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

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

#111

Post by jarfil » Thu, Jan 29, 2015, 7:12 PM UTC

moogleii wrote: post #81

derekp7 wrote: post #76

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. This decision matrix isn't unique to the Amish -- people do it every day. For example, I want to save money. But I also want to…

>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.

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

#112

Post by 13years » Thu, Jan 29, 2015, 7:25 PM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #108

13years wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you point out the problem of dialog. It is assumed anti-vaxers are anti-science, religious, uneducated or anti-gov. Although this may apply to some, it doesn't explain the majority and the rapid growth. There is no shortage of educated doctors, former employees of drug companies, and data from CDC etc that is used for the anti vax argument. To convince someone of a point, one needs to not start from the posit…

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 for effective debating is to first attempt to convince yourself of the opponents argument by researching it from their perspective. Actually seek out the evidence to prove their point. 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.

Bottom line, if you can appear more knowledgeable of their perspective, they are more likely to listen to what you have to say.

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

#113

Post by differentView » Thu, Jan 29, 2015, 7:44 PM UTC

jarfil wrote: post #110

differentView wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>People must always have a choice to vaccinate or not, forcing it upon them will do nobody any good because it will only increase the distrust of government. >That said, if you don't vaccinate, you are a threat to the public and I do think you should be banned from public schools, public transportation, public gatherings and should have to explain to anyone you physically interact with that you are a risk to them and…

If people who knowingly infect you with AIDS get thrown in jail, why should it be any different with people who knowingly decide to increase your chances of contracting any other disease? I say supervised interactions with society is a very sane compromise for people who pose a danger, but may still have something to offer. As opposed to outright killing them.

If you're willing to confine them to their homes or jail, why not just force them to be vaccinated?

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

#114

Post by mikeash » Thu, Jan 29, 2015, 7:47 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…

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 bad in all circumstances and you'd be mad to put it in your children.

The fundamental problem is that people don't know how to think. They don't know how to differentiate between "this vaccine contains small amounts of aluminum which is harmless for the following reasons" and "this vaccine contains aluminum, which is known to cause dementia and Alzheimer's disease."

Maybe I do need to appear more knowledgeable of their views to be convincing. But I can't "realize it is supported by real data" when it clearly is not.

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

#115

Post by 13years » Thu, Jan 29, 2015, 7:56 PM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #109

13years wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yet one of the issues presented from the anti-vax argument is that there are safety issues with vaccines. The companies producing them are protected by law from the consumer if there are any damages. In a free market, the manufactures would have to improve the product to the degree that the consumers are convinced it is safe, and if injury is proven in court they would be held liable. Therefore there would be a profi…

Right now, we have vaccines that are perfectly safe, but some people think they are unsafe. In a completely free market, economic forces would create a profit incentive to fix the perception of safety, while weakening the incentive to provide actual safety, so we'd have vaccines that are less safe but everybody thinks are safe. This is not an improvement.

And why do people think they are unsafe if they are safe? Where is the disconnect? If I have immunity from all crimes, would you trust me to never commit a crime? Certainly you can see the argument that is proposed is one of trust. Maybe they are safe as claimed, and if so it is then asked why then is immunity necessary for the producers?

Perception of safety without safety is fraud, in a free market the government does enforce laws against fraud.

How is it that a non free market has more incentive for safety? Who is accountable today? As I stated, currently law protects the producers against injury claims, so what is the mechanism and incentive for enforcement?

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

#116

Post by mikeash » Thu, Jan 29, 2015, 7:59 PM UTC

13years wrote: post #115

mikeash wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right now, we have vaccines that are perfectly safe, but some people think they are unsafe. In a completely free market, economic forces would create a profit incentive to fix the perception of safety, while weakening the incentive to provide actual safety, so we'd have vaccines that are less safe but everybody thinks are safe. This is not an improvement.

And why do people think they are unsafe if they are safe? Where is the disconnect? If I have immunity from all crimes, would you trust me to never commit a crime? Certainly you can see the argument that is proposed is one of trust. Maybe they are safe as claimed, and if so it is then asked why then is immunity necessary for the producers? Perception of safety without safety is fraud, in a free market the government d…

I assume your questions about why produces are immune from injury claims are rhetorical. If they're real, I can try to actually answer them.

The mechanism and incentive for enforcement is with the FDA. If a vaccine is genuinely unsafe then the FDA is supposed to (and as far as I know, actually will) take appropriate action, up to and including fining the company and banning the product if it's warranted.

