DR Congo measles: More than 6k dead in world's worst outbreak(bbc.com)
bbc.com
DR Congo measles: More than 6k dead in world's worst outbreak
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-51028791
118 comments
This is just a heartbreaking, needless destruction of human life. Measles can be eradicated, there is no animal reservoir. Eradication of disease is an incredible gift to the future of humanity, and only gets harder with more population. The coming population increases in subsaharan Africa are probably going to take eradication of measles and polio off the map for a while, especially with anti-vaccine sentiment rising in Nigeria for example.
Last Week Tonight has a nice episode on Vaccines: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VG_s2PCH_c
It explains why vaccines are important, why "taking it slow" with vaccines is a bad approach, and other important stuff.
Please vaccinate yourself and your kids.
It explains why vaccines are important, why "taking it slow" with vaccines is a bad approach, and other important stuff.
Please vaccinate yourself and your kids.
iknowalot(2)
Every year, I take the vaccine against the seasonal flu, if possible. This is not primarily for myself, but for the people around me. The goal is herd immunity, that's how we win.
tpetry(3)
Unfortunately, many people in the DRC do not believe that the ebola vaccine is effective or safe (or that ebola is a real problem). [1]
Fortunately, general acceptance of vaccines in the DRC is quite high: "Confidence in vaccines in general was high and most respondents believed that vaccines work (899 [90·7%, 95% CI 87·0–93·4) and are safe (852 [88·5%, 85·4–91·0])." [1]
[1]: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3... (DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(19)30063-5 )
Fortunately, general acceptance of vaccines in the DRC is quite high: "Confidence in vaccines in general was high and most respondents believed that vaccines work (899 [90·7%, 95% CI 87·0–93·4) and are safe (852 [88·5%, 85·4–91·0])." [1]
[1]: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3... (DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(19)30063-5 )
And here I am with a sister who thinks that vaccination for a newborn should be "weighed against the risk". The reason we don't know measles as a deadly disease anymore is because vaccination works so well!
This mostly comes down to the irrationality regarding risks when you're having kids.
Out of my own experience, and given the worst cases scenarios you hear from it's difficult not to fear for your loved ones (and I mean you literally feel it in your loins) especially when YOUR decision can have even the slightest chance of ruining their lives. -- Edit: Please don't get me wrong, I have kids, and their vaccines are up to date (like mine). A chat with an hospital pediatrist can help, for me it's when he clearly explained that without vaccines a kid can be gone within 2 hours. And virtually it's as narrow minded as refusing to take antibiotics.
Out of my own experience, and given the worst cases scenarios you hear from it's difficult not to fear for your loved ones (and I mean you literally feel it in your loins) especially when YOUR decision can have even the slightest chance of ruining their lives. -- Edit: Please don't get me wrong, I have kids, and their vaccines are up to date (like mine). A chat with an hospital pediatrist can help, for me it's when he clearly explained that without vaccines a kid can be gone within 2 hours. And virtually it's as narrow minded as refusing to take antibiotics.
It's something more than this.
There was a discussion on the "American Cargo Cult" some days ago on HN: https://web.archive.org/web/20030812081806/http://klausler.c...
There was a discussion on the "American Cargo Cult" some days ago on HN: https://web.archive.org/web/20030812081806/http://klausler.c...
It’s not difficult. There’s ample statistical evidence available, and super high quality resources online such as CDC if one wanted to educate themselves.
It’s people being lazy and wanting to subject the world to their ego of “I’m so smart because I believe in something contrary to the mainstream or against the establishment”.
There’s clear proof of fraud by the idiot that started the nonsense rumors of vaccine harm, and not a single person who knows basic math has shown risk of harm. There is no excuse, other than wanting to satisfy your own ego.
It’s people being lazy and wanting to subject the world to their ego of “I’m so smart because I believe in something contrary to the mainstream or against the establishment”.
There’s clear proof of fraud by the idiot that started the nonsense rumors of vaccine harm, and not a single person who knows basic math has shown risk of harm. There is no excuse, other than wanting to satisfy your own ego.
You're misreading the GP just so you can be a pedant about it.
GP's post is excellent because it highlights where the irrationality comes from. If you want to convince parents with antivaxx tendencies of anything, don't begin by calling them lazy or having ego issues.
Address their fears, explain how the risk of not vaccinating 1000x higher than any perceived risk vaccination can have.
I'm a parent and my kids go to a hippie school (hippie by Dutch standards, i.e. not very). The school is great but one downside is there's a disproportionate amount of antivaxxers among the parents. They very deeply believe in it, not unlike deeply religious people. I've seen it happen, calling them idiots is only going to light their fire. But reminding people why this entire vaccination thing got started in the first place can truly help sway people who are on the fence. Most young-ish people who grew up in the west have no perception about how terrible these diseases are because nobody around them gets them anymore.
GP's post is excellent because it highlights where the irrationality comes from. If you want to convince parents with antivaxx tendencies of anything, don't begin by calling them lazy or having ego issues.
Address their fears, explain how the risk of not vaccinating 1000x higher than any perceived risk vaccination can have.
