How an Amish missionary caused 2014's massive measles outbreak • Hacker News Board

Re: How an Amish missionary caused 2014's massive measles outbreak

#121

Post by mcguire » Thu, Jan 29, 2015, 9:04 PM UTC

saalweachter wrote: post #101

skynetv2 wrote: post #3

it breaks my heart to see so many "adults" making "informed decisions" about NOT vaccinating their children. They should really go live in undeveloped countries where vaccines are scarce and unavailable to experience first hand what lack of vaccinations actually means, what the implications are for the general population. I grew up, fortunately with out any problems, seeing so many kids suffering from polio, handicap…

Defecting on vaccination is perfectly rational if you expect everyone else to cooperate and never meet another defector. You get all the benefits of herd immunity while taking on none of whatever slight risk of complications there may be. It's pretty straight-forward game theory, which must be met with equally straight-forward strategies: defectors must be punished.

One of the few good things about the article is that it demonstrates that the simplistic game theory approach doesn't work: defection isn't uncorrelated. The year's larger outbreaks of measles are in groups that have all defected together.

Herd immunity doesn't apply because the defectors have a closely related sub-herd through which the disease spreads quickly. (On the other hand, it does apply when the disease tries to pass out of the community and cannot. Hm.)

Re: How an Amish missionary caused 2014's massive measles outbreak

#122

Post by mcguire » Thu, Jan 29, 2015, 9:10 PM UTC

larsiusprime wrote: post #25

moogleii wrote: post #23

Did the missionary eschew modern technology in order to get to the Philippines? Got it guys, the answer is no. They use technology when it suits them.

You do not understand the Amish. They do not have some simplistic "all modern technology is bad" ban. They selectively use some modern technologies, and eschew others.

The article explains it this way:

"We don't have any internet or computer. We don't have a car," Ivan Miller, an Amish furniture store owner in the community struck by measles, explained. "It's not that we feel a car is wrong. It's our choice because we feel if we had a car, it would bring us to a lot more temptations in the world. [emphasis mine]"

Re: How an Amish missionary caused 2014's massive measles outbreak

#123

Post by 13years » Thu, Jan 29, 2015, 9:16 PM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #114

13years wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, you mean you have never seen an argument with data? or you didn't believe the data was real? I mean, most people just don't take time to post all the evidence they have acquired in short posts. You post all of these are false, yet you post no data either. I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm just pointing out that if you are reading blogs and message posts they don't often come with evidence. One of the key criteria…

I've never seen any data presented at all except for the autism thing, and in that case the data is not real. You're right that most people won't post data regardless. The difference is that you won't find it even if you go looking for it. For example, the "chemicals" argument is rooted in magical thinking, not data. It goes something like, vaccines contain chemical X, X is used for nasty purpose Y, therefore X is ba…

"But I can't "realize it is supported by real data" when it clearly is not"

But this is somewhat my point. When you say "clearly is not", have you really tried to find it? or assume it is not there. You acknowledge you have seen some data such as the toxic ingredients. So in this case you could have a discussion around the interpretation of the data etc.

My point is that we shouldn't assume the other side are always ignorant, uneducated or just following Jenny McCarthy etc. You will find plenty of doctors, neurosurgeons etc that also have issues with vaccines. Dr. Wakefield became famous for the autism issue; however, you should be aware that since then there are many educated doctors that find some issue with vaccines. Of course being a doctor doesn’t make you automatically correct, it is just once again being aware that the person you are debating may have what appears to be credible information.

It would be best to ask where the person is coming from in a non hostile way. Just ask, so what have you discovered and what led you to your decisions for example. That is friendly and opens up conversation. From then you can discern if this person made decisions based on credible sources ( but maybe not accurate ) or they have not actually educated themselves.

When I say credible sources, I mean to say at least they are referencing other doctors, scientists, studies vs some blog. Credible in this instance doesn't necessarily mean correct or wrong, but acknowledging they did their research will allow conversation to continue. Then you can share counter research etc as conversation progresses.