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

#117

Post by astrodust » Thu, Jan 29, 2015, 8:23 PM UTC

rsync wrote: post #75

mrfusion wrote: post #22

I think a lot of anti-vax stuff might be fixed with a compelling documentary. Vaccines need their own "Blackfish" documentary. Simply producing that one vivid, compelling movie is now completely changing how whales and dolphins are kept at aquariums. The power of a well produced documentary is really unbelievable. It makes sense. People are visual creatures, and natural story tellers (and listeners) so sometimes show…

"I think a lot of anti-vax stuff might be fixed with a compelling documentary." I am, sadly, not optimistic that this would help. The anti vaccine crowd, much like other groups and belief systems (even ones you and I might be part of) are as much a statement of politics and self actualization as they are of any rational belief system. The "facts" are simply after the fact justifications, conveniently chosen, to bolst…

They're buying into a narrative. What we need is a stronger narrative that drowns out the idiots with their megaphones yelling about how vaccines will turn your kids into zombies.

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

#118

Post by 13years » Thu, Jan 29, 2015, 8:47 PM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #116

13years wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And why do people think they are unsafe if they are safe? Where is the disconnect? If I have immunity from all crimes, would you trust me to never commit a crime? Certainly you can see the argument that is proposed is one of trust. Maybe they are safe as claimed, and if so it is then asked why then is immunity necessary for the producers? Perception of safety without safety is fraud, in a free market the government d…

I assume your questions about why produces are immune from injury claims are rhetorical. If they're real, I can try to actually answer them. The mechanism and incentive for enforcement is with the FDA. If a vaccine is genuinely unsafe then the FDA is supposed to (and as far as I know, actually will) take appropriate action, up to and including fining the company and banning the product if it's warranted.

The U.S. National Vaccine Injury Act is the mechanism in place which protects producers from a litigation.

So yes, this would be the role of the FDA. However, the effectiveness and willingness of the FDA to take such action, not just against vaccines but any drug product, is a subject of much controversy. Just search Vioxx and FDA. That case doesn't present a reassuring view that safety issues are handled in the way you would expect.

Also, the FDA doesn't conduct its own independent testing. They require companies to do the testing and submit the results. It is certainly not the best designed system.

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

#119

Post by mcguire » Thu, Jan 29, 2015, 8:57 PM UTC

13years wrote: post #115

mikeash wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right now, we have vaccines that are perfectly safe, but some people think they are unsafe. In a completely free market, economic forces would create a profit incentive to fix the perception of safety, while weakening the incentive to provide actual safety, so we'd have vaccines that are less safe but everybody thinks are safe. This is not an improvement.

And why do people think they are unsafe if they are safe? Where is the disconnect? If I have immunity from all crimes, would you trust me to never commit a crime? Certainly you can see the argument that is proposed is one of trust. Maybe they are safe as claimed, and if so it is then asked why then is immunity necessary for the producers? Perception of safety without safety is fraud, in a free market the government d…

Nothing is every perfectly safe.

The difference between a perception of safety and a perception of unsafety is usually anecdotes.

> Maybe they are safe as claimed, and if so it is then asked why then is immunity necessary for the producers?

To prevent lawsuits from the .0001% of "[s]evere allergic reaction[s]"[1] from convincing the manufacturers that a low-profit-margin product is not worth the effort to produce.

P.S. When you write, "...in a free market the government does enforce laws against fraud", you need to be careful. "Fraud" is a very fuzzy concept.

[1] http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/patient-ed/conversations/dow...

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

#120

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

13years wrote: post #118

mikeash wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I assume your questions about why produces are immune from injury claims are rhetorical. If they're real, I can try to actually answer them. The mechanism and incentive for enforcement is with the FDA. If a vaccine is genuinely unsafe then the FDA is supposed to (and as far as I know, actually will) take appropriate action, up to and including fining the company and banning the product if it's warranted.

The U.S. National Vaccine Injury Act is the mechanism in place which protects producers from a litigation. So yes, this would be the role of the FDA. However, the effectiveness and willingness of the FDA to take such action, not just against vaccines but any drug product, is a subject of much controversy. Just search Vioxx and FDA. That case doesn't present a reassuring view that safety issues are handled in the way…

I agree that the system is not the best. But it's hard to argue with the results when it comes to vaccines. You can reasonably argue that the system doesn't do enough to ensure vaccine safety, and you can reasonably argue that the system doesn't give a sufficient public perception of safety, but you can't argue that the vaccines actually available are unsafe. And I dispute the notion that adding more free market to the mix would fix the problems without also un-fixing the most important part.