Vaccines: Overwhelming Benefits, Few Risks

[pinball1970]

If a person who is knowingly infected by a potentially deadly disease, wouldn't this person be accused of murder in case someone dies because of it, or assault in case of simply infecting others?

I'm with you and @phinds on this one. If they made it a law that children MUST have shots then I would be happy with that. If that is a step too far then parents who opt out cannot use schools, hospitals, libraries or any public place. The needs of the many out way few (or something like that)
I can forgive stupidity, creationists, Theists, even flat earthers and moon landing deniers but anti vaxers potentially kill people.

 

[fresh_42]

I can forgive stupidity, creationists, Theists, even flat earthers and moon landing deniers but anti vaxers potentially kill people.

When it's time, my doctor reminds me to get the refreshing polio, or tetanus shots. I cannot understand by any means that anyone would reject this and actually risk to catch these diseases! I have had measles as a child. I would have traded this for a lifetime vaccination at any time! And as an adult I asked for the rest of MMR. It is not fun we are talking about. Plus outside the US, one can always argue with the fact that the community covers the costs of illness, so it is plausible, that the same community demands precaution.

 

[sysprog]

I too support a person's right to refuse treatment, but I absolutely DO NOT support their having any right to, for example, send unvaccinated kids to school (or any public gathering) where they can infect others if they do catch something.

This seems to say that you're against forced vaccination.

As regards vaccinations, it is completely unacceptable. If it's OK for one person to do that then it's OK for everyone to do that and we'd have an epidemic.

If someone says he's fine with home-schooling his kids, and with keeping them away from public gatherings, instead of vaccinating them, do you support his right to refuse to allow the kids to be vaccinated?

 

[phinds]

This seems to say that you're against forced vaccination.

I am.

If someone says he's fine with home-schooling his kids, and keeping them away from public gatherings, instead of vaccinating them, do you support his right to refuse to allow the kids to be vaccinated?

Yes

 

[fresh_42]

If someone says he's fine with home-schooling his kids, and with keeping them away from public gatherings, instead of vaccinating them, do you support his right to refuse to allow the kids to be vaccinated?

This is in my opinion child abuse.

 

[phinds]

This is in my opinion child abuse.

Well, see, that's a slipper slope. Personally, I think that things like bringing up a child to believe in creationism instead of reality is mental child abuse, but I don't want the government telling people that they can't do that.

 

[pinball1970]

When it's time, my doctor reminds me to get the refreshing polio, or tetanus shots. I cannot understand by any means that anyone would reject this and actually risk to catch these diseases! I have had measles as a child. I would have traded this for a lifetime vaccination at any time! And as an adult I asked for the rest of MMR. It is not fun we are talking about. Plus outside the US, one can always argue with the fact that the community covers the costs of illness, so it is plausible, that the same community demands precaution.

This is

Well, see, that's a slipper slope. Personally, I think that things like bringing up a child to believe in creationism instead of reality is mental child abuse, but I don't want the government telling people that they can't do that.

Kids being deluded by parents does not hurt anyone else agreed.

 

[sysprog]

This is in my opinion child abuse.

Do you think that all medical-professional-consensus-recommended vaccination should be mandatory for all persons deemed to be susceptible to carrying or transfecting the illness being vaccinated against?

 

[fresh_42]

Do you think that all medical-professional-consensus-recommended vaccination should be mandatory for all persons deemed to be susceptible to carrying or transfecting the illness being vaccinated against?

To a reasonable extent. There are good reasons nurses are vaccinated against Hep A. There are reasons, people traveling to tropic regions get extra vaccination, and they are sometimes demanded to do so by the countries they travel to, but usually act by their free will. So depending on where you live, the lists might vary. But smallpox, polio, tetanus and MMR should be on the list around the globe. Malaria is a more complicated issue.

If you willingly take your child at an unnecessary risk, then it is abuse. It is in the same category as throwing your child into the pool knowing it cannot swim. Maybe it learns it this way. Natural immunization so to say.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

Well, see, that's a slipper slope. Personally, I think that things like bringing up a child to believe in creationism instead of reality is mental child abuse, but I don't want the government telling people that they can't do that.