Just be aware, within the scientific community, these topic still are being researched and it is not as if they are completely closed. For example investigations still continue into mercury and autism. Being aware of such is always a plus when having such discussions as you will appear to at least know something about where they are coming from. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24995277

Re: How an Amish missionary caused 2014's massive measles outbreak

#124

Post by Ygg2 » Thu, Jan 29, 2015, 9:17 PM UTC

13years wrote: post #112

mikeash wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never seen an anti-vax argument that was supported by real data. What I have seen are things like: 1. They cause autism. 2. They contain nasty, toxic chemicals. 3. They are unnecessary. 4. They are unsafe (in some unspecified way) and are just pushed for profit by big pharma. The only one that comes even close to being supported by data is #1, and that's completely fake data.

So, you mean you have never seen an argument with data? or you didn't believe the data was real? I mean, most people just don't take time to post all the evidence they have acquired in short posts. You post all of these are false, yet you post no data either. I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm just pointing out that if you are reading blogs and message posts they don't often come with evidence. One of the key criteria…

Here is argument with data. Based on my research the vaccine contains exactly 0.01% of Hydroplemanzole, which is known to cause allergic reaction in children. In their brains!

Data? Yes. Usable? No.

----------------

> What you will often discover if you have never done this is that reality often lies somewhere in between where you started and where they are. But by being able to have dialog from a mutual understanding of concerns you as well as your debater can likely reach a greater understanding of truth wherever it may lie.

People tried that, and there was no evidence. I mean autism caused by a vaccine... Suuuure. Only way if that happened if someone REALLY botched up the vaccine, as in forgot to make a vaccine and just put measles inside it. If that happened you'd be reading it on news channel by now.

I mean it causing autism is a perfect way for parents to remove guilt from themselves. It's not my genes - it's the vaccine. If I was a parent I'd be jumping on that particular train as well. Nothing so far corroborates any claims made by anti-vaccination groups.

Re: How an Amish missionary caused 2014's massive measles outbreak

#125

Post by Ygg2 » Thu, Jan 29, 2015, 9:21 PM UTC

13years wrote: post #123

mikeash wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never seen any data presented at all except for the autism thing, and in that case the data is not real. You're right that most people won't post data regardless. The difference is that you won't find it even if you go looking for it. For example, the "chemicals" argument is rooted in magical thinking, not data. It goes something like, vaccines contain chemical X, X is used for nasty purpose Y, therefore X is ba…

"But I can't "realize it is supported by real data" when it clearly is not" But this is somewhat my point. When you say "clearly is not", have you really tried to find it? or assume it is not there. You acknowledge you have seen some data such as the toxic ingredients. So in this case you could have a discussion around the interpretation of the data etc. My point is that we shouldn't assume the other side are always…

> For example investigations still continue into mercury and autism.

So? There are further investigations into whether climate change is real and man made, when the overwhelming evidence point to - yes and yes.

It's same with this thing. One douchebag claims Vaccines caused autism, twenty three works then disprove his claims.

Re: How an Amish missionary caused 2014's massive measles outbreak

#126

Post by Ygg2 » Thu, Jan 29, 2015, 9:30 PM UTC

skynetv2 wrote: post #3

it breaks my heart to see so many "adults" making "informed decisions" about NOT vaccinating their children. They should really go live in undeveloped countries where vaccines are scarce and unavailable to experience first hand what lack of vaccinations actually means, what the implications are for the general population. I grew up, fortunately with out any problems, seeing so many kids suffering from polio, handicap…

People that consider autism less favorable to encephalitis/mental retardation/handicap/death are idiots.

My aunt's daughter wasn't vaccinated for small pox due to oversight, so when she contracted small pox there was a cyst on her brain that was inoperable due to her conditions. The cyst expanded and she lost some of her cognitive functions.

