Vaccines: Overwhelming Benefits, Few Risks

[Dale]

I do not claim, that the vaccine, kills more people than it protects, only that the vaccine causes death.

This is true but completely vacuous. The same could be said for the majority of everyday decisions that are necessary for survival.

I do not claim that eating food kills more people than it helps only that eating food causes death.

Getting out of bed, eating, drinking, walking, driving, exercise, etc., all can be fatal. Considering only the risk is not how any decision is made. Decisions are always made considering risk vs benefit.

 

[Dale]

Because the vaccine also can be harmful, I want people to be able to choose.

Food can also be harmful, but we do not allow parents to choose not to feed their children. Again, this is not a rational basis for decision making. A risk is always considered compared to the benefit. This is simply how decisions are actually made (at least by sane people).

Every time you suggest this line of reasoning you are being disingenuous. You are claiming a decision-making process that you do not actually use for the decisions in your life.

If someone were to actually make decisions on this basis they would be completely non-functional. They would be hospitalized and all decision-making power would be removed from them. This is simply not a rational stance.

Rather than articulating a literally insane criterion, you should simply acknowledge that your personal experience leads you to have a substantially higher estimate of the risks than most people do. Argue for your elevated estimate of the risk compared to the benefit. But do not assert that it is valid to consider risks in isolation.

 

[russ_watters]

This report shows, that MMR can cause death, perhaps not many but still someones kid. This some one will not be happy about the descision to vaccinate

That line of reasoning is reasonable, but only if you complete it. In order to do that, you need to find out what the odds of death or serious illness are with and without the vaccine. Only then can "can cause death" be a useful thing to say instead of being a completely meaningless thing to say.

There are people who argue that wearing a seatbelt in a car is a bad thing because if your car catches fire it may trap you and kll you. This is true, but so what? It's meaningless to say it unless you have the actual statistics on how many people are saved by seatbelts vs killed by seatbelts.

But even then you may lose:

Because the vaccine also can be harmful, I want people to be able to choose.

Even in free societies, governments sometimes make laws to protect the masses from themselves or from individuals. Even though you may not be able to clearly define the problem with vaccines, you should be able to look at a graph of measles (or other disease) deaths per year and see the clear societal benefit. Even in a free society governments can mandate action based on major societal benefit, even if the individulas don't see/believe it (whether they are right or wrong almost doesn't even matter).

 

[member 342489]

This is true but completely vacuous. The same could be said for the majority of everyday decisions that are necessary for survival.

I do not claim that eating food kills more people than it helps only that eating food causes death.

Getting out of bed, eating, drinking, walking, driving, exercise, etc., all can be fatal. Considering only the risk is not how any decision is made. Decisions are always made considering risk vs benefit.

Yes but I choose those you mention.
The only thing I am in this debate, is to arguee pro free choice.

Food can also be harmful, but we do not allow parents to choose not to feed their children. Again, this is not a rational basis for decision making. A risk is always considered compared to the benefit. This is simply how decisions are actually made (at least by sane people).

Every time you suggest this line of reasoning you are being disingenuous. You are claiming a decision-making process that you do not actually use for the decisions in your life.
If someone were to actually make decisions on this basis they would be completely non-functional. They would be hospitalized and all decision-making power would be removed from them. This is simply not a rational stance.
Rather than articulating a literally insane criterion, you should simply acknowledge that your personal experience leads you to have a substantially higher estimate of the risks than most people do. Argue for your elevated estimate of the risk compared to the benefit. But do not assert that it is valid to consider risks in isolation.

If my kid gets sick from milk, I stop giving him/her milk, that's my desicion.

Here in Denmark, people that deny taking the MMR vaccine and others, are urged to get their kids infected as early as possible.
I have heard of networks, where people that denies the vaccine, contacts other parents when their kids get sick. These networks are beeing recommended from the nurse at schools, as a legimate option to vaccine.

What I have describe previously, are a limited number of cases I know about, where kids have become very high fever (40 degress ) for more than a week and in two cases have been hospitalized.

 

[Rive]

Here in Denmark, people that deny taking the MMR vaccine and others, are urged to get their kids infected as early as possible.

In short: the basis of this discussion here are some parents who are choosing risks >10000 times higher than the necessary for their child, and you are expecting this to be taken seriously as some kind of argument.

