Anti the Anti-Vaxers

  • Thread starter BillTre
  • Start date
  • Featured
  • #151
38
6
Thank you for the tip @pinball1970
 
  • #152
OmCheeto
Gold Member
2,084
2,458
...
His argument was that he had never heard of anybody among his family or friends that had died from...
Reminds me of a post of mine from a few years back.

Trying to combine my thoughts from then, with this mornings mathematical ruminations, I see that we'll get back to the rates from 100 years ago, in almost exactly 15 years: July 11, 2034

246134


I'm guessing the death rates need to get "personal", as in, "not hear say", to get people to act, responsibly.
 
  • #153
109
53
My friend had an alergic reaction to a vaccine he had that put him in a bad way for a few days, doctor said it was a once in a million chance, he had been alergic to the shell of the altered virus which he had been injected with.

He still firmly believes in the merits of vaccination.
 
  • #154
28,567
4,870
That has got to be the worst. When you understand the benefits of vaccination, but cannot have them due to severe allergies
 
  • #155
1,447
780
...and with that you are at the mercy of the anti-vaxers (due herd immunity threshold).
 
  • #156
Vaccines help everyone — even the unvaccinated

Here’s why falling vaccination rates worry doctors, cancer patients and parents of young babies

by KATHIANN KOWALSKI

APR 4, 2019
https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/vaccines-help-everyone-even-unvaccinated
Very informative article. A must read!:smile:

I'm heading to the 2019 Alameda County Fair. Makes you wonder how many people there haven't been vaccinated. My next posting in a few days will be on another topic about the wonder of Sea Ranch. U.C. Berkeley has a wonderful source of information about the history of Sea Ranch. Have a super dupper July 4th! :partytime: Thanks Dale. I see you below me.
 
Last edited:
  • #157
pinball1970
Gold Member
621
582
  • #158
38
6
Yes I did read the article @pinball1970

Reading it, and others, have made me review my opinion, but I'm still struggeling, with how to deal with the forced vaccination.
The term forced always makes me think, then how to deal with denial.
I read, an opinion, where non-vaccinated, but un-infected people should be isolated from society, to secure herd-immunity. That is a very scary opinion, and sounds almost like some sci-fi movie.
I am from Europe. We could face even more migration, caused by climate change. Africa does not seem like the most vaccinated area of the world, is herd-immunity even possible with such a scenario?


PS: My current opinion ;-)

I am pro a government vaccination program, to try to eleminate the threat from some special infecteous, and dangerous deseases.

I am pro, that a doctors opinion should be heard, if you have doubts, and I now believe, that some moderate pressure from society, like a fine, is ok.

I am pro isolating sick people from society, until a doctor says ok for them to return.
 
  • #159
Orodruin
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Gold Member
2018 Award
16,179
6,108
Africa does not seem like the most vaccinated area of the world, is herd-immunity even possible with such a scenario?
This statement is quite prejudiced. Global vaccination programs reach many in Africa as well. How do you think diseases such as polio are fought? There is only one country left in Africa where polio is endemic, the Democratic republic of Congo.

I am pro isolating sick people from society, until a doctor says ok for them to return.
And as you have been told already, this does not work due to incubation times for highly contagious diseases such as measles. By the time you would realise that someone has been infected, they can already have infected several other people and so the measure would not stop the outbreak.

I am pro, that a doctors opinion should be heard, if you have doubts, and I now believe, that some moderate pressure from society, like a fine, is ok.
A fine does not stop the spread of the disease. A person without any medical counter indications that chooses not to get vaccinated is knowingly endangering fellow human beings. Would you allow people to carry around bombs that would randomly (even with a very small frequency) go off in crowded areas just because they have deeply convinced themselves that it is the right thing to do? Of course you would not, in many societies that would be criminal.
 
  • #160
28,567
4,870
I read, an opinion, where non-vaccinated, but un-infected people should be isolated from society, to secure herd-immunity. That is a very scary opinion
That was my opinion. Why is that scary? Quarantine would be entirely at their choice. If they do not enjoy being in quarantine at any time all they have to do is be vaccinated.

I do, of course, recognize that this is an untenable position. The better position is simply to make vaccination mandatory. However, in the event that someone insists on having the choice, then that is the choice that I think should be offered. It is the only choice that doesn’t deliberately put others at risk, particularly those medically unable to receive vaccinations.
 
