3 ms·
I know this is going to get massive downvotes, but it really comes down to this decision: Are you willing to potentially (under non-trivial odds) sacrifice you
by cpr 12y ago
I know this is going to get massive downvotes, but it really comes down to this decision:
Are you willing to potentially (under non-trivial odds) sacrifice your child's health in some serious, potentially life-altering way, in order that the whole community will be helped in some amorphous fashion?
Whether pro- or anti-vaccination, that's really the question.
You can put emphasis more heavily on the first or the second part as your biases and experiences warrant, but that's still the question.
- scott_s 12y agoNo, it is not. All medical interventions have a risk, vaccinations included. That is, there is a risk that the intervention itself will cause some harm. But all medical interventions also have a risk of doing nothing. It's when the risk of the intervention is less than the risk of doing nothing that we say it's best to do the intervention. As humans, we irrationally place greater emphasis on risks from doing something over the risks from doing nothing. To the point that some who read your point won't even notice the risk on the other side. But this is irrational, and if we want to evaluate what courses of action are most likely to yield good health, we must always consider the risk of doing nothing as well.