I'm a parent and my kids go to a hippie school (hippie by Dutch standards, i.e. not very). The school is great but one downside is there's a disproportionate amount of antivaxxers among the parents. They very deeply believe in it, not unlike deeply religious people. I've seen it happen, calling them idiots is only going to light their fire. But reminding people why this entire vaccination thing got started in the first place can truly help sway people who are on the fence. Most young-ish people who grew up in the west have no perception about how terrible these diseases are because nobody around them gets them anymore.
Friend of a friend stumbled across a more effective method.
Ask antivaxxers "What if anti-vaccine information is fake news planted by Russia to weaken our country?" (Not sure if the geopolitics play in your locale, salt to taste)
Only half-joking. It's surprisingly effective because it plays with their (a) propensity to believe conspiracies, (b) distrust of traditional media, (c) distrust of governments, (d) desire to feel smarter than everyone else.
Ask antivaxxers "What if anti-vaccine information is fake news planted by Russia to weaken our country?" (Not sure if the geopolitics play in your locale, salt to taste)
Only half-joking. It's surprisingly effective because it plays with their (a) propensity to believe conspiracies, (b) distrust of traditional media, (c) distrust of governments, (d) desire to feel smarter than everyone else.
Nope, you misread me, I clearly stated the term "irrationality".
I consider myself as educated, though having your own kids and being responsible for their life and well-being is what makes you doubt vaccines, especially when you read about people developing multiple sclerosis or other neurodegenerative symptoms following a vaccination.
I consider myself as educated, though having your own kids and being responsible for their life and well-being is what makes you doubt vaccines, especially when you read about people developing multiple sclerosis or other neurodegenerative symptoms following a vaccination.
The cause of the irrational behavior is the idea that one is more qualified than medical researchers in every developed country after reading a few websites about vaccine “effects”. To me, that is to satisfy one’s ego. An educated person knows where the limits of their knowledge is, and becoming a parent does not endow you with the ability to analyze vaccine efficacy, or any other subject matter.
For some parents it may be ego or hubris, for others irrational fear, and in many cases it may be driven by the consensus of a social group that someone identifies with.
The fact that individuals are making decision contrary to available evidence and data may be hard to accept (esp. for the HN community) but it happens all the time.
In order to convince people to change their behavior, appealing to the emotional and pro-social drivers may be more effective than providing better rational arguments.
To be clear: I am not endorsing people making obviously bad decisions, it drives me crazy, and I am 100% pro vaccines.
The fact that individuals are making decision contrary to available evidence and data may be hard to accept (esp. for the HN community) but it happens all the time.
In order to convince people to change their behavior, appealing to the emotional and pro-social drivers may be more effective than providing better rational arguments.
To be clear: I am not endorsing people making obviously bad decisions, it drives me crazy, and I am 100% pro vaccines.
I have kids. I have not once doubted vaccines, because I am literate and have a minimum level of reasoning ability.
I think the inquisition against the ignorant is also in it to satisfy their egos, so we have two groups that are playing this game.
We have public health care and you always get at least a vaccine against tetanus if you even hit your small toe and go to the doc. Slightly exaggerated but not by much. Nobody questioned it. And it wasn't esoteric moms on youtube that let people be skeptical, it was the pressure to enforce vaccination that did. I have no data, but these are the usual behavior patterns you can currently observe in almost all political debates.
Enforcing vaccinations is mostly a populist policy.
We have public health care and you always get at least a vaccine against tetanus if you even hit your small toe and go to the doc. Slightly exaggerated but not by much. Nobody questioned it. And it wasn't esoteric moms on youtube that let people be skeptical, it was the pressure to enforce vaccination that did. I have no data, but these are the usual behavior patterns you can currently observe in almost all political debates.
Enforcing vaccinations is mostly a populist policy.
[deleted]
> And virtually it's as narrow minded as refusing to take antibiotics
Antibiotics are over prescribed. And due to that we enjoy Multidrug-resistant bacteria. Antibiotics are the opposite of vaccines. By taking them needlessly you fuck up everyone else.
Antibiotics are over prescribed. And due to that we enjoy Multidrug-resistant bacteria. Antibiotics are the opposite of vaccines. By taking them needlessly you fuck up everyone else.
No, I think this is a dangerous excuse for unacceptable behaviour. Caring "irrationally" about your kids is taking them to the doctor a small cough that is probably zero cause for concern. It's zealously taking them for their shots and for their medicine, etc.
She's not wrong about the need to weigh against the risk.
She's just wrong about assessing the risk.
She's just wrong about assessing the risk.
[deleted]
It’s almost like we weigh the risk against the benefit every step of the god damned vaccine development process.
The people that talk about vaccines and risks aren’t equipped to assess risks in the first place as they don’t understand basic probability and statistics.
I 100% agree that the cost / benefit analysis in this scenario is clear-cut.
However, it's also the case that "experts" are occasinally completely in left field, and when challenged by non-experts, have exactly the same "You're not equipped to make this decision" attitude. Doctors who prescribe drug after drug to elderly people, until they have functional dementia due to drugs and nothing to do with any underlying health issue.
And the same thing can happen for entire fields, when one strong-minded "expert" