6 ms·

Absolutely. And it should explain herd immunity very clearly, a bit like this demo: http://op12no2.me/toys/herd/ http://op12no2.me/toys/herd/ People need to s

Absolutely. And it should explain herd immunity very clearly, a bit like this demo: http://op12no2.me/toys/herd/ http://op12no2.me/toys/herd/ People need to stop believing that it's a personal choice for them alone. That is no more true than if they were to go around blowing cigarette smoke into the faces of other people. It's anti-social behaviour and even worse, the consequences are potentially deadly.

digi_owl 12y ago
And this is why i find the whole economics idea, that multiple entities doing their thing for individual profit will produce general social improvements, questionable at best.
- Swizec 12y ago
  I thought the current economic theory was that everyone should do what's best for them AND the group? Case in point, tobacco companies sponsoring anti-smoking ads because talk of smoking increases revenues for the smoking industry as a whole. Instead of trying to advertise themselves individually.
  - mikeyouse 12y ago
    The anti-smoking advertisements aren't out there out of the goodness of Altria's cold, dead heart - even if they do result in more smoking. As part of the tobacco settlement in the 1990s, the tobacco companies had to give billions of dollars to anti-smoking groups. The largest of which, the American Legacy Foundation (behind the 'Truth' ad campaign) has over a billion dollars in an endowment to run anti-smoking ads. Due in part to these ads, the teenage smoking rate is literally half of where it was before the settlement; http://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2014/p0612-YRBS.html http://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2014/p0612-YRBS.html
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- refurb 12y ago
  The current system isn't perfect but capitalism has lifted billions out of poverty over the last century.
- icebraining 12y ago
  And this is why i find the whole economics idea, that multiple entities doing their thing for individual profit will produce general social improvements, questionable at best. Remember that the economic theory isn't a morality code; it doesn't say what the individual should do. It says that, people being what they are - that is, not always the kind and generous beings we wish they were -, how can we set up things so that general welfare is increased. And in this case, the part of the economic theory that you're referring to that would lead to vaccination is not the profit seeking but property rights: in theory, if you go around infecting people when you could have vaccinated yourself, they should be able to get compensation for it. Will that solve the problem in this case? Probably not, but then again, which system has a better one? Forced vaccinations don't sound better to me.
- 13years 12y ago
  Yet one of the issues presented from the anti-vax argument is that there are safety issues with vaccines. The companies producing them are protected by law from the consumer if there are any damages. In a free market, the manufactures would have to improve the product to the degree that the consumers are convinced it is safe, and if injury is proven in court they would be held liable. Therefore there would be a profit incentive to fix the very issue at the center of the anti-vax argument.
  - mikeash 12y ago
    Right now, we have vaccines that are perfectly safe, but some people think they are unsafe. In a completely free market, economic forces would create a profit incentive to fix the perception of safety, while weakening the incentive to provide actual safety, so we'd have vaccines that are less safe but everybody thinks are safe. This is not an improvement.
    - 13years 12y ago
      And why do people think they are unsafe if they are safe? Where is the disconnect? If I have immunity from all crimes, would you trust me to never commit a crime? Certainly you can see the argument that is proposed is one of trust. Maybe they are safe as claimed, and if so it is then asked why then is immunity necessary for the producers? Perception of safety without safety is fraud, in a free market the government does enforce laws against fraud. How is it that a non free market has more incentive for safety? Who is accountable today? As I stated, currently law protects the producers against injury claims, so what is the mechanism and incentive for enforcement?
      - mikeash 12y ago
        I assume your questions about why produces are immune from injury claims are rhetorical. If they're real, I can try to actually answer them. The mechanism and incentive for enforcement is with the FDA. If a vaccine is genuinely unsafe then the FDA is supposed to (and as far as I know, actually will) take appropriate action, up to and including fining the company and banning the product if it's warranted.
danielweber 12y ago
Reading the article, the community backed off from vaccination following two kids having a bad reaction to an MMR vaccine. It wasn't "personal choice" or "religious exception." They had a bad experience and were scared away.
- mikeash 12y ago
