ago
  I don't understand why you think I'm discussing US policy... It seems we don't understand each other and ending our discussion is indeed the best option.
  - dalke 13y ago
    I never said you were talking directly about US policy. I both times used the word "implication." You say there are two camps. I point out that the majority view, which includes the views of the CDC and WHO, and described in their publications, is in neither of those camps that you proposed. Specifically, you say "Sadly both camps (pro and anti vaccines) have too extreme positions to have a constructive debate." The US health policy is decidedly pro vaccine. Therefore, I can use it an exemplar to determine if it has "extreme views" which are "too extreme positions to have a constructive debate." I then showed that there is a lot of debate and cost/benefit analysis on the use of different vaccines, including a change in the vaccination policies over time as conditions change. Nothing about the debate looks "extreme". Therefore either you don't understand the majority view or you are using an very different reference frame than the others on this forum, without explaining the context shift. That's the likely source of the downvotes that you complained about.
    - raphinou 13y ago
      Now I understand your reasoning. Stating there are two camps with no one in-between was maybe indeed too... extreme. I meant to say that there are a lot of people with strong opinions, and few with a balanced view acknowledging there are both risks and benefits.
      - dalke 13y ago
        I disagree. From what I can tell, there are a lot of people with strong opinions based on a balanced view acknowledging both the risks and benefits. And their opinion is in general favor of mass immunization. You have only to go to the CDC, or the WHO, and read their reports. Every single Vaccine Information Statement from the CDC says "A vaccine, like any medicine, is capable of causing serious problems, such as severe allergic reactions." They also list the risks, and describe if there are groups of people who specifically should or should not be immunized. Where then is this large camp of people with strong view for vaccination but who do not acknowledge that there are risks? Because to me it sounds like it's a hypothetical construct based on the assumption that there must be people who are equal but opposite to the anti-vaxxers, when as far as I can tell, such a pro-vaccination group is at best small and with little influence. Can you point me to their web sites or other literature?
        raphinou 13y ago
        I know a pregnant woman trying to get information about which vaccines to administrate to her future baby. She either get as answer "do them all as there's absolutely no risk' or 'vaccines are bad'. So it's not an organised group publishing position papers as you asked. But she has a very hard time to get explanations of the implications of not administrating a vaccine against usually benign affections. Also, I just found this article mentioning that the cdc used children as guinea pigs for a new vaccine. Of course i am not sure it is true but it makes me suspicious and distrustful. How could i believe them blindly as some commenters seem to do if they do such covert operations?
        dalke 13y ago
nl 13y ago
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? Where to start with this? 45% is a pretty low effectiveness rate. I'd prefer to see it higher, but nevertheless 45% success should improve herd immunity, right? Rotavirus is evaluated at 1% of children deaths in these countries If that is correct, then that is a HUGE death rate. Anything to reduce that seems sensible. Will you also push for a vaccine for the 99 other percent? Well.. can you predict in advance which are the 1% who are going to die? If you can then vaccinate them! If not then it would seem sensible to vaccinate everyone to develop her immunity. That will (a) directly decrease the death rate by making some who would have died immune, and (b) indirectly decrease the death rate by making it less likely to be transmitted. Edit: Reading a bit, I believe your numbers are incorrect - or at least the way you have phrased it. 1% may be the rate in developing countries, but it isn't in developed countries. The Wikipedia article on Rotavirus[1] makes the vaccine seem pretty compelling: In Mexico, which in 2006 was among the first countries in the world to introduce rotavirus vaccine, diarrhoeal disease death rates dropped during the 2009 rotavirus season by more than 65 percent among children age two and under.....In the United States, rotavirus vaccination since 2006 has led to drops in rotavirus-related hospitalizations by as much as 86 percent. The vaccines may also have prevented illness in non-vaccinated children by limiting the number of circulating infections. So yes, in my opinion - based on 10 minutes of research only - it should be mandatory. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotavirus#Prevention http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotavirus#Prevention
- raphinou 13y ago
  Just to be sure we agree: it is 1% of deaths, not of children. Maybe the efforts should focus on bigger death causes of children. My opinion of course. Your example talks about mexico, which is not a high income country, and the US, which has amongst the worst life expectancy amongst developed countries....

dalke 13y ago

"Read my comment without considering me as anti-vaccines" I didn't regard you as such in the first place. I regarded you as making the incorrect appeal to argument by moderation. Now you have switched the topic, from the implication that the US health policy and/or supporters in this forum are "unconditionally pro" vaccination, to a question about a specific vaccine and disease. I do not wish to discuss this new topic.

