Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Anti-vaccination update: How the measles crisis struck Disneyland

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 41 posts

Re: Anti-vaccination update: How the measles crisis struck Disneyland

#31

Post by cam_l »

zak_mc_kracken wrote: post #27
cam_l wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ignoring the whole vax/anti-vax thing* i am really curious about people who are enraged about such things and why a particular topic like this enrages them? are you enraged about all things which endanger the population? or just some? a lot of the time i see this sort of rage surface most assuredly (in myself and other people) for topics which: a.i am definitely not guilty b.someone else definitely is guilty c.a lot…

> i actually know as many people whose children have had serious reactions to vaccinations as i do parents who children have had serious preventable illnesses. You're trying to use anecdotal data as data. That's not how science works. Scientist are way, way ahead of you. Adverse effects are the number one thing that is studied when a new vaccine is being considered for public use. At least in the US (and most of the…

way to miss the fucking point. go on, read it again.. (or the first time for that matter.)

at a certain point with the effectiveness of vaccines, the adverse effects actually start to outnumber the people still being effected. the point at which people start to notice this is perhaps an order of magnitude lower than the reality. science is not how people work, they use anecdata. now, how do you interact with those people?

or do you care more about getting all self-righteous and angry?

Re: Anti-vaccination update: How the measles crisis struck Disneyland

#32

Post by cam_l »

zak_mc_kracken wrote: post #26
cam_l wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ignoring the whole vax/anti-vax thing* i am really curious about people who are enraged about such things and why a particular topic like this enrages them? are you enraged about all things which endanger the population? or just some? a lot of the time i see this sort of rage surface most assuredly (in myself and other people) for topics which: a.i am definitely not guilty b.someone else definitely is guilty c.a lot…

> as to your stated arguments, do you really think anti-vaxers want to make bad choices for their children? Of course not, they think they are doing the right thing, in much the same way that Mormons refuse blood transfusions for themselves and their children or that certain parents kill their children so they can get to heaven faster. You're still building a straw man, though. The intention is completely irrelevant…

um.. firstly, not a straw man (seriously? and then you start crapping on about mormons?), a logical reduction to find out if you think the consequences of believing that either the intention is important or not.

so how do you differentiate between "intention is completely irrelevant" and (from your other comment) "because these people choose to ignore facts". are we back to thinking that they are 'choosing' in bad faith? they believe because they do not understand. surely the way to reach them is to build an understanding rather than get angry at them about their beliefs.

Re: Anti-vaccination update: How the measles crisis struck Disneyland

#33

Post by cam_l »

zak_mc_kracken wrote: post #25
cam_l wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ignoring the whole vax/anti-vax thing* i am really curious about people who are enraged about such things and why a particular topic like this enrages them? are you enraged about all things which endanger the population? or just some? a lot of the time i see this sort of rage surface most assuredly (in myself and other people) for topics which: a.i am definitely not guilty b.someone else definitely is guilty c.a lot…

> ignoring the whole vax/anti-vax thing* i am really curious about people who are enraged about such things and why a particular topic like this enrages them? are you enraged about all things which endanger the population? or just some? I am selfishly enraged by the actions of people who put my children's health at risk (especially since they were premature and they are prone to catching a lot of bad stuff) because t…

man, everything is not black and white. you put your children's lives and the lives of others at risk everyday, due to your ignorance, ineptitude, or indifference. that is life.

what you are talking about is an issue of scale.. grey area stuff. a compounding issue of lots of people choosing to do something that collectively causes a major problem. not unlike driving as it happens (ie. chance of accident, increase in pollution). 1.3 million people died last year as a result of car accidents. have you looked into the correlation between driven kilometres and car accidents? do you care?

you did not answer my questions. are you selfishly enraged at only actions which you do not engage in, that put your childrens health at risk? how otherwise is this not just an emotional argument? who does it serve for you to get enraged?

Re: Anti-vaccination update: How the measles crisis struck Disneyland

#34

Post by mjevans »

DougN7 wrote: post #7
zak_mc_kracken wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right, effective is more accurate. I picked my wording very carefully. I'm not one to use insults lightly but this topic enrages me. It's one thing to make choices that are detrimental to yourself, it's worse to make such choices that impact your children (who are helpless) but I think it's the ultimate disgrace to make choices that endanger the entire population.

So that means you're also against smoking and drinking...? Not trying to be snarky - but there are LOTS of activities that are socially acceptable that endanger others. And they are probably a whole lot more dangerous overall than lack of vaccination. (For the record, my children and I are vaccinated).

I choose not to smoke or drink my self.

What others decide to do to themselves within a safe context that does not endanger my self or others is the business of the consenting adults involved as long as it is only them involved.

I fully support legalizing, regulating, and taxing everything. Some things might be too dangerous to allow outside of carefully setup environments.