My wife and I raised our three children to believe in Biblical creation ("not creation science" but a literal and historical six day creation). They all scored perfect or near perfect scores on the science portion of the ACT, they all won first place in the state science fair (some multiple times), they all were first authors on peer-reviewed scientific papers before graduating from high school, they are all attending a well-respected university on full tuition scholarships, they are all majoring in science, and they are all active in research with supervisors who greatly appreciate their abilities and accomplishments. I expect that they'll all attend grad school in some science or health-related field. I'm not really sure where the "mental child abuse" happened. Colleges were competing for them, and now they have research groups competing for them.

As far as vaccinations go, our family had practiced getting all the required vaccines according to the schedule. But we believe in informed consent and actually reading the package inserts to understand the risks and benefits. I just got my tetanus update earlier this month. But we also politely refuse some vaccines when informed consent leads us to believe that the risks outweigh the benefits for specific circumstances and individuals.

 

[pinball1970]

My wife and I raised our three children to believe in Biblical creation ("not creation science" but a literal and historical six day creation). They all scored perfect or near perfect scores on the science portion of the ACT, they all won first place in the state science fair (some multiple times), they all were first authors on peer-reviewed scientific papers before graduating from high school, they are all attending a well-respected university on full tuition scholarships, they are all majoring in science, and they are all active in research with supervisors who greatly appreciate their abilities and accomplishments. I expect that they'll all attend grad school in some science or health-related field. I'm not really sure where the "mental child abuse" happened. Colleges were competing for them, and now they have research groups competing for them.

As far as vaccinations go, our family had practiced getting all the required vaccines according to the schedule. But we believe in informed consent and actually reading the package inserts to understand the risks and benefits. I just got my tetanus update earlier this month. But we also politely refuse some vaccines when informed consent leads us to believe that the risks outweigh the benefits for specific circumstances and individuals.

Which? HPV? I recall another thread.edit -in terms of vaccines you would reject.
Your kids are either very smart or have had an excellent education at home and school.
I suspect all three.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

Which? HPV? I recall another thread.
Your kids are either very smart or have had an excellent education at home and school.
I suspect all three.

Different family members have politely refused a number of vaccinations at different times, based on assessing the risks (and costs) and benefits. HPV is an illustrative example that family members have given each other permission to use in discussions, because we have _ALL_ refused it, and it is a disease where the risk can be reduced to zero (or very nearly zero) by behavioral choices. I won't list all the others, but another example is my refusal to get the flu vaccines some years. In years when I'm in the classroom and have lots of student contact, the flu vaccine is a no brainer. There are other years when a combination of very low exposure risks, my assessment of marginal effectiveness that year, the label risks, the extra trip to a care facility, and other factors lead me to skip it.

Our children are smart, and have had an excellent education both home schooled for high school and in college so far. My point is that they serve as suitable counter-examples to the notion that somehow parents teaching children creation is some kind of child abuse. Parents failing to make their children accountable for homework and school assignments IS child neglect, and this neglect is having far more reaching and damaging effects on society than the minority of parents who happen to teach creation. A dear friend (and fellow physics teacher) is a devout Christian who taught all 9 of his children Biblical creation. All have graduated from college - four sons with engineering degrees and five daughters with degrees in nursing and elementary ed. The failure of science education is a failure of parenting and accountability, but it cannot be blamed on a small minority who happens to teach something different from the mainstream that accounts for less than 10% of the most high school science curricula.

 

[pinball1970]

The failure of science education is a failure of parenting and accountability, but it cannot be blamed on a small minority who happens to teach something different from the mainstream that accounts for less than 10% of the most high school science curricula.

So you assess by a case by case?
Is there a downside to receiving the HPV vaccine?

 

[Vanadium 50]

they should not be allowed to risk infection to others.

Do you believe that people with communicable diseases - a cold, the flu, measles, AIDS, should be quarantined (if voluntary) or incarcerated (if otherwise)? If not, you might need to pedal this back a bit.

There is this idea throughout this thread that anti-vaxers are acting irrationally. This is not necessarily so. There is a probability p1 of getting the disease with harm h1 without vaccination, and a probability p2 of getting it with. There is a probability q of getting a side-effect with harm h2. If (p1 - p2) h1 < q h_2 it is rational for a person to refuse vaccination.

If one wants to argue that p1 is a lot smaller than it would be if nobody got vaccinated, that's fine, but it is a different argument. That's arguing that anti-vaxers are freeloaders, not that they are irrational.