 

[pinball1970]

Yes but I choose those you mention.
The only thing I am in this debate, is to arguee pro free choice.
If my kid gets sick from milk, I stop giving him/her milk, that's my desicion.

Here in Denmark, people that deny taking the MMR vaccine and others, are urged to get their kids infected as early as possible.
I have heard of networks, where people that denies the vaccine, contacts other parents when their kids get sick. These networks are beeing recommended from the nurse at schools, as a legimate option to vaccine.

What I have describe previously, are a limited number of cases I know about, where kids have become very high fever (40 degress ) for more than a week and in two cases have been hospitalized.

As the others have pointed out this is about numbers. Those numbers illustrate why taking your kid to a measles party instead of choosing to give the vaccine is crazy. Deliberately making your child sick instead of offering protection from three diseases can be and has been described as child abuse.
http://vk.ovg.ox.ac.uk/mmr-vaccineLook at the numbers, you don't have to be a statistician or Dr to make the right choice.
(Edit) This is the correct choice for your individual child but the population also relies on this choice. This is how diseases are eradicated.

 

[Orodruin]

Are you saying, that I am to unintelligent tohave an opinion.?
Are you saying that I am not enough educated to have an opinion.?

No. I am saying your opinion is never going to matter as much of that as someone who has spent decades on dedicating their professional lives to understanding and adding to the wealth of research that is available. If you ask the other passengers in the plane who they want to land it, they will pick the pilot. Sure, it may be a man who wants to hurt them (it has unfortunately happened in recent times), but the odds are just much better that the pilots will land safely. If you insist on landing the plane, expect to get arguments from the other passengers. This is what is going on here. You are essentially arguing that every passenger individually should be offered the free choice of whether to land the plane or not because there has been an instance of a pilot crashing and some instances of people being able to land planes after pilots have been somehow incapacitated.

The only thing I am in this debate, is to arguee pro free choice.

Which in this case is crazy, harmful, selfish, and morally reprehensible. Do you you also think it should be free to choose to inform a sexual partner if you are hiv positive? You cannot compare with giving your kids milk. It is more comparable to letting your kids run around with an assault rifle. Letting your kids attend a measles party is even crazier. That is like having them play Russian roulette.

 

[Rive]

The only thing I am in this debate, is to arguee pro free choice.

Parents are used to decide instead of children (thus, limiting their freedom to choose) on basis children might not be clear about the consequences.
But with every word of yours here you are proving that you are not clear about the consequences either: yet, you are claiming your right for free choice, and expecting this to be taken seriously as some kind of argument.

 

[phinds]

@Brian E if you don't know the First Law of Holes, you might want to look it up.

 

[pinball1970]

It is more comparable to letting your kids run around with an assault rifle. Letting your kids attend a measles party is even crazier. That is like having them play Russian roulette.

Which is why the science is either minor or missing with anti vaxers

 

[Dale]

Yes but I choose those you mention.
The only thing I am in this debate, is to arguee pro free choice.

Then make your argument for choice on a sound basis. The basis only that there is a risk, deliberately and emphatically ignoring the benefit, is not a sound basis. Nobody actually makes choices on that basis.

So far, I haven’t seen you present a rational argument for why this choice should be allowed. Even in “free societies” not all choices are permitted. Why should this one be in the permitted category? Merely that there is a risk is not a justification, many choices with risk are mandated.

What I have describe previously, are a limited number of cases I know about, where kids have become very high fever (40 degress ) for more than a week and in two cases have been hospitalized.

OK, there is the risk. So now add in the benefit and compare. Make your argument sound. “This should be a permitted choice because the risk of a limited number of children with high fevers can outweigh the benefit of ____”

 

[fresh_42]

The only thing I am in this debate, is to arguee pro free choice.

What about my cost argument?

If you catch measles in Denmark, the cure will generate costs. The necessary quarantine will create costs. The necessary examination of the person's contacts will create costs. And all these costs are carried by the community. So doesn't the community in reverse have the right to demand precaution ahead of the cost situation?

 

[russ_watters]

Yes but I choose those you mention.
The only thing I am in this debate, is to arguee pro free choice.

Then it isn't a reasonable approach and it is a very good thing the government is forcing this decision on you.