There will of course be things that someone could come up with which shouldn't be allowed and obvious reasons for that. However there are vastly many things which are safe, or dangerous mostly because they are not legal, and may be interesting that are not presently legal in many places.

Re: Anti-vaccination update: How the measles crisis struck Disneyland

#35

Post by DanBC »

mc32 wrote: post #29
ethanhunt_ wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Vaccinated people (because a vaccine is never 100% safe). s/safe/effective Also, I think you should rewrite your post without the insulting words in it. Writing it as such may be cathartic, but it is ineffective in convincing anyone.

I don't know. I mean, I know civility and all that. But those people are putting other people's lives at risk --not their own, so much. I think that kind of egregiously selfish behavior pretty much deserves harsh repudiation.

Using the word "retard" has no effect on your targets. But it does effect people with a learning disability who are a group that is marginalised, stigmatised, and discriminated against.

There are a bunch of other words you could use: "idiots" fits nicely.

Re: Anti-vaccination update: How the measles crisis struck Disneyland

#36

Post by Oletros »

cam_l wrote: post #24
zak_mc_kracken wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right, effective is more accurate. I picked my wording very carefully. I'm not one to use insults lightly but this topic enrages me. It's one thing to make choices that are detrimental to yourself, it's worse to make such choices that impact your children (who are helpless) but I think it's the ultimate disgrace to make choices that endanger the entire population.

ignoring the whole vax/anti-vax thing* i am really curious about people who are enraged about such things and why a particular topic like this enrages them? are you enraged about all things which endanger the population? or just some? a lot of the time i see this sort of rage surface most assuredly (in myself and other people) for topics which: a.i am definitely not guilty b.someone else definitely is guilty c.a lot…

> but at this very point what does it matter to the parents if they have just as much chance to hurt their child either way?

It is not the same chance, not for a mile

Re: Anti-vaccination update: How the measles crisis struck Disneyland

#37

Post by Oletros »

cam_l wrote: post #31
zak_mc_kracken wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> i actually know as many people whose children have had serious reactions to vaccinations as i do parents who children have had serious preventable illnesses. You're trying to use anecdotal data as data. That's not how science works. Scientist are way, way ahead of you. Adverse effects are the number one thing that is studied when a new vaccine is being considered for public use. At least in the US (and most of the…

way to miss the fucking point. go on, read it again.. (or the first time for that matter.) at a certain point with the effectiveness of vaccines, the adverse effects actually start to outnumber the people still being effected. the point at which people start to notice this is perhaps an order of magnitude lower than the reality. science is not how people work, they use anecdata. now, how do you interact with those pe…

. at a certain point with the effectiveness of vaccines, the adverse effects actually start to outnumber the people still being effected

Source for that?

Re: Anti-vaccination update: How the measles crisis struck Disneyland

#38

Post by DanBC »

zak_mc_kracken wrote: post #2

So depressing. If you're not vaccinating your child, you are putting the following people at risk: - Other idiots like yourself who chose not to vaccinate their child and their very unlucky children. - Vaccinated people (because a vaccine is never 100% effective). - Babies too young to be vaccinated. And of course, you are taking part in resurrecting a disease that had been officially announced as eradicated in 2000.…

I get that you're talking about people today, but we need to understand how the "MMR causes autism" sham started and propagated in order to prevent it happening again.

Most people who did not vaccinate their children were getting mixed messages from the media. A lot of English newspaper coverage was very unclear and there was plenty that was campaigning against MMR and for individual vaccinations.

You know that science understanding in the feneral population is low. You know that science reporting, even from reputable media outlets, is piss poor.

There's an extra factor here. Science reporting is terrible and that includes when the reporter has access to honest researchers telling the truth and a unified story. In the MMR case they had a crooked researcher telling them lies.

Andrew Wakefield had developed a single measles vaccine. For that to be sucessful he needed to stop people using the MMR vaccine. Andrew Wakefield was hired as an expert witness in a law case to prove that there was a causal link between MMR and disease. He was paid over £400,000 - and those are 1990s pounds.

His deceitful paper was published (although later retracted) in a well known respected peer-reviewed journal. Newspaper gave it coverage as a credible paper.

http://tallguywrites.livejournal.com/148012.html

It's not that surprising to see people react in the way they did in the face of this determined crookery.

Re: Anti-vaccination update: How the measles crisis struck Disneyland

#39

Post by nsgi »

trhway wrote: post #8
zak_mc_kracken wrote: post #2

So depressing. If you're not vaccinating your child, you are putting the following people at risk: - Other idiots like yourself who chose not to vaccinate their child and their very unlucky children. - Vaccinated people (because a vaccine is never 100% effective). - Babies too young to be vaccinated. And of course, you are taking part in resurrecting a disease that had been officially announced as eradicated in 2000.…

shouldn't insurance decline to pay for treatment of a disease when parents willfully declined vaccination? After all it is a completely irresponsible inviting of the problem just like driving while drunk.

That would only result in their children suffering.
Post reply on HN