Game theory tells us what will happen with rational actors. p1 will rise until

p_1 = q\frac{h_2}{h_1} + p_2

If we want to make p1 large, we need to change h1, h2 and/or p. Many of the things one could do have ethical issues. For example, one could increase h_1 by saying "if you are unvaccinated against, say measles, and you contract measles, there is to be no medical treatment. If you die, so be it." That might be effective, and it might even be effective in reducing total fatalities, but probably most of us would have problems with this. But there are alternatives which people might find more palatable, e.g. fines or taxes. But one needs to approach this from the point of freeloading.

 

[pinball1970]

Do you believe that people with communicable diseases - a cold, the flu, measles, AIDS, should be quarantined (if voluntary) or incarcerated (if otherwise)? If not, you might need to pedal this back a bit.

There is this idea throughout this thread that anti-vaxers are acting irrationally. This is not necessarily so. There is a probability p1 of getting the disease with harm h1 without vaccination, and a probability p2 of getting it with. There is a probability q of getting a side-effect with harm h2. If (p1 - p2) h1 < q h_2 it is rational for a person to refuse vaccination.

If one wants to argue that p1 is a lot smaller than it would be if nobody got vaccinated, that's fine, but it is a different argument. That's arguing that anti-vaxers are freeloaders, not that they are irrational.

Game theory tells us what will happen with rational actors. p1 will rise until

p_1 = q\frac{h_2}{h_1} + p_2

If we want to make p1 large, we need to change h1, h2 and/or p. Many of the things one could do have ethical issues. For example, one could increase h_1 by saying "if you are unvaccinated against, say measles, and you contract measles, there is to be no medical treatment. If you die, so be it." That might be effective, and it might even be effective in reducing total fatalities, but probably most of us would have problems with this. But there are alternatives which people might find more palatable, e.g. fines or taxes. But one needs to approach this from the point of freeloading.

Different scenario, this is an opportunity with a low risk to the child to get very sick.
Certain diseases do result in quarenteen.
It makes sense

 

[member 342489]

I am not anti vaccination in general, and my perspective is not conspiracy related,
I know of several people among my relationships, that have had very bad experiences with this vaccine.
Most people are aware, that vaccines can make people sick, and accepts that.
But when someones kid, get high fever for 8 - 10 days, and even doctors gets worried, you become scared.
I would find it very, very unfair, to force these parents to take the next step of the vaccination proces.

 

[pinball1970]

I am not anti vaccination in general, and my perspective is not conspiracy related,
I know of several people among my relationships, that have had very bad experiences with this vaccine.
Most people are aware, that vaccines can make people sick, and accepts that.
But when someones kid, get high fever for 8 - 10 days, and even doctors gets worried, you become scared.
I would find it very, very unfair, to force these parents to take the next step of the vaccination proces.

Which vaccine?

 

[member 342489]

Which vaccine?

The MMR

 

[fresh_42]

Yes, the risk with single ones instead seems to be lower. However, it is still the exception and not the normal, and most of all, it is the reason the others should get vaccinated.

 

[DennisN]

I just visited the "Vaccine hesitancy" article on Wikipedia (because I was researching for a new joke in the PF science jokes thread ), and I stumbled upon the very interesting information that WHO has listed "vaccine hesitancy" as one of the ten top threats to global health in 2019:
http://www.who.int/emergencies/ten-threats-to-global-health-in-2019

 

[brainpushups]

As far as vaccinations go, our family had practiced getting all the required vaccines according to the schedule. But we believe in informed consent and actually reading the package inserts to understand the risks and benefits. I just got my tetanus update earlier this month. But we also politely refuse some vaccines when informed consent leads us to believe that the risks outweigh the benefits for specific circumstances and individuals.

This is the ideal thing to do. I heard that there is a bill being drafted in my state that would require informed consent for vaccines and doctors who did not obtain it would be guilty of malpractice.

Don't we want people to THINK? Wouldn't it be best if doctors spent the time with patients to say that "X has these benefits and these risks and the risks are higher when conditions ... are present" rather then following some protocol which may have heightened risk for some of their patients without explaining or perhaps even knowing about it? Did you read the NPR article linked in my post #15? Do you see how the repercussions of informed consent may actually help increase vaccination rates? As explained in the article, 100,000 children were given a vaccine when they should not have been. Yes, only 10 or so charges of wrongful death are pending, but it caused a huge drop in getting vaccines for measles and then there was an outbreak. Had the risk been communicated the deaths may not have occurred and the measles outbreak may have also not occurred.