When you brought up death stats (even in a hand waving way), you made it sound like you wanted to make a rational choice and argue that you were worthy of making the choice yourself. Nope. You want the freedom/power without the associated responsibility. This is precisely why you aren't being allowed it.

 

[Orodruin]

I think it is also worth pointing out that I know that several of the people (I will not call out names though) who are in this thread arguing that this is a decision to be taken on a government level are generally people who otherwise tend to argue for minimal government interference in most aspects of politics and regulation. This should tell you something about how important it is to have a collective responsibility in this question and not allow a free choice. Free choice is a wonderful thing and you will often hear it argued that it is a cornerstone of democracy - and it is true. But just putting that forward is completely neglecting other democratic values such as strong democratic institutions and responsibilities of the individual to the democracy. It does make sense to have free choice when it does not affect others, but this is not the case here. Some very nice examples have already been raised in this thread. But let me recap some vaccines:

MMR vaccine: Measles is a deadly disease that could be eradicated by a rigorous vaccination program. Since measles is highly contagious, a large immunisation rate is necessary to achieve herd immunity. If you do not believe in herd immunity - it is actually a very simple concept and you should check it out. It is extremely easy to model and simulate. I have done it myself at times just for fun. Letting the individual decide for themselves puts herd immunity (and therefore a significant portion of the population, not to mention future generations) at risk.

TBE vaccination (I had a shot of this vaccine last week - for those concerned, I feel fine): For those who do not know it, TBE is tick-borne encephalitis, which is exactly what it sounds like. It is a disease carried by ticks (Sweden's most dangerous animal!) that can have severe consequences for the individual. However, the way to get infected is to get bitten by a tick, it is not contagious in the same fashion as measles. Here I have no problems allowing a free choice - the risk for a person living in an area where TBE exists and spends a certain amount of time in nature is purely personal. It has no direct effect on other individuals (except the additional healthcare costs that would be incurred on the state if one is infected).

Polio vaccine: Like measles, polio is a horrible disease that is vaccine preventable. It is likely to be the next major disease eradicated by vaccination programs. Luckily, the vaccine is very easy to administer and the eradication program is working a lot on information about vaccination. If eradication is successful, in a decade or two nobody will ever again have to be vaccinated against polio - just like smallpox. For those interested, see http://polioeradication.org
This could also be the case for measles in the longer term https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5745928/

 

[fresh_42]

... several of the people (I will not call out names though) who are in this thread arguing that this is a decision to be taken on a government level are generally people who otherwise tend to argue for minimal government interference in most aspects of politics and regulation.

Me, for example. Such a marginal interference of personal freedom which pays back multiple times, is nothing I would fight for. There are a lot more restrictions which really limit personal freedom to fight for instead! Or why does the US want to know my facebook account if I planned to visit, say the Grand Canyon? I bet the most likely argument will be that society must protect itself from evil. Well, exactly!

I know that one bad cannot be justified by something worse. So this isn't judging the issue, it is putting consequences into respect.

 

[Dale]

several of the people (I will not call out names though) who are in this thread arguing that this is a decision to be taken on a government level are generally people who otherwise tend to argue for minimal government interference

I am ok with my name being called out. I don’t join very many of the political discussions, but my political views are generally libertarian.

So, why is a libertarian comfortable with government mandated immunizations? Libertarianism is not anarchy where people are free to do whatever they feel like with no interference. In a libertarian philosophy you do not have the right to harm others, and that includes through negligence.

The government has the right to intervene to prevent or punish people who wish to harm others, either deliberately or negligently. The desire to not be immunized for dangerous communicable diseases is a desire to engage in negligent behavior wherein you knowingly put others at risk. Therefore, it is a legitimate role of government to require immunizations.

One alternative that I would consider acceptable would be to allow anti-vax people to live in permanent quarantine. This would allow them to refuse the vaccine without being negligent. Without vaccination anything less than full permanent quarantine is negligent.

 

[Orodruin]

I am ok with my name being called out.

If you want to disclose it that is fine, but I do not think it is my place to do so.

 

[member 342489]

Then it isn't a reasonable approach and it is a very good thing the government is forcing this decision on you.

When you brought up death stats (even in a hand waving way), you made it sound like you wanted to make a rational choice and argue that you were worthy of making the choice yourself. Nope. You want the freedom/power without the associated responsibility. This is precisely why you aren't being allowed it.

