Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Tiruin]

The issue is some Vaccines are only effective if used on Mass.

...?
Vaccines = effective when used...in mass?
I'm a bit confused there. Do you mean they're...not effective when given individually or something?

Just unpack the statistics and you will easily see through them.

I'm also confused as to the statistics. Statistics were derived or concluded from observation--what is to be discussed there?
Vaccines being the...direct cause of death or am I missing something?

[GavJ]

So you are if you fall short. Except overshooting has the added benefit that the whole dilemma for a particular disease stops existing from here on out, forever.

A wide range of vaccination levels would work to wipe out the disease forever, not only 100%. What we are waiting on is places like Africa to catch up, not the US getting from 90-100 or whatever.

And as I have agreed several times already, making sure that we don't dip into endemic disease rates is indeed an important, separate consideration that must also be constantly observed, in addition to any consideration about short term risk/benefit balancing.

But neither of those two considerations requires or implies a full 100% vaccination rate necessarily.

To put it in terms of propaganda: Even if a 100% vaccination rate is not the optimum (which is GavJ's point), we should still advocate a vaccination rate of 100% (which is, as far as I can see, the cause of everybody's discomfort with GavJ's post) to convince dumb people to vaccinate and get closer to the actual optimum.

Not necessarily. What if the optimum is something like 45%? It is very unlikely to be for measles in particular, but every disease would have different points, andfor some it might be plausible that it is much lower than current levels.

I would agree that practically, if the ideal is 85-90 or so, you could just advertise 100.  But that's not always necessarily the case or therefore the best strategy.

It's also possible to simply provide different levels of advertising. Have a pithy suggestion that says it is for people who dont have time to get into it, and then lengthier explanations for those who want them. *shrug* Just straight up lying to your citizens is not a very defensible position in almost any situation...

lease do note: the choice should be informed in the least.

I respect an informed choice too, but an actually informed choice is unfortunately impossible here, because the information you need for your informed choice is nonexistent.

Sorry if that's uncomfortable or annoying, but it's the way it is. Not everything in the world is capable of fully informed choices.

Could I ask why the tone of being against vaccination? o_O

I'm not against vaccination, go for it (I would probably partially or even fully vaccinate my own children too, I'm not sure). What I'm against is people being assholes to other people who choose not to vaccinate, when neither of them actually know they are any more right than the other.

[Tiruin]

Could I ask why the tone of being against vaccination? o_O

I'm not against vaccination, go for it (I would probably partially or even fully vaccinate my own children too, I'm not sure). What I'm against is people being assholes to other people who choose not to vaccinate, when neither of them actually know they are any more right than the other.

Make it more clear then! xD
People being...that, is more about those...people.
^{gah wording.}
Poke at their attitude, then show what's wrong and inform them of it (give a better alternative way of acting too).
Because replying >:I with I:< doesn't end well in most cases, despite the probability of the start being wrong.

lease do note: the choice should be informed in the least.

I respect an informed choice too, but an actually informed choice is unfortunately impossible here, because the information you need for your informed choice is nonexistent.

Information about what?

[GavJ]

Information about what?

The information we are missing is how often vaccines hurt or kill people. We basically have no idea whether it's anything in between 0% of the time all the way up to 1/10,000 or so. Could be almost anywhere in between there.

And depending on exactly where, it dramatically changes the right choice about vaccines.

Make it more clear then! xD

I bolded it in the OP! What more should I do?

Vaccinate if you want.
Don't vaccinate if you want.

Since my position is that nobody really knows what's best in our situation, neither of these is more right or wrong than the other, obviously, so just live and let live.  That is my call to action.

Maybe it's a little confusing because most people in this thread are NOT being assholes about vaccination? Because bay12 is cool, but this is an anomaly. In most other communities, people invariably call each other murderers for simply having don research and decided not to vaccinate their child against one out of 6 diseases or something on the schedule. That's the BS I'm reacting to with the thread.

[Tiruin]

Information about what?

