4 ms·

You could go Socratic method on him: You: "How does natural immunity work?" They: "You get really miserable and sick and...something something antibodies a

You could go Socratic method on him: You: "How does natural immunity work?" They: "You get really miserable and sick and...something something antibodies and maybe t-cells" You: "Oh, I see...and vaccines work differently?" They: "Well, vaccines are made of, uh, weakened or dead virus cells that induce the creation of, hmmm, antibodies...and maybe t-cells." You: "Those sound really similar" They: "Yes, but natural immunity is *stronger* and *more complete*." You: "It is?" Any whiff of patronizing in your voice will invalidate any progress you make. There will be no satisfying payoff for you on this - they will never outright admit that you've convinced them. You're just planting the seed of 'Oh crap, this doesn't really make sense'. > Not all anti-vaxers are stupid or ignorant Maybe not stupid, but ignorant...'liking the odds' of not vaccinating is the same as 'not knowing statistical methods'.

hga 12y ago
Actually, it depends on the vaccine, and even killed virus strains aren't going to present all the antigens that a "healthy" or attenuated vaccine virus does. We're already noting that the acellular pertussis (whooping cough) vaccine doesn't do as good a job as the old "witch's brew" variety. Wikipedia right now says: Acellular pertussis vaccine (aP) with three or more antigens prevents around 85% of typical whooping cough cases in children. It has higher or similar efficacy to the previously-used whole cell pertussis vaccine, however the efficacy of the acellular vaccine declines faster. That said, this posture is still an example of amoral familism, and should be dealt with as such, e.g. exile.
lisper 12y ago
I assure you this person is not ignorant, and he understands statistics and how vaccines works. He really is just choosing a different risk posture than most people do.
- michael_h 12y ago
  > He really is just choosing a different risk posture than most people do. 'different' being 'higher', sure. He doesn't understand statistics. Take measles: If you happen to contract measles, you have about 0.001% chance of getting measles encephalitis which can kill you in a day or so. Extreme situation for sure, but the game then becomes reducing the total number of people roaming around with any form of measles. When you look a graph of the number of measles cases over time, you can easily see when the measles vaccine was introduced (just by eyeballing it). The vaccine unequivocally works effectively. Severe risks associated with the vaccine? About 0.000001%, which is low enough that it is probably not the fault of the vaccine. Result: statistics decimates arguments against the measles vaccine. The only reason he can even make a quantum of a argument is because the population at large has gotten the vaccine and so his selfishness is not as noticeable.
  - lisper 12y ago
    > He doesn't understand statistics I assure you he does understand the statistics. He just doesn't think that have one in a thousand children die of encephalitis is too high a price to pay for the "benefits of naturally acquired immunity".
    - michael_h 12y ago
      I don't know why I'm being so aggro about this, sorry. Lack of sleep plus having an infant that cannot yet get the vaccine, I suspect.

hga 12y ago

Actually, it depends on the vaccine, and even killed virus strains aren't going to present all the antigens that a "healthy" or attenuated vaccine virus does. We're already noting that the acellular pertussis (whooping cough) vaccine doesn't do as good a job as the old "witch's brew" variety. Wikipedia right now says: Acellular pertussis vaccine (aP) with three or more antigens prevents around 85% of typical whooping cough cases in children. It has higher or similar efficacy to the previously-used whole cell pertussis vaccine, however the efficacy of the acellular vaccine declines faster. That said, this posture is still an example of amoral familism, and should be dealt with as such, e.g. exile.

lisper 12y ago

I assure you this person is not ignorant, and he understands statistics and how vaccines works. He really is just choosing a different risk posture than most people do.

michael_h 12y ago
> He really is just choosing a different risk posture than most people do. 'different' being 'higher', sure. He doesn't understand statistics. Take measles: If you happen to contract measles, you have about 0.001% chance of getting measles encephalitis which can kill you in a day or so. Extreme situation for sure, but the game then becomes reducing the total number of people roaming around with any form of measles. When you look a graph of the number of measles cases over time, you can easily see when the measles vaccine was introduced (just by eyeballing it). The vaccine unequivocally works effectively. Severe risks associated with the vaccine? About 0.000001%, which is low enough that it is probably not the fault of the vaccine. Result: statistics decimates arguments against the measles vaccine. The only reason he can even make a quantum of a argument is because the population at large has gotten the vaccine and so his selfishness is not as noticeable.
- lisper 12y ago
  > He doesn't understand statistics I assure you he does understand the statistics. He just doesn't think that have one in a thousand children die of encephalitis is too high a price to pay for the "benefits of naturally acquired immunity".
  - michael_h 12y ago
    I don't know why I'm being so aggro about this, sorry. Lack of sleep plus having an infant that cannot yet get the vaccine, I suspect.