 

[sysprog]

So you assess by a case by case?
Is there a downside to receiving the HPV vaccine?

In my opinion, there's not much downside regarding the vaccine that's been reliably reported, but there is a downside regarding HPV that's uncommon among dangerous virii (viruses). Almost all males are asymptomatic compared to females, due mainly to the differences between boy parts and girl parts (inguinally proximate apparatuses). The vaccine can help to immunize females. It does nothing to stop us males from transmitting the virus, unless we (males) take it prophylactically in advance of exposure and infection so that we're never hosts to a colony. If I'm already infected, the vaccine won't change that. So far, we don't have a reliable test for males, and people aren't even advised about the possibility of an asymptomatic male unknowingly transfecting a to-her-fatal strain of the virus to an intimate-with-him female. We need such a test. Given that we don't have such a test, we should inoculate everyone who might couple with anyone, and to wipe out the disease as well as or better than we did with polio and smallpox, we should do that anyway, test for men or not. As things stand now, a man could think he doesn't have any STDs, and still give the virus to the love of his life on their first honeymoon night. That shirt don't fit. It ain't right.

 

[sysprog]

To a reasonable extent. There are good reasons nurses are vaccinated against Hep A. There are reasons, people traveling to tropic regions get extra vaccination, and they are sometimes demanded to do so by the countries they travel to, but usually act by their free will. So depending on where you live, the lists might vary. But smallpox, polio, tetanus and MMR should be on the list around the globe. Malaria is a more complicated issue.

So far I agree.

If you willingly take your child at an unnecessary risk, then it is abuse.

That's in my view an overly stringent standard. Many reasonable risks are unnecessary. Letting a kid go outside is a risk that often doesn't qualify as necessary.

It is in the same category as throwing your child into the pool knowing it cannot swim. Maybe it learns it this way. Natural immunization so to say.

That seems to me to be an exaggeration. I can understand your pique at the anti-vaccination advocates. Anecdotally, I can also say that I sympathize with a friend of mine who is a Mom, who says that her (now 12-year-old) daughter invariably becomes almost hospitalizably febrile (e.g. 103 degrees F) for days after any vaccination.

 

[fresh_42]

That seems to me to be an exaggeration.

Yes, it was meant to be. However, as I thought about it, it is exactly what those parents do. They throw their unprotected kids in the pool of viruses out in the wild. Or do you think they would never ride the NYC subway, attend a football match or festival, refuse people to shake hands and so on and so on. They are literally out there in the pool. It is a matter of luck, if they stay healthy.

 

[Dale]

I can understand the toxic message that there is something or someone to blame for a child’s disability, but its a lie and a great disservice to autistic people,

My nephew too. The lie is not just a disservice to the autistic child but also to the parents. My sister understands in her mind that it is a lie, but in her heart it feels like an accusation: “you did this to your own child”

 

[fresh_42]

My nephew too. The lie is not just a disservice to the autistic child but also to the parents. My sister understands in her mind that it is a lie, but in her heart it feels like an accusation: “you did this to your own child”

The example par excellence what a faked study can cause! And once in the world ...

 

[Dr. Courtney]

I tend to see the vaccination issue as a symptom of the loss of trust many have for the medical profession as a result of the tendency to over-prescribe various classes of medications - pain relievers, mood medications, various prevention-oriented medications, etc.

After blood tests, my own physician has prescribed a couple of meds without even discussing them with me - Metformin for a pre-diabetic diagnosis and Lipitor (or the generic equivalent) for cholesterol. There was no discussion of whether the goals could be met (reduction of risks) with lifestyle changes, just called in the prescriptions to my pharmacist. I reviewed the test results carefully with other medical advisers and we determined that lifestyle changes had a better chance of reducing my risks (for diabetes and heart disease) than the medications. So far, subsequent tests have supported my hesitancy to accept additional medications. Why not both? Cost and risk. Also, I recognize my own propensity to possibly eat less carefully and exercise less if a pill is supposed to solve the problem. I know a lot of overweight guys in horrible health on Lipitor and Metformin who "eat whatever they want" because they trust their medications too much.

Is there a downside to receiving the HPV vaccine?