The information we are missing is how often vaccines hurt or kill people. We basically have no idea whether it's anything in between 0% of the time all the way up to 1/10,000 or so. Could be almost anywhere in between there.

And depending on exactly where, it dramatically changes the right choice about vaccines.

...But that's a very general and vague start of information.
It's generalizing all vaccines, when the vaccines are particularly extremely different from each other. Dosage, time taken and others.

Maybe it's a little confusing because most people in this thread are NOT being assholes about vaccination? Because bay12 is cool, but this is an anomaly. In most other communities, people invariably call each other murderers for simply having don research and decided not to vaccinate their child against one out of 6 diseases or something on the schedule. That's the BS I'm reacting to with the thread.

Why should there be any reason [to be asses]?
Seems like those who call others out [murderers D:<] are misinformed, or lack information
Because if the case on vaccinations actually killing people occur, then there would be media coverage on it--especially in the medical community.

So far, I'm not seeing any of that controversial info actually taking hold.

[Darvi]

Thing is, there is no "let live". If you don't get vaccinated, it makes you into a potential vector for disease, which can get other people infected.

[Tiruin]

Thing is, there is no "let live". If you don't get vaccinated, it makes you into a potential vector for disease, which can get other people infected.

Also this
Your antibodies don't remember that cute little microbe.

[Graknorke]

It does seem rather selfish though to go, "Well, other people have been vaccinated, so why should I bother putting myself at whatever risk there is."
I can't exactly think of a more eloquent way to put it, so that'll have to do.

There's not a fair way to decide which whatever% of the population are going to be vaccinated, if it's as much more dangerous than beneficial than you seem to suspect it is.

[GavJ]

It does seem rather selfish though to go, "Well, other people have been vaccinated, so why should I bother putting myself at whatever risk there is."

No it's not a matter of selfishness. The SAME exact logic applies to societal benefit as well. Because society also benefits less and less with each new vaccinated person. And society also loses out if I get injured or killed from a vaccine.

The optimal vaccination rate would be different for the "selfish" perspective versus the "societal" perspective, but it's entirely possible that BOTH of them are still somewhere in between 0% and 100%, for the same reasons.

Please see section #5 of the OP.

Thing is, there is no "let live". If you don't get vaccinated, it makes you into a potential vector for disease, which can get other people infected.

Same thing as above.

Yes, you're more of a vector, but if the danger of that additional vector-ness is LESS than the danger to society of myself getting injured or killed by the vaccine (and thus missing work and relying on social welfare and blah blah), then it would be better for society to not vaccinate me.

You're just narrowly focusing on one side of a two sided equation, and you can't do that.

I mean, why not just have all citizens walk around in hazmat suits all day? It would reduce the risk of disease transfer!!!  And if you only look at the benefits side, it's a great idea. But if you properly look at both benefits AND costs, you realize it would bankrupt the nation and end up killing more people from economic depression and starvation than it would save from diseases.

[Neonivek]

No it's not a matter of selfishness. The SAME exact logic applies to societal benefit as well. Because society also benefits less and less with each new vaccinated person. And society also loses out if I get injured or killed from a vaccine

Only because there are enough people opting in.

While I think people who don't get vaccinated are over vilified. Vaccines, especially if you are seeking eradication, only work through majority effort.

A lot of the diseases we see only rarely is because of this.

Yes, you're more of a vector, but if the danger of that additional vector-ness is LESS than the danger to society of myself getting injured or killed by the vaccine (and thus missing work and relying on social welfare and blah blah), then it would be better for society to not vaccinate me.

Wrong math. You have to treat people getting vaccinated as a whole set rather then as a piece topping it off.

So you have to average it.

Since you could be any one of those people.

[Tiruin]

It does seem rather selfish though to go, "Well, other people have been vaccinated, so why should I bother putting myself at whatever risk there is."
I can't exactly think of a more eloquent way to put it, so that'll have to do.

Oh boy .-.
It would also be...inefficient to think that way.

There are other possible reservoirs (the term for usual area for the pathogenic microbe) OTHER than the 'common' human body where they may thrive.

It does seem rather selfish though to go, "Well, other people have been vaccinated, so why should I bother putting myself at whatever risk there is."

No it's not a matter of selfishness. The SAME exact logic applies to societal benefit as well. Because society also benefits less and less with each new vaccinated person. And society also loses out if I get injured or killed from a vaccine.

The optimal vaccination rate would be different for the "selfish" perspective versus the "societal" perspective, but it's entirely possible that BOTH of them are still somewhere in between 0% and 100%, for the same reasons.

Please see section #5 of the OP.

Emphasis on orange:

Thing is, there is no "let live". If you don't get vaccinated, it makes you into a potential vector for disease, which can get other people infected.

Same thing as above.

Yes, you're more of a vector, but if the danger of that additional vector-ness is LESS than the danger to society of myself getting injured or killed by the vaccine (and thus missing work and relying on social welfare and blah blah), then it would be better for society to not vaccinate me.

You're just narrowly focusing on one side of a two sided equation, and you can't do that.

I mean, why not just have all citizens walk around in hazmat suits all day? It would reduce the risk of disease transfer!!!  And if you only look at the benefits side, it's a great idea. But if you properly look at both benefits AND costs, you realize it would bankrupt the nation and end up killing more people from economic depression and starvation than it would save from diseases.

...Isn't that a huge generalization there?
I mean, yes, you have the choice not to be vaccinated...is this what we're discussing? There's something enforcing or limiting the ability to make an informed choice?

[Helgoland]

Orange part: Each new vaccination has less and less of an effect on society. He's not talking about more vaccinations making things worse.

[GavJ]

Only because there are enough people opting in.

Yes. I agree. Hence I keep repeatedly saying "optimal vaccination level" and being very clear that it's probably not 0%. I.e. there is some amount of people that should be vaccinated to be "enough."

Vaccines, especially if you are seeking eradication, only work through majority effort.

Depends on the disease. Some thing are very tenacious at hanging around endemically, like malaria. You need higher rates of coverage for those vaccines than you do for things that burn out really quickly or that are low enough in contagion that they need huge available populations to sustain themselves. I couldn't tell you whether "majority" is an actual data-supported cutoff for avoiding endemic patterns in all diseases or not. It might be. It might be only 40% or something for a couple of diseases *shrug*  That's just an empirical question.

It's certainly not 100% though for any disease, I know that.

Wrong math. You have to treat people getting vaccinated as a whole set rather then as a piece topping it off.

So you have to average it.

Since you could be any one of those people.

I'm not following you. We're talking about each specific person. The scenario is that right now, today, Sep 3rd 2014, you just had a child reach the age where it can be given a measles vaccine, for instance. And the government is trying to decide whether or not to vaccinate that child for the greater good (if that's how you want to calculate it).

For THAT child, the government has to weigh the balance of the likelihood of it getting sick itself and/or transferring sickness to others VERSUS the likelihood of a vaccine itself hurting or killing the child. Either way, it stands to lose a future worker from the workforce and a potential soldier from the draft, etc.

The government should make whichever choice minimizes the overall risk summed across BOTH of those two considerations, not only the disease risks alone, but also the vaccine risks.

And since the disease risks become lower and lower the more people are already vaccinated, at some point, the vaccine risks are going to outweigh them and change the decision that most benefits society. THAT is the point at which societal benefit hits an equilibrium point of risk vs. reward of vaccinating.

[GavJ]

Because society also benefits less and less with each new vaccinated person.

Emphasis on orange:

This is pretty straightforward.

Vaccines are like firewalls against vectors spreading disease.

Think about a literal fire wall: Which is going to be more important for stopping a fire spreading? Adding another row of firebricks onto a 3 foot high wall?  or adding another row of bricks onto an already 35 foot high wall?

The first people vaccinated add MUCH more protection each than the last people vaccinated.

[Neonivek]

That is why you average it.