11–20 of 23 posts
Isn't there a way to settle this discussion scientifically?
http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/vaccines.htm
But as the page that leads into that link notes, "The weight of the evidence indicates that vaccines are not associated with autism. But CDC knows that some parents and others may still have concerns about this issue." If people don't look up the evidence for themselves, they may act contrary to the evidence when deciding what to do for their children.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>"...and I've been reading trumped up news reports that make me scared so i'll just not have my kid vaccinated!" That's a fairly biased representation of those parents' viewpoint, isn't it?
Totally! I mean, whether that's the reason why or because they have some secret knowledge, the game scenario is the same (and I'm way more interested in that). If you're in that camp, I meant no offense and I'm sorry if I offended you. Mostly, I like to make fictional people sound funny whether I agree with them or not because it makes the harsh reality that can be life more fun. No one would claim that vaccination =…
Actually, this is a problem. California has had several measles outbreaks in past few years -- a deadly disease that was effectively eradicated a few decades ago:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm57e222a1.htm
Not vaccinating your child should be classified as abuse. There is no personal liberty argument that overwhelms the public good in this situation.
This got me thinking. I am otherwise normally in favor of health care for everybody, but that would also mean health care for those who chose not to get vaccinated because of their own or their parents' beliefs. That would mean that when they get sick it's the public that has the further burden of supporting them.
Virtually any choice you make in life has some type of health care risk. I think that's almost impossible to draw a line and say these behaviors are ones we will deny care.
Isn't there a way to settle this discussion scientifically?
This got me thinking. I am otherwise normally in favor of health care for everybody, but that would also mean health care for those who chose not to get vaccinated because of their own or their parents' beliefs. That would mean that when they get sick it's the public that has the further burden of supporting them.
The proposal is to separate people into two groups: those who agree to donate their organs, and those who decline. Later on, when people happen to need organ transplants, they receive them according to their group priority, i.e. if you decline to donate, you turn comes up only after everyone in the first group received their organs.
I think that is a fair system, and could be applied in this case also. If you choose to vaccinate, you are covered, and if you do not, you pay out of pocket.
This got me thinking. I am otherwise normally in favor of health care for everybody, but that would also mean health care for those who chose not to get vaccinated because of their own or their parents' beliefs. That would mean that when they get sick it's the public that has the further burden of supporting them.
There is an interesting proposal out there related to organ donation which could be adopted for this type of situation. The proposal is to separate people into two groups: those who agree to donate their organs, and those who decline. Later on, when people happen to need organ transplants, they receive them according to their group priority, i.e. if you decline to donate, you turn comes up only after everyone in the…
If everyone gets vaccinated, and 1% fail (that's just an arbitrary number), it's no big deal because there isn't enough of a population to carry an outbreak.
But if 1% of vaccinated patients are vulnerable, and 5% of people choose not to get vaccinated, then now there's a potential for outbreak, and even some people who vaccinated get sick.
In economic terms, by not vaccinating you're introducing a negative externality into society that you're not paying for, so the true cost to non-vaccinators is artificially low.
Isn't there a way to settle this discussion scientifically?
Yes, it more or less has been settled. I have not heard of a reputable study showing that vaccines cause autism. The problem is that if you try hard enough you can stretch/fake/politicize scientific results to show just about anything. There is at least some causal link between giving the vaccines and autism (there has been a large rise in autism cases that coincide with the usage of certain vaccines). Since no one c…
As I said, I would tend to believe the "no causation" camp, but I also don't have 100% faith in doctors...
Recently I was in a heated discussion with a friend about "The China Study", which claims that animal protein causes most of the worst "civilization diseases" like cancer and heart disease. At face value it sounds absurd, because it seems as if people have always been eating lots of meat (not sure if they really have, 150 years ago). So my friend completely rejected the possibility. The book sounded convincing to me, though - but at the end of the day, it is just one guy... At least I tried to Google for articles debunking the book and found none, but there is still a nagging feeling that one might fall for yet another diet scam (although as I said, the book really made a very solid impression on me). Just saying it is a similar problem, who is one to believe?
This is one of the reasons I love game theory. So, if no one gets vaccinated, lots of people die preventable deaths. If everyone is vaccinated except me (or my child in this case), no one will die because there are no carriers. So, in the face of the vast majority being vaccinated and wild claims about autism (I agree with the author), parents decide "well, my child has no chance of getting one of these diseases if a…
The general approach to preventing a negative externality is to tax it, so that before you can take an action that 'costs' everyone else, you pay that much into the system.
So raw economics suggests that we figure out the marginal 'cost' of adding one unvaccinated person, and offer to let them 'choose' not to vaccinate if they pay the cost to society up front.
Of course in reality that's all bollocks because the cost goes up once you hit a tipping point (as you said), and trying to identify a monetary damage per-non-immunized is sure to result in a WAG.
Fun problem to think about though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is an interesting proposal out there related to organ donation which could be adopted for this type of situation. The proposal is to separate people into two groups: those who agree to donate their organs, and those who decline. Later on, when people happen to need organ transplants, they receive them according to their group priority, i.e. if you decline to donate, you turn comes up only after everyone in the…
Part of the problem with respect to applying this to vaccinations is that vaccines have a low but non-zero chance of failure. If everyone gets vaccinated, and 1% fail (that's just an arbitrary number), it's no big deal because there isn't enough of a population to carry an outbreak. But if 1% of vaccinated patients are vulnerable, and 5% of people choose not to get vaccinated, then now there's a potential for outbrea…
Isn't there a way to settle this discussion scientifically?
Yes, there is. http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/vaccines.htm But as the page that leads into that link notes, "The weight of the evidence indicates that vaccines are not associated with autism. But CDC knows that some parents and others may still have concerns about this issue." If people don't look up the evidence for themselves, they may act contrary to the evidence when deciding what to do for their children.