Perhaps you are right, and perhaps I am cherry picking, and unfit for this debate.
My point with the stats were to say, that in some, perhaps very few cases, the vaccine seems to cause harm.
Not to compare stats.
Perhaps you are willing to risk your kids health, after you experience severe complications simultaneous with the vaccine, I would not.
I will not arguee further, but wish you all a good day and a good health :-)

 

[PAllen]

Perhaps you are right, and perhaps I am cherry picking, and unfit for this debate.
My point with the stats were to say, that in some, perhaps very few cases, the vaccine seems to cause harm.
Not to compare stats.
Perhaps you are willing to risk your kids health, after you experience severe complications simultaneous with the vaccine, I would not.
I will not arguee further, but wish you all a good day and a good health :-)

Seat belts and airbags each have rare scenarios where they add to the risk, rather than decrease it. So, if you suffer a broken wrist from an airbag, you would choose never to buy a car with one again (this actually happened to an acquaintance; they correctly determined the alternative was death). On top of this, choosing not to use these only affects you (well, actually, it has a financial cost to others due to injury treatment, but let’s put that aside), while not vaccinating puts others at risk.

 

[Dale]

My point with the stats were to say, that in some, perhaps very few cases, the vaccine seems to cause harm.
Not to compare stats.
Perhaps you are willing to risk your kids health, after you experience severe complications simultaneous with the vaccine, I would not.

Again, considering only the risks and not the benefits is not valid reasoning.

Frankly, you are not being a protective parent with this bad reasoning. You are putting your kids at significant risk as well as endangering (negligently IMO) those around your child. To avoid a brief small chance of a high fever you are giving them a permanent high chance of a high fever plus a small chance of death plus a small chance of harming others.

This is the direct result of deliberately using invalid reasoning, reasoning which I am certain you know is unsound and which you do not use in the rest of your decisions.

 

[Mary Conrads Sanburn]

Some excerpts from MedlinePlus:

“Finding better ways of educating the world is the best vaccine out there.”
[excerpt}

4 Spring 2008 NIH MedlinePlus

Vaccines Stop Illness To prevent the spread of disease, it is more important than ever to vaccinate your child.
Vaccine Safety In light of recent questions about vaccine safety, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has offered the following information for parents: “Vaccines are held to the highest standard of safety. The United States currently has the safest, most effective vaccine supply in history. Law requires years of testing before a vaccine can be licensed. Once in use, vaccines are continually monitored for safety and efficacy. Immunizations, like any medication, can cause side effects. However, a decision not to immunize a child also involves risk. It is a decision to put the child and others who come into contact with him or her at risk of contracting a disease that could be dangerous or deadly. The CDC and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) continually work to make already safe vaccines even safer.” In the rare event that a vaccine injures a child, he or she may be compensated through the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP); call 1-800-338-2382.”
https://magazine.medlineplus.gov/pdf/spring2008.pdf

I hope all children stay healthy!

 

[member 342489]

Seat belts and airbags each have rare scenarios where they add to the risk, rather than decrease it. So, if you suffer a broken wrist from an airbag, you would choose never to buy a car with one again (this actually happened to an acquaintance; they correctly determined the alternative was death). On top of this, choosing not to use these only affects you (well, actually, it has a financial cost to others due to injury treatment, but let’s put that aside), while not vaccinating puts others at risk.

I don't totally disagree to this.
If I was a carowner, and had an accident, like the one you describe, I probably still would prefer airbags over seatbelts
I imagine your reply to this, would be, but then why not choose to protect from beeing sick as well. In both scenarios, the thing that can save you, can also create harm, just on a lower level.
I am glad you use this example.
Why don't we stop driving cars. There is great concern, that all this CO2-exhalers will make human life on this planet, very hard, or perhaps even impossible.
Science agrees, that this is one of the greates threaths to the human survival.
A much greater threath than measels.
But still it is optional to save the world and stop risking our own, and future generations lives.
I want to save the climate, I hope you will too.

 

[Orodruin]

Why don't we stop driving cars. There is great concern, that all this CO2-exhalers will make human life on this planet, very hard, or perhaps even impossible.
Science agrees, that this is one of the greates threaths to the human survival.
A much greater threath than measels.
But still it is optional to save the world and stop risking our own, and future generations lives.
I want to save the climate, I hope you will too.

