Infectious disease doesn't care why you're unvaccinated • Hacker News Board

Re: Infectious disease doesn't care why you're unvaccinated

#161

Post by fnordfnordfnord » Sat, Sep 07, 2013, 3:31 PM UTC

mpyne wrote: post #142

aestra wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I have also never seen a case of autism. What? You can't tell just by looking at someone if they have autism. You must have some sort of preconceived notions of what autism looks like. For example, here is two people in my family with autism (they are identical twins) http://i.imgur.com/9PP5O6T.jpg http://i.imgur.com/aedlKYR.jpg Rather than saying something incredibly ignorant like "I've never seen it," why don't we…

I think he simply meant that he's never met someone with autism, in his experience. The point to that being that, if vaccines do cause autism, he should have met someone with autism. The fact that he didn't seems to argue against the hypothesis that vaccines do cause autism.

>The fact that he didn't seems to argue against the hypothesis that vaccines do cause autism.

It does no such thing.

Re: Infectious disease doesn't care why you're unvaccinated

#162

Post by toomuchtodo » Sat, Sep 07, 2013, 3:34 PM UTC

dalke wrote: post #53

toomuchtodo wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you have valid, replicatable evidence where vaccines cause harm, I'm all ears. But if you're going to rely on anecdotal evidence, GTFO. I'm tired of hearing people not vaccinating their children and causing public health issues because they believe they're more informed than the CDC.

By "allergic reaction", I assume the g'parent poster did not mean only an allergy to the virus particles or fragments in the vaccine, but also included an allergy to the other components of the given formulation. Some people have an egg allergy. Some vaccines are made using chicken embryos, the vaccine includes some of the egg protein, and some people are allergic even to this slight amount. For an overview you can s…

Those were the allergies I was referring to in my original post. Thank you for providing not only the relevant info, but also the corresponding Wikipedia and Pubmed links.

Re: Infectious disease doesn't care why you're unvaccinated

#163

Post by fnordfnordfnord » Sat, Sep 07, 2013, 3:35 PM UTC

rhizome wrote: post #29

sliverstorm wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think people's own minds provide some of that effect. Firstly, secretly wondering if the numbers aren't being exaggerated for effect and that sort of thinking. Secondly, it's difficult to really wrap your head around a disease that killed a third of the population. It's so ridiculous it's hard to fathom.

Polio existed in the US within the memories of many people still alive.

I am 40. I know only one person who had polio (as a child); a teacher of mine from my high school. I also saw an iron lung once, but it wasn't in use.

Re: Infectious disease doesn't care why you're unvaccinated

#164

Post by venomsnake » Sat, Sep 07, 2013, 3:37 PM UTC

fnordfnordfnord wrote: post #155

pkennedy wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the current big US measles outbreaks is church-related: http://www.npr.org/2013/09/01/217746942/texas-megachurch-at-... My anecdotal experience among anti-vaccination people I've known is that they're only weakly correlated with religion or politics--leaning slightly left but still all over the map.

20-ish cases is not what I would call a big outbreak. Some of those affected in Texas had received vaccinations, but for whatever reason[1], weren't protected. [1] I guess they had either neglected to get a booster, were not scheduled to receive the full series of shots, or the vaccine's efficacy isn't what it is claimed to be. >My anecdotal experience among anti-vaccination people I've known is that they're only wea…

Well ... it is simple math. If the vaccine is effective 95% (pretty good on its own) and you come in contact with 10 sick people you have a good 40% chance to catch it.

That is the whole things with vaccines - the herd immunity is as important in protection as the vaccine itself. It is virtuous positive feedback loop.

Re: Infectious disease doesn't care why you're unvaccinated

#165

Post by cloverich » Sat, Sep 07, 2013, 3:38 PM UTC

fnordfnordfnord wrote: post #155

pkennedy wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the current big US measles outbreaks is church-related: http://www.npr.org/2013/09/01/217746942/texas-megachurch-at-... My anecdotal experience among anti-vaccination people I've known is that they're only weakly correlated with religion or politics--leaning slightly left but still all over the map.

20-ish cases is not what I would call a big outbreak. Some of those affected in Texas had received vaccinations, but for whatever reason[1], weren't protected. [1] I guess they had either neglected to get a booster, were not scheduled to receive the full series of shots, or the vaccine's efficacy isn't what it is claimed to be. >My anecdotal experience among anti-vaccination people I've known is that they're only wea…

> we selectively decline / delay vaccinations

Interested to hear your justification for declining / delaying vaccine's, but not considering yourself anti-vaccine.

Re: Infectious disease doesn't care why you're unvaccinated

#166

Post by joshuahedlund » Sat, Sep 07, 2013, 4:01 PM UTC

jlgreco wrote: post #137

joshuahedlund wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, when your mind is made up you can explain anything - perhaps the autism is a punishment for not trusting in the original protection, etc, etc

Indeed. If you want talk to them with their terms, you might have better luck with "God helps those who help themselves" , though I doubt that will work in practice either.

Sure, but it's not like they're consistently anti-medicine, happily 'helping themselves' to cancer treatments and the rest (well, except for the oddly named Christian Science sect, but not the broader Bachmann-style evangelicals that are found overlapping with the anti-vaccine movement these days). It's almost like existing biases helped them succumb to the original fraud and helped them get stuck in it, so now they just truly believe that most medicine helps but vaccines cause autism. Fortunately it doesn't seem to be spreading across evangelicals as a whole.

Re: Infectious disease doesn't care why you're unvaccinated

#167

Post by azakai » Sat, Sep 07, 2013, 4:18 PM UTC

> Combined with a little luck (nothing quite as beneficial as being a white, middle class male in the US) you might have a reasonably healthy health.

Hard to take an article seriously that starts out like that. On every axis mentioned there, there is a significantly healthier alternative group (and all but one - the alternative to middle class - are large).

Re: Infectious disease doesn't care why you're unvaccinated

#168

Post by laurent123456 » Sat, Sep 07, 2013, 4:33 PM UTC

I love this argument, "reality doesn't care". I often have semi-arguments with family members when they tell me that they "believe" that X is true or Y is false when it comes to medical or scientific stuff. Then I tediously argue that science is not a matter of beliefs but facts, but that doesn't really hit home because some random guy on a random website wrote something they wanted to hear.

I thought about forwarding this cool article but then realized that, just like reality doesn't care about us, there's a category of people who doesn't really care about reality.

Re: Infectious disease doesn't care why you're unvaccinated

#169

Post by fnordfnordfnord » Sat, Sep 07, 2013, 4:34 PM UTC

dalke wrote: post #76

ronaldx wrote: post #69

Please note first that I am pro-vaccination. Vaccinations are a risk, which are designed to mitigate another (larger) risk. With this in mind, we shouldn't look at vaccines uncritically. The article points out that Japanese vaccinations were withdrawn because they were believed to be causing aseptic meningitis - it's a shame that no numbers are mentioned on that side of the coin. The comparative risk of vaccination o…

"it's a shame that no numbers are mentioned on that side of the coin" Here you go: "The rates of virologically confirmed aseptic meningitis per 10,000 recipients were 16.6, 11.6, 3.2 and 0 for the standard MMR, Takeda MMR, Kitasato MMR and Biken MMR vaccines, respectively." There were 38,203 recipients, and the vaccines "were arbitrarily given". Source is "Adverse events associated with MMR vaccines in Japan", http:/…

Shouldn't there be a _lot_ of very good data about this in the general case, not just for widely recognized anomalous events? I suspect adverse reactions are under-reported. A recent experience does nothing to dissuade me from that notion. (I know, confirmation bias). But the sheer number of vaccinations that take place would provide some very good data. Of course, that data would also probably show at least some occasional quality control problems with vaccines. No matter how much I may respect the science behind vaccination, I refuse to simply have faith that there are never any QC problems with the mass production of vaccines (or any product for that matter).

Our youngest developed a _very_ bad cough in the days/weeks after receiving the DTaP. We called the pediatrician who gave us the standard advice, to monitor the baby and bring her in if it worsened. We later did take the baby in for the cough. The doctor began dissuading us from the idea that it was Pertussis or related to the vaccination, before seeing the baby, and despite local news reports indicating a local increase in Pertussis cases[1]. The doctor had a look at the baby, and told us again it probably wasn't Pertussis, everything was normal (except the cough and low grade fever), ran a blood test for Influenza (tests confirmed that it wasn't Influenza), and told us to use a humidifier. I asked what the procedure (WRT both treatment and reporting) would be if it had been a possible or suspected vaccine adverse reaction. The doctor said they had _never_ had any reportable cases of vaccine adverse reaction and indicated a general lack of knowledge of adverse event reporting requirements. The clinic where this occurred was right across the street from the hospital that baby was born in, in the Medical Center in Houston, Texas, and is part of a large and well respected practice. Considering the number of patients that clinic has (it is a busy practice, with several clinics), even considering the low expected rate of serious adverse vaccination events, it is not possible that this clinic has never had a reportable event, and very unlikely that there were no serious adverse events. Baby might not have had Pertussis and baby is fine now. But, the experience turned my skepticism into a lack of confidence, at least with that particular clinic.

[1] http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Whooping-cou...

Re: Infectious disease doesn't care why you're unvaccinated

#170

Post by hrktb » Sat, Sep 07, 2013, 4:34 PM UTC

samatman wrote: post #145

hrktb wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am pro vaccination for anything that has sufficient maturity (high proof of action/low enough risk). For the sake of the point, I'll just put out that vaccination is for the good of the community, but this community might not fully commit to support members who react badly to vaccines. I don't refer to direct health concerns if something goes bad, but on the long term effects when there is some disability left. You…

In a conversation like this, it's important to discount hypothetical risks. Vaccination has been around for a long time. Hypothetically, there could be one with a 40% risk of long-term disability. But there isn't. Show me an example of disability caused by vaccination (they exist), complete with a percentage estimate of how many people will suffer. Then we can talk about the associated costs.

I think you are looking at this from a statistical point of view, where you balance the risk for the group and what might happen to one person. I understand this point.

What I am saying is that from an individual point of view, people won't react the same if you tell them:

A - "Your kid has a 1 in 800 million have it bad, it should be OK but if it's not, tough luck, you deal with it"

B - "Your kid has a really small chance to suffer from it, but it's for the group. If it goes bad the group will do everything to support you and your kid"

I'd really wish it would more of the B pattern, and that everyone would be on the same page, not fearing to have to mildly go through hell if they hit the vaccine lottery. You talk about associated costs, I think some of the people refusing vaccines feel that the main cost (and that not just financial cost) in case of failure will be on them, not on the general population. You can agree or disagree, but that's a point of view that is too often overlooked I think.