Re: How an Amish missionary caused 2014's massive measles outbreak

#127

Post by Ygg2 » Thu, Jan 29, 2015, 9:35 PM UTC

mcguire wrote: post #121

saalweachter wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Defecting on vaccination is perfectly rational if you expect everyone else to cooperate and never meet another defector. You get all the benefits of herd immunity while taking on none of whatever slight risk of complications there may be. It's pretty straight-forward game theory, which must be met with equally straight-forward strategies: defectors must be punished.

One of the few good things about the article is that it demonstrates that the simplistic game theory approach doesn't work: defection isn't uncorrelated. The year's larger outbreaks of measles are in groups that have all defected together. Herd immunity doesn't apply because the defectors have a closely related sub-herd through which the disease spreads quickly. (On the other hand, it does apply when the disease trie…

Hopefully, the measles spread and the defector groups get wiped out - either through acquired immunity, higher vaccination rates or death.

Re: How an Amish missionary caused 2014's massive measles outbreak

#128

Post by moogleii » Thu, Jan 29, 2015, 9:40 PM UTC

jarfil wrote: post #111

moogleii wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>They aren't opposed to an experience changing them. And most things are guidelines to make choices, not absolutes. In this case, going on a mission was a higher priority, and the most effective way to get to the target was via air travel. If there was an alternative then they would take it. It's not so much the experience change I'm pointing out, rather that that will bring foreign influence from outside (and obviou…

I think going on a mission would be more about influencing the outside, than about outside influences. Maybe they considered, quite correctly, that poorer people in disaster stricken areas are easier to influence.

Sure, that is the explicit goal, but throughout history, missionaries/explorers have always brought something back with them, be it physical items or ideas. That's just part of the nature of "exploration". Unless someone impressed those laptops, cranes, and telephone poles upon the Amish, I imagine they saw them when they ventured out and decided the "goal posts" of their beliefs could be fiddled with to accommodate them.

Re: How an Amish missionary caused 2014's massive measles outbreak

#129

Post by saalweachter » Thu, Jan 29, 2015, 9:58 PM UTC

mcguire wrote: post #121

saalweachter wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Defecting on vaccination is perfectly rational if you expect everyone else to cooperate and never meet another defector. You get all the benefits of herd immunity while taking on none of whatever slight risk of complications there may be. It's pretty straight-forward game theory, which must be met with equally straight-forward strategies: defectors must be punished.

One of the few good things about the article is that it demonstrates that the simplistic game theory approach doesn't work: defection isn't uncorrelated. The year's larger outbreaks of measles are in groups that have all defected together. Herd immunity doesn't apply because the defectors have a closely related sub-herd through which the disease spreads quickly. (On the other hand, it does apply when the disease trie…

You could probably treat each defector-cluster as an individual. As long as they remain isolated and never shake hands with another defector (eg, an unvaccinated missionary visiting a country with a disease reservoir) they're fine.

Re: How an Amish missionary caused 2014's massive measles outbreak

#130

Post by moheeb » Thu, Jan 29, 2015, 10:03 PM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #114

13years wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, you mean you have never seen an argument with data? or you didn't believe the data was real? I mean, most people just don't take time to post all the evidence they have acquired in short posts. You post all of these are false, yet you post no data either. I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm just pointing out that if you are reading blogs and message posts they don't often come with evidence. One of the key criteria…

I've never seen any data presented at all except for the autism thing, and in that case the data is not real. You're right that most people won't post data regardless. The difference is that you won't find it even if you go looking for it. For example, the "chemicals" argument is rooted in magical thinking, not data. It goes something like, vaccines contain chemical X, X is used for nasty purpose Y, therefore X is ba…

I think you haven't looked closely. I know for a fact that the MMR vaccine itself comes with a warning (from the manufacturer!) that it may cause a reaction in some patients.

I doubt the manufacturer would place such a warning unless they had data to back it up.