  Two kids allegedly getting sick after receiving an MMR vaccine. I don't know if those terms are justified, but if they are then that's rather different from "two kids having a bad reaction to an MMR vaccine." One thing we need to educate people about is that just because you get sick after getting a shot doesn't mean the shot caused you to get sick, and that even if it is, an occasional bad reaction is worth it if the rate is sufficiently low and the consequences sufficiently mild.
- 13years 12y ago
  I think you point out the problem of dialog. It is assumed anti-vaxers are anti-science, religious, uneducated or anti-gov. Although this may apply to some, it doesn't explain the majority and the rapid growth. There is no shortage of educated doctors, former employees of drug companies, and data from CDC etc that is used for the anti vax argument. To convince someone of a point, one needs to not start from the position the other person has any of these stereotype labels. You need to start from educating yourself of their opposing argument and realize it is supported by real data. Then the discussion becomes more appropriate around the validity of data, its interpretation etc.
  - mikeash 12y ago
    I've never seen an anti-vax argument that was supported by real data. What I have seen are things like: 1. They cause autism. 2. They contain nasty, toxic chemicals. 3. They are unnecessary. 4. They are unsafe (in some unspecified way) and are just pushed for profit by big pharma. The only one that comes even close to being supported by data is #1, and that's completely fake data.
    - 13years 12y ago
click170 12y ago
People must always have a choice to vaccinate or not, forcing it upon them will do nobody any good because it will only increase the distrust of government. That said, if you don't vaccinate, you are a threat to the public and I do think you should be banned from public schools, public transportation, public gatherings and should have to explain to anyone you physically interact with that you are a risk to them and their family. We should be showing anti-vaxers the error of their ways using facts, debate, and the truth. Forcing it on them only increases their distrust and helps sway others to their side.
- smeyer 12y ago
  >forcing it upon them will do nobody any good I'm not saying it would be a net good or a net bad, but it would presumably save a number of lives. This might still be a net bad with the increased distrust and loss of choice and all that, but I don't think it's at all fair to say that "nobody" would benefit. For example, those with weakened immune systems who for some reason cannot be vaccinated would probably benefit greatly. Again, I'm not saying the answer is or isn't to force them, but it's not because nobody would benefit.
- robert_tweed 12y ago
  Who said anything about force? It's mainly a problem of education. What we're talking about is, for example, an emotive documentary about some sick kids who couldn't be vaccinated for genuine medical reasons, and should have been protected by the herd immunity that anti-vaccination is destroying. Maybe have them in the same ward as some sick, voluntarily unvaccinated kids for good measure, interspersed with various scientific explanations of how minor the risks of vaccination reactions are, and that there is no connection with autism especially. Science has to fight an uphill battle, because facts and statistics are cold, whereas a single story of "my kid got sick right after being vaccinated and what if that happened to your kid?" is emotive and provocative. A documentary telling the other side of the story in a way that most people can relate to it emotionally could have a huge impact. No need to make anything mandatory if people understand the balance of risks properly.
- differentView 12y ago
  >People must always have a choice to vaccinate or not, forcing it upon them will do nobody any good because it will only increase the distrust of government. >That said, if you don't vaccinate, you are a threat to the public and I do think you should be banned from public schools, public transportation, public gatherings and should have to explain to anyone you physically interact with that you are a risk to them and their family. Not following what you're proposing. You don't want people forced to be vaccinated, yet you want to forcibly confine them to their homes? What if they don't comply and get on a bus/subway/train/plane or go shop at a supermarket? Forcibly throw them in some special jail just for them?
13years 12y ago
But this logic can be extended to anything. As far as risk of death, the flu still tops all others for which there are vaccines. If someone has the flu, by this logic they are a risk to society. A personal choice to go out in public would be criminal. Got the flu, you need to be quarantined. And the greatest risk of spread of anything is personal hygiene. If you haven't washed your hands after each sneeze, then that might just be a crime. The consequences of just living are deadly. Everyone will die from something at some point, but when protecting society extends beyond what individuals can do to protect themselves you no longer have a free society.

digi_owl 12y ago

And this is why i find the whole economics idea, that multiple entities doing their thing for individual profit will produce general social improvements, questionable at best.

