Vaccines: Overwhelming Benefits, Few Risks

  • Thread starter BillTre
  • Start date
  • Featured
In summary, vaccines have been proven to provide overwhelming benefits in preventing and eradicating diseases, while posing minimal risks. They have played a crucial role in saving countless lives and improving overall public health. The efficacy and safety of vaccines have been extensively researched and monitored, making them a highly recommended and widely used form of disease prevention. Despite some rare and minor side effects, the benefits of vaccines far outweigh any potential risks. It is important for individuals to educate themselves on the facts and benefits of vaccines and make informed decisions for the well-being of themselves and their communities.
  • #141
BillTre said:
More data:
This NY Times article on the HPV (Herpes Papilliloma Virus) vaccine discusses a Lancet article involving studies in several countries. It shows the rates of infections, genital and anal warts, and precancerous lesions in young women and girls.
The decreases among the immunized varied between about 1/3 and 2/3 depending on the group of people and the result being looked at.
Herd immunity aspects are also discussed.
It's not worth a $500 guitar tho according @dr Courtney...

That was not a low blow, his religious/moral position means he/his family have practically zero risk.

I assume he would be in the vax camp on MMR
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #142
Hello everyone:smile:

It occurred to me that my Coonhound Gracie has the following:
Leptospirosis Annual Immunization
Bordetella Immunization
Rattlesnake Annual Immunization
Rabies 3 year Immunization
Distemper & Parvo 3 year immunization

Merlina my cat is pretty much in the house except when I walk her on leash in my outdoor garden. I also have a large indoor atrium in the house she plays in. She does get a small dose of shots every year but Gracie the hound has a lot more shots!:smile::wink:

I hope everyone has a great day. I have to walk the hound at the park.
 
  • Like
Likes Nik_2213
  • #143
  • Like
Likes russ_watters and BillTre
  • #144
BWV said:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-anti-vax-movement-is-now-infecting-cats-and-dogsGrazyna Medynski believes rabies vaccines are dangerous.

She cites her three pets as examples: Her cat Doeno has a twitch, her dog Max had a painful eruption, and her other dog Min is now afraid to go up and down stairs.

Well like my husband would say to Grazyna Medynski, " We trust our Veterinary Center. Our doctor there is the best of the best. :smile:
 
Last edited:
  • #145
BWV said:
Grazyna Medynski believes rabies vaccines are dangerous.

She cites her three pets as examples: Her cat Doeno has a twitch, her dog Max had a painful eruption, and her other dog Min is now afraid to go up and down stairs.
Fortunately, Mean and Median are doing ok.
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Likes DennisN, Bystander and BillTre
  • #146
Core Vaccines
Recommended or required by state law because they protect against prevalent, life-threatening or zoonotic diseases such as rabies.
•Parvovirus
•Distemper
•Adenovirus-2
•Rabies
Non-Core Vaccines
Optional, recommended according to an animal’s risk of exposure and lifestyle considerations.
•Parainfluenza virus
Bordetella (kennel cough)
Leptospira
•Lyme disease

Not Generally Recommended

Of limited benefit and may cause adverse events.
•Corona virus
Giardia
•Adenovirus-1
•Rattlesnake venom
Source: University of California, Davis, Center for Companion Animal Health, Fall 2006
 
  • Like
Likes BillTre
  • #147
For those interested, the Guardian today has an opinion piece written by an MSF doctor that personally witnessed the horrors of a measles outbreak.
 
  • Like
Likes Nik_2213 and pinball1970
  • #148
Orodruin said:
For those interested, the Guardian today has an opinion piece written by an MSF doctor that personally witnessed the horrors of a measles outbreak.
@Brian E should read this piece.
 
  • Like
Likes member 342489
  • #149
Orodruin said:
For those interested, the Guardian today has an opinion piece written by an MSF doctor that personally witnessed the horrors of a measles outbreak.
Good (?) one.

My favorite killing move is this cemetery from a legendary age. A bit hard to read the text on the table but worth the effort for making a fast statistics.
 
  • #150
A big part of the problem is that people nowadays are unaware of the effects and dangers of diseases such as measles. I have a personal story where I was talking to an anti-vaxer who was arguing to not vaccinate his child. His argument was that he had never heard of anybody among his family or friends that had died from measles so I went online and did some digging for references. Measles had been declared eradicated in his home country through vaccination programs a couple of years before his birth ...

Of course, this is the ultimate goal, but on a global level. Once a disease has been globally eradicated there is no point in vaccinating against it. Children today are not vaccinated against smallpox because the need simply is not there. The polio eradication initiative has a post-eradication plan that includes the cessation of polio vaccination.
 
  • Like
Likes OmCheeto
  • #151
  • Like
Likes pinball1970
  • #152
Orodruin said:
...
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.
 
  • Like
  • Sad
Likes jim mcnamara, sysprog and pinball1970
  • #153
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.
 
  • Like
  • Sad
Likes Nik_2213, pinball1970, sysprog and 1 other person
  • #154
That has got to be the worst. When you understand the benefits of vaccination, but cannot have them due to severe allergies
 
  • Like
Likes pinball1970, sysprog and bhobba
  • #155
...and with that you are at the mercy of the anti-vaxers (due herd immunity threshold).
 
  • Like
Likes Nik_2213, pinball1970, sysprog and 2 others
  • #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:
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes sysprog, bhobba, OmCheeto and 2 others
  • #157
Brian E said:
Thank you for the tip @pinball1970
Did you read it Brian?
 
  • #158
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.
 
  • Skeptical
  • Like
Likes pinball1970 and sysprog
  • #159
Brian E said:
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.

Brian E said:
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 realize that someone has been infected, they can already have infected several other people and so the measure would not stop the outbreak.

Brian E said:
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.
 
  • Like
Likes pinball1970, sysprog and phinds
  • #160
Brian E said:
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.
 
  • Like
Likes russ_watters
  • #161
Orodruin said:
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.
of interest:
https://www.economist.com/science-a.../08/progress-on-eradicating-polio-has-stalled

(I hope there's still 2 free online articles per month and not everything is behind a pay wall)
 
  • Like
Likes sysprog
  • #163
Dale said:
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
Brian E said:
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
Orodruin said:
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
Brian E said:
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
Orodruin said:
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. :-)
 
  • Like
Likes sysprog
  • #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:
 
  • Sad
  • Like
Likes Nik_2213, sysprog and Dale
  • #169
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.
 
  • Like
Likes Nik_2213
  • #170
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
Your right to swing your arm ends where my nose begins.
 
  • #172
oldexpat said:
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.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Likes russ_watters and BillTre
  • #173
brainpushups said:
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.
 
  • Like
Likes Bystander, russ_watters and BWV
  • #174
Lewis Goudy said:
>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
russ_watters said:
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.
 
Back
Top