Other than the $500ish out of pocket costs (for me) and three trips to the doctor in a six month period, there are a laundry list of things described on the Gardasil label. The risks are not very great for me at all, but one could say the same thing about Metformin and Lipitor. But in a generation of medicine where there is a tendency to overprescribe medications, I'm inclined to withhold my informed consent for lots of "just in case" drugs for abstract possibilities whose risks can be mitigated with other means. I skip the flu shot most years, but I also wash my hands more than anyone I know. Those hand washings prevent lots of bugs that the flu shot doesn't. I asked my wife what she thought about me getting the HPV vaccine. She asked me which guitar I was going to sell to pay for it.

I just visited the "Vaccine hesitancy" article on Wikipedia (because I was researching for a new joke in the PF science jokes thread ), and I stumbled upon the very interesting information that WHO has listed "vaccine hesitancy" as one of the ten top threats to global health in 2019:
http://www.who.int/emergencies/ten-threats-to-global-health-in-2019

I think you could probably classify me as having a "medication hesitancy." Unless something is imminently life threatening, I'm going to read the labels and get a second opinion. Efforts to discourage label reading and getting a second opinion en route to fully informing consent regarding vaccinations are foolish and unfounded. Vaccines should not be treated differently from other prescription drugs.

If I accepted every medication the first time some doctor was willing to prescribe it, I'd have an awful lot of drug interactions to keep up with, very costly bills for prescription meds, and a bathroom counter full of pill bottles. No thanks.

 

[bobob]

I think you could probably classify me as having a "medication hesitancy." Unless something is imminently life threatening, I'm going to read the labels and get a second opinion. Efforts to discourage label reading and getting a second opinion en route to fully informing consent regarding vaccinations are foolish and unfounded. Vaccines should not be treated differently from other prescription drugs.

I disagree. A person who is unvaccinated and acquires measles or whatever, places those people with compromised immune systems at risk of dying should they pass along the infection. My parents are 89 and 90 and I don't think they should have to worry about catching some disease that could easily be eradicated by a vaccine. Although my parents have some immunity from being vaccinated, at that age, their immune systems may not provide them enough resistance to these easily preventable diseases. Allowing people to opt out of vaccination for trivial reasons, like they just don't want to do it, is giving them a license to walk around, infect and potentially kill people, or in a case like measles, also cause birth defects.

You are free to not take medicines for which you are the only person who will suffer the consequences, but that is not the case with vaccinations.

 

[sysprog]

Yes, it was meant to be. However, as I thought about it, it is exactly what those parents do. They throw their unprotected kids in the pool of viruses out in the wild. Or do you think they would never ride the NYC subway, attend a football match or festival, refuse people to shake hands and so on and so on. They are literally out there in the pool. It is a matter of luck, if they stay healthy.

I think the analogy is faulty, at least in that realistically the risk of throwing a non-swimmer kid into a pool is mainly that he might drown, and does not include much likelihood that the other kids in the pool will because of the risky action drown too.

I also think that the likelihood of drowning for a non-swimmer kid thrown into a pool and left to fend for himself unaided, is much greater than the likelihood of a kid not vaccinated with this year's vaccine for this year's non-epidemic illness getting sick and dying due to not having been vaccinated.

I'm not trying to join the anti-vaccination advocates, but I do think that think we vaccination advocates should try to keep ourselves immune to realistic possibilities of reasonably sustainable accusations of having overstated our case (or cases) versus that (or those) of the anti-vaccination advocates.

 

[Bandersnatch]

Efforts to discourage label reading and getting a second opinion en route to fully informing consent regarding vaccinations are foolish and unfounded. Vaccines should not be treated differently from other prescription drugs.

On the face of it, this sounds great, as I think most would respond positivelly if asked whether people should think for themselves instead of blindly doing what they're told (especially if framed in terms of individual freedom vs oppressive government).
But then again, 'read the inserts' is one of the rallying cries of the pro-epidemic movements all around the world. After all, e.g. the CDC VIS for MMR lists among risks of the vaccine: deafness, coma, brain damage, and death. That sound much more dangerous than having your child sick for a week or two and acquire natural-immunity in the process (using their narrative).
Turns out not everyone thinking for themselves will be able to properly evaluate the information they encounter and come to valid conclusions. This is true of all of us, as it's become impossible to be sufficiently informed on everything in this day and age, especially as the modern society is still struggling to come to terms with the influx of readily available but not curated information, fake news, information bubbles, etc.
So even though your approach has undeniably good intent behind it, the practialicty of its implementation is that rates of vaccinations against dangerous pathogens go down.