Swizec 12y ago
I thought the current economic theory was that everyone should do what's best for them AND the group? Case in point, tobacco companies sponsoring anti-smoking ads because talk of smoking increases revenues for the smoking industry as a whole. Instead of trying to advertise themselves individually.
- mikeyouse 12y ago
  The anti-smoking advertisements aren't out there out of the goodness of Altria's cold, dead heart - even if they do result in more smoking. As part of the tobacco settlement in the 1990s, the tobacco companies had to give billions of dollars to anti-smoking groups. The largest of which, the American Legacy Foundation (behind the 'Truth' ad campaign) has over a billion dollars in an endowment to run anti-smoking ads. Due in part to these ads, the teenage smoking rate is literally half of where it was before the settlement; http://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2014/p0612-YRBS.html http://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2014/p0612-YRBS.html
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
refurb 12y ago
The current system isn't perfect but capitalism has lifted billions out of poverty over the last century.
icebraining 12y ago
And this is why i find the whole economics idea, that multiple entities doing their thing for individual profit will produce general social improvements, questionable at best. Remember that the economic theory isn't a morality code; it doesn't say what the individual should do. It says that, people being what they are - that is, not always the kind and generous beings we wish they were -, how can we set up things so that general welfare is increased. And in this case, the part of the economic theory that you're referring to that would lead to vaccination is not the profit seeking but property rights: in theory, if you go around infecting people when you could have vaccinated yourself, they should be able to get compensation for it. Will that solve the problem in this case? Probably not, but then again, which system has a better one? Forced vaccinations don't sound better to me.
13years 12y ago
Yet one of the issues presented from the anti-vax argument is that there are safety issues with vaccines. The companies producing them are protected by law from the consumer if there are any damages. In a free market, the manufactures would have to improve the product to the degree that the consumers are convinced it is safe, and if injury is proven in court they would be held liable. Therefore there would be a profit incentive to fix the very issue at the center of the anti-vax argument.
- mikeash 12y ago
  Right now, we have vaccines that are perfectly safe, but some people think they are unsafe. In a completely free market, economic forces would create a profit incentive to fix the perception of safety, while weakening the incentive to provide actual safety, so we'd have vaccines that are less safe but everybody thinks are safe. This is not an improvement.
  - 13years 12y ago
    And why do people think they are unsafe if they are safe? Where is the disconnect? If I have immunity from all crimes, would you trust me to never commit a crime? Certainly you can see the argument that is proposed is one of trust. Maybe they are safe as claimed, and if so it is then asked why then is immunity necessary for the producers? Perception of safety without safety is fraud, in a free market the government does enforce laws against fraud. How is it that a non free market has more incentive for safety? Who is accountable today? As I stated, currently law protects the producers against injury claims, so what is the mechanism and incentive for enforcement?
    - mikeash 12y ago
      I assume your questions about why produces are immune from injury claims are rhetorical. If they're real, I can try to actually answer them. The mechanism and incentive for enforcement is with the FDA. If a vaccine is genuinely unsafe then the FDA is supposed to (and as far as I know, actually will) take appropriate action, up to and including fining the company and banning the product if it's warranted.

danielweber 12y ago

Reading the article, the community backed off from vaccination following two kids having a bad reaction to an MMR vaccine. It wasn't "personal choice" or "religious exception." They had a bad experience and were scared away.