A perfect example of what-about-ism that has nothing to do with the issue being discussed.

If I was a carowner, and had an accident, like the one you describe, I probably still would prefer airbags over seatbelts

It is not an either-or. You should be wearing your seatbelt and have an airbag installed.

I imagine your reply to this, would be, but then why not choose to protect from beeing sick as well.

Again, it is not a matter of only protecting yourself. I could not care less whether you choose to have an airbag or not. I do care if you let potential pathogen carriers run around freely potentially causing harm to others. This is a decision that should not be left to the individual as it is an issue of the health of the population.

 

[Dale]

Why don't we stop driving cars.

Again, because people consider both risk and benefit in making decisions. We consider the benefit of our kid participating in soccer to be worth the risk of them dying in a fatal collision along the way. That is the only valid way to make decisions, and the reason why your “risk only” argument fails from the outset.

 

[pinball1970]

I don't totally disagree to this.
If I was a carowner, and had an accident, like the one you describe, I probably still would prefer airbags over seatbelts
I imagine your reply to this, would be, but then why not choose to protect from beeing sick as well. In both scenarios, the thing that can save you, can also create harm, just on a lower level.
I am glad you use this example.
Why don't we stop driving cars. There is great concern, that all this CO2-exhalers will make human life on this planet, very hard, or perhaps even impossible.
Science agrees, that this is one of the greates threaths to the human survival.
A much greater threath than measels.
But still it is optional to save the world and stop risking our own, and future generations lives.
I want to save the climate, I hope you will too.

Deciding not use air bags is one way of avoiding injury whilst increasing risk of death.Deciding to not use breaks in your car (for whatever reason) provides a risk of death to you and your child in the passenger seat and anyone else who is near you when you crash.

I think this is a closer analogy to choosing not to vaccinate (edit) against MMR

 

[Orodruin]

I think this is a closer analogy to choosing not to vaccinate.

Well, as has already been mentioned, this depends on the illness and the vaccine, so I think we should be particular about it. For the MMR vaccine, I agree.

 

[atyy]

I think it is also worth pointing out that I know that several of the people (I will not call out names though) who are in this thread arguing that this is a decision to be taken on a government level are generally people who otherwise tend to argue for minimal government interference in most aspects of politics and regulation. This should tell you something about how important it is to have a collective responsibility in this question and not allow a free choice.

Is this really the debate? As I understand, in the U.S., the anti-vax sentiment is largely because of the perceived risk of autism. Unfortunately, this was caused in part by a Andrew Wakefield's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wakefield paper in the Lancet, an extremely prestigious medical forum - this paper was only retracted many years after its publication https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMR_vaccine_and_autism. So I'm not sure it is between free choice and collective responsibility - I think it is more between truth and ignorance.

 

[pinball1970]

Is this really the debate? As I understand, in the U.S., the anti-vax sentiment is largely because of the perceived risk of autism. Unfortunately, this was caused in part by a Andrew Wakefield's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wakefield paper in the Lancet, an extremely prestigious medical forum - this paper was only retracted many years after its publication https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMR_vaccine_and_autism. So I'm not sure it is between free choice and collective responsibility - I think it is more between truth and ignorance.

I think there is more to it than that, there are religious objections, “natural vs synthetic” objections, big pharma just trying to sell vaccines to the NHS/government type of objections.

I agree that ignorance is a big factor as is confirmation bias.

 

[pinball1970]

Well, as has already been mentioned, this depends on the illness and the vaccine, so I think we should be particular about it. For the MMR vaccine, I agree.

Noted, I have specified MMR

 

[member 342489]

"A perfect example of what-about-ism that has nothing to do with the issue being discussed."

I try to adress the hypocrisy I see, but yes you are right, 2 wrongs don't make a right. My cherry-picking again, huh ;-) "It is not an either-or. You should be wearing your seatbelt and have an airbag installed."

Yes that is true, but you don't expect these to harm you if nothing bad happens."Again, it is not a matter of only protecting yourself. I could not care less whether you choose to have an airbag or not. I do care if you let potential pathogen carriers run around freely potentially causing harm to others. This is a decision that should not be left to the individual as it is an issue of the health of the population."

Yes I understand
Anyway, I still believe, that people who starts the program, and then experience ekstraordinary side-effects have the right to be scared, and have the right to choose not to continue.