  • #161
StoneTemplePython
Science Advisor
Gold Member
1,133
538
  • #162
Orodruin
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Gold Member
2018 Award
16,179
6,108
  • #163
38
6
That was my opinion. Why is that scary? Quarantine would be entirely at their choice. If they do not enjoy being in quarantine at any time all they have to do is be vaccinated.

I do, of course, recognize that this is an untenable position. The better position is simply to make vaccination mandatory. However, in the event that someone insists on having the choice, then that is the choice that I think should be offered.
Scary because I don't think it is realistic to convince all.
A lot of people still visits and moves to vaccinated countries.
The herd-immunity of 95% seems unrealistic within the modern structure of society, imo.
In a scenatio, with perhaps 10-15% of society, that denied taking the vaccine, then exatly how would you isolate those? I don't imagine them doing it voluntarily.
 
  • #164
Orodruin
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Gold Member
2018 Award
16,179
6,108
The herd-immunity of 95% seems unrealistic within the modern structure of society, imo.
And you are basing this on what information? This is not something that you can should have unsubstantiated opinion on. If everybody that are medically fit for the vaccine get the vaccine, herd immunity is not problematic to achieve.
 
  • #165
38
6
And you are basing this on what information? This is not something that you can should have unsubstantiated opinion on. If everybody that are medically fit for the vaccine get the vaccine, herd immunity is not problematic to achieve.

This is based on nothing more than everyday experiences.
Where I live, we have a lot of rules, and crime.
When people break the rules and commit crime, we try to catch them, but with very little luck.
A lot among the anti-vax movement are also active within the radical western political movements, where trust to governments are low or non-existing.
Like I said earlier, the potentially growing number of refugees, are also hard to control and to secure vaccinated.

but yeah, perhaps not very solid evidence,
 
  • #166
Orodruin
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Gold Member
2018 Award
16,179
6,108
Like I said earlier, the potentially growing number of refugees, are also hard to control and to secure vaccinated.
Why? Do you think vaccines do not exist in other countries? It is not difficult to secure vaccination.

80% of all the world's children are vaccinated against measles.

Granted, that is less than the 95% required for herd immunity, but the 20% are mainly in the absolutely hardest to reach areas.
 
  • #167
38
6
Why? Do you think vaccines do not exist in other countries? It is not difficult to secure vaccination.

80% of all the world's children are vaccinated against measles.

Granted, that is less than the 95% required for herd immunity, but the 20% are mainly in the absolutely hardest to reach areas.
I got confused with many inputs, some while I posted.

I did not know, that africa are so well vaccinated, happy to hear, that. :-)
 
  • #168
My father-in-law just passed away due to the flu. He was 92 years old. He had been taking a flu shot for many years. I'm so sad.😢 It's been a rough road. I've never had a flu shot in my life and I am over 60 years.

Hope to get back to Sea Ranch later as I mentioned. I love being around the sea. :smile:
 
  • #169
109
53
The flu is one of the fastest mutating virus out there. When flu vaccines are being made for the year ahead they have to guess which varients will be most prevailent that year a long time beforehand so they can be manufactured and distributed. It's hard to guess which ones to protect against.
 
  • #170
767
257
I'd an unhappy reputation at work for catching seasonal flu a couple of weeks before our free vaccination was due...
FWIW, I did get the 'decadal' pneumonia vaccination. Like the seasonal flu mix, it gives limited protection against the most aggressive strains. But, worst case, should a hospital calls 'Code Black', your vaccinated status provides valuable triage points. You're more likely to get treatment than those hapless anti-vaxxers on the gurneys in the corridor...
 
  • #171
oldexpat
Your right to swing your arm ends where my nose begins.
 
  • #172
Orodruin
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Gold Member
2018 Award
16,179
6,108
Your right to swing your arm ends where my nose begins.
Not if you otherwise threaten the well being of me or others. Such as if your nose has the potential to spread a deadly and highly contagious pathogen to unsuspecting fellow humans.
 
  • #173
On a rational level I completely agree with the standard approach to vaccination and I recognize that any adverse effects to vaccines have been historically limited.