mikeash 12y ago
Two kids allegedly getting sick after receiving an MMR vaccine. I don't know if those terms are justified, but if they are then that's rather different from "two kids having a bad reaction to an MMR vaccine." One thing we need to educate people about is that just because you get sick after getting a shot doesn't mean the shot caused you to get sick, and that even if it is, an occasional bad reaction is worth it if the rate is sufficiently low and the consequences sufficiently mild.
13years 12y ago
I think you point out the problem of dialog. It is assumed anti-vaxers are anti-science, religious, uneducated or anti-gov. Although this may apply to some, it doesn't explain the majority and the rapid growth. There is no shortage of educated doctors, former employees of drug companies, and data from CDC etc that is used for the anti vax argument. To convince someone of a point, one needs to not start from the position the other person has any of these stereotype labels. You need to start from educating yourself of their opposing argument and realize it is supported by real data. Then the discussion becomes more appropriate around the validity of data, its interpretation etc.
- mikeash 12y ago
  I've never seen an anti-vax argument that was supported by real data. What I have seen are things like: 1. They cause autism. 2. They contain nasty, toxic chemicals. 3. They are unnecessary. 4. They are unsafe (in some unspecified way) and are just pushed for profit by big pharma. The only one that comes even close to being supported by data is #1, and that's completely fake data.
  - 13years 12y ago

click170 12y ago

People must always have a choice to vaccinate or not, forcing it upon them will do nobody any good because it will only increase the distrust of government. That said, if you don't vaccinate, you are a threat to the public and I do think you should be banned from public schools, public transportation, public gatherings and should have to explain to anyone you physically interact with that you are a risk to them and their family. We should be showing anti-vaxers the error of their ways using facts, debate, and the truth. Forcing it on them only increases their distrust and helps sway others to their side.

smeyer 12y ago
>forcing it upon them will do nobody any good I'm not saying it would be a net good or a net bad, but it would presumably save a number of lives. This might still be a net bad with the increased distrust and loss of choice and all that, but I don't think it's at all fair to say that "nobody" would benefit. For example, those with weakened immune systems who for some reason cannot be vaccinated would probably benefit greatly. Again, I'm not saying the answer is or isn't to force them, but it's not because nobody would benefit.
robert_tweed 12y ago
Who said anything about force? It's mainly a problem of education. What we're talking about is, for example, an emotive documentary about some sick kids who couldn't be vaccinated for genuine medical reasons, and should have been protected by the herd immunity that anti-vaccination is destroying. Maybe have them in the same ward as some sick, voluntarily unvaccinated kids for good measure, interspersed with various scientific explanations of how minor the risks of vaccination reactions are, and that there is no connection with autism especially. Science has to fight an uphill battle, because facts and statistics are cold, whereas a single story of "my kid got sick right after being vaccinated and what if that happened to your kid?" is emotive and provocative. A documentary telling the other side of the story in a way that most people can relate to it emotionally could have a huge impact. No need to make anything mandatory if people understand the balance of risks properly.
differentView 12y ago
>People must always have a choice to vaccinate or not, forcing it upon them will do nobody any good because it will only increase the distrust of government. >That said, if you don't vaccinate, you are a threat to the public and I do think you should be banned from public schools, public transportation, public gatherings and should have to explain to anyone you physically interact with that you are a risk to them and their family. Not following what you're proposing. You don't want people forced to be vaccinated, yet you want to forcibly confine them to their homes? What if they don't comply and get on a bus/subway/train/plane or go shop at a supermarket? Forcibly throw them in some special jail just for them?

13years 12y ago

But this logic can be extended to anything. As far as risk of death, the flu still tops all others for which there are vaccines. If someone has the flu, by this logic they are a risk to society. A personal choice to go out in public would be criminal. Got the flu, you need to be quarantined. And the greatest risk of spread of anything is personal hygiene. If you haven't washed your hands after each sneeze, then that might just be a crime. The consequences of just living are deadly. Everyone will die from something at some point, but when protecting society extends beyond what individuals can do to protect themselves you no longer have a free society.