raphinou 13y ago
I don't understand why you think I'm discussing US policy... It seems we don't understand each other and ending our discussion is indeed the best option.
- dalke 13y ago
  I never said you were talking directly about US policy. I both times used the word "implication." You say there are two camps. I point out that the majority view, which includes the views of the CDC and WHO, and described in their publications, is in neither of those camps that you proposed. Specifically, you say "Sadly both camps (pro and anti vaccines) have too extreme positions to have a constructive debate." The US health policy is decidedly pro vaccine. Therefore, I can use it an exemplar to determine if it has "extreme views" which are "too extreme positions to have a constructive debate." I then showed that there is a lot of debate and cost/benefit analysis on the use of different vaccines, including a change in the vaccination policies over time as conditions change. Nothing about the debate looks "extreme". Therefore either you don't understand the majority view or you are using an very different reference frame than the others on this forum, without explaining the context shift. That's the likely source of the downvotes that you complained about.
  - raphinou 13y ago
    Now I understand your reasoning. Stating there are two camps with no one in-between was maybe indeed too... extreme. I meant to say that there are a lot of people with strong opinions, and few with a balanced view acknowledging there are both risks and benefits.
    - dalke 13y ago
      I disagree. From what I can tell, there are a lot of people with strong opinions based on a balanced view acknowledging both the risks and benefits. And their opinion is in general favor of mass immunization. You have only to go to the CDC, or the WHO, and read their reports. Every single Vaccine Information Statement from the CDC says "A vaccine, like any medicine, is capable of causing serious problems, such as severe allergic reactions." They also list the risks, and describe if there are groups of people who specifically should or should not be immunized. Where then is this large camp of people with strong view for vaccination but who do not acknowledge that there are risks? Because to me it sounds like it's a hypothetical construct based on the assumption that there must be people who are equal but opposite to the anti-vaxxers, when as far as I can tell, such a pro-vaccination group is at best small and with little influence. Can you point me to their web sites or other literature?
      - raphinou 13y ago
        I know a pregnant woman trying to get information about which vaccines to administrate to her future baby. She either get as answer "do them all as there's absolutely no risk' or 'vaccines are bad'. So it's not an organised group publishing position papers as you asked. But she has a very hard time to get explanations of the implications of not administrating a vaccine against usually benign affections. Also, I just found this article mentioning that the cdc used children as guinea pigs for a new vaccine. Of course i am not sure it is true but it makes me suspicious and distrustful. How could i believe them blindly as some commenters seem to do if they do such covert operations?
        dalke 13y ago

nl 13y ago

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? Where to start with this? 45% is a pretty low effectiveness rate. I'd prefer to see it higher, but nevertheless 45% success should improve herd immunity, right? Rotavirus is evaluated at 1% of children deaths in these countries If that is correct, then that is a HUGE death rate. Anything to reduce that seems sensible. Will you also push for a vaccine for the 99 other percent? Well.. can you predict in advance which are the 1% who are going to die? If you can then vaccinate them! If not then it would seem sensible to vaccinate everyone to develop her immunity. That will (a) directly decrease the death rate by making some who would have died immune, and (b) indirectly decrease the death rate by making it less likely to be transmitted. Edit: Reading a bit, I believe your numbers are incorrect - or at least the way you have phrased it. 1% may be the rate in developing countries, but it isn't in developed countries. The Wikipedia article on Rotavirus[1] makes the vaccine seem pretty compelling: In Mexico, which in 2006 was among the first countries in the world to introduce rotavirus vaccine, diarrhoeal disease death rates dropped during the 2009 rotavirus season by more than 65 percent among children age two and under.....In the United States, rotavirus vaccination since 2006 has led to drops in rotavirus-related hospitalizations by as much as 86 percent. The vaccines may also have prevented illness in non-vaccinated children by limiting the number of circulating infections. So yes, in my opinion - based on 10 minutes of research only - it should be mandatory. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotavirus#Prevention http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotavirus#Prevention

raphinou 13y ago
Just to be sure we agree: it is 1% of deaths, not of children. Maybe the efforts should focus on bigger death causes of children. My opinion of course. Your example talks about mexico, which is not a high income country, and the US, which has amongst the worst life expectancy amongst developed countries....