4 ms·
Tell him that he has no right to make that choice for others, and while he may think he is only making that choice for his own family he is also choosing to put
by john_b 12y ago
Tell him that he has no right to make that choice for others, and while he may think he is only making that choice for his own family he is also choosing to put others at a greater risk. The braking analogy in this article is quite apt.
Prior to the measles vaccine, about 3-4 million people got measles every year. In such a world, a 0.1% mortality rate still leaves 3000-4000 people dead from an easily preventable disease. And this says nothing of the people who suffer from it but don't die. The economic costs from kids and parents getting sick and missing school and work would total in the hundreds of millions of dollars.
Even intelligent people can be narrow-minded. There is much more to a disease than its mortality rate.
- lisper 12y agoHe's fully aware of the impact his decision has on other people. Like I said, he's simply willing to accept a 0.1% child mortality rate as the price you have to pay for the benefit of natural immunity. A minority has to die so that the majority can have a better quality of life. It's a defensible position.
- DanBC 12y agoIt's a nonsensical position. People do not have "natural immunity" to measles. They develop an immunity after contact with live measles in the form of disease or dead measles in the form of a vaccine. The difference between the two is not just the greater risk of death from measles the disease, but also the risk of blindness. It's bad enough that he's not taking that risk himself, but foisting it on his children. And, worse, on the rest of society.
- lisper 12y ago> People do not have "natural immunity" to measles. Yes, we both know that. What he means by "natural immunity" is the immunity that you get by actually contracting the measles and surviving.
- GhotiFish 12y agoin regards to the person your responding to: It's not nonsensical at all. His friend is arguing that if we accept losses to disease then the following humans will be the more resilient ones. however, I thought I would mention a rather fatal flaw in this argument: There is no guarantee that humans that can survive diseases like the measles will be "stronger" than humans who can not. For example, Sickle cell anemia, a genetic disease, is an ADAPTION to survive malaria. It's an intentional sacrifice. Bacteria that adapt to anti-biotics arn't necessarily stronger than bacteria who did not adapt. Adapted bacteria make sacrifices to survive a hostile agent, they don't get it for free. So attempting to immunize humans by breeding them to be resistant/immune has no guarantee to make humans stronger. It's possible the change required could be entirely benign, or it could be catastrophic.