I am conflicted about the personal liberty aspect of this and, while it may be true that 'most' 'anti-vaxxers' are 'fundamentalist' I think that things are more nuanced than this. First, I think 'anti-vaxxer' itself is an oversimplification and that there are well-educated folk who have good reason for questioning the standard vaccine protocols that might be labeled as this even though they are not against vaccines, but question the timing and safety of some vaccines based on the current CDC guidelines.

As I said above, I don't follow this stuff much and am not very knowledgeable about the details. However, my wife is a doctor (veterinarian) and she is. In her practice (which schedules 60 minute appointments so that is already unusual) she discusses the potential risks of vaccine protocols with clients and that is just for dogs and cats. So, my understanding is that there is some risk involved with vaccination based on genetics and other aspects of health. I think that risk associated with medical treatment should be communicated to patients and if certain factors put a person at high risk of complications I support the person's right to refuse treatment.
>there is some risk involved<
I think this is another example of a proxy domain in which the genesis of conflict is ideological disagreement about the nature of risk and how its management ought to addressed (and by whom). Here the radical fundamentalists are those who ignorantly suppose that we could live risk-free lives in a risk-free world were it not for Monsanto/the medical establishment/the nuclear cartel/capitalism/etc. ad infinitum and further suppose that mere identification of risk ought suffice to prompt expenditure to mitigate. To suggest that mitigation ought follow assessment brands you an ally of the vast boogie conspiracy of whatever their particular boogieman happens to be (vaccines, gmo crops, nuclear power, fluoridation, etc.) Believing you have an unfair advantage (ironically true enough, but rather than informed by fact and reason they assume you have been paid off by [insert applicable vested interest(s) here], they engage in a no-holds-barred war to capture opinion. The anti-nukes have developed rhetoric into a martial art, notably the "gish gallop"--relying on the fact that bunking is cheaper and faster than debunking they are often very effective in time-limited arenas like town hall meetings, spewing BS faster than it can be shoveled off the platform. Thus fear, uncertainty, and doubt recruit while understanding and equity recede.
 
  • #174
russ_watters
Mentor
19,028
5,187
>there is some risk involved<
I think this is another example of a proxy domain in which the genesis of conflict is ideological disagreement about the nature of risk and how its management ought to addressed (and by whom). Here the radical fundamentalists are those who ignorantly suppose that we could live risk-free lives in a risk-free world were it not for Monsanto/the medical establishment/the nuclear cartel/capitalism/etc. ad infinitum
I definirely agree, but if anything I think it's even more fundamental: people just don't understand and don't care to learn about or attempt to do risk analysis. Big/intense problems are a matter of emotions/feelings, to be dealt with in a way that feels good, not by analyzing the risk and finding the best solution.

That's the only way I can make any sense of in particular the anti-vax and anti-nuclear stances.

....let's try to keep the political stuff out of this, though and just focus on technical examples.
 
Last edited:
  • #175
I definitely agree, but if anything I think it's even more fundamental: people just don't understand and don't care to learn about or attempt to do risk analysis. Big/intense problems are a matter of emotions/feelings, to be dealt with in a way that feels good, not by analyzing the risk and finding the best solution.

That's the only way I can make any sense of in particular the anti-vax and anti-nuclear stances.

....let's try to keep the political stuff out of this, though and just focus on technical examples.
I am alive to the sense and purpose of your closing caveat, as well as to the fact that political stuff is at some level both technical and unavoidable. Just as justice delayed is justice denied, so procrastination and temporizing can serve to kick the can down the road long enough that somebody else gets to deal with it (surviving, perhaps thriving, as a species) because you get to die first. I'm not sure who remarked that science makes progress one funeral at a time, but I think that there is a duality here regarding progress in the moral domain. That said, I hear you and won't need a second admonishment.

Understanding risk is not easy. I took a course in ANOVA that used Henry Scheffé's text and remarked to a doctoral candidate in statistics that it was hard to read. He nodded and grimaced. "Scheffé's a b****h." Truth told, so is statistics. When given unlimited time, professionals score 100% on examinations testing mastery of counterintuitive results, but when time is constrained their performance decays to that of the man in the street and *they give the same wrong answers*. We appear to be hard-wired to misapprehend risk, and I suspect the mechanism of confirmation bias is related to this.
 

Related Threads for: Anti the Anti-Vaxers

  • Last Post
2
Replies
42
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
60
Views
9K
Replies
120
Views
7K
  • Last Post
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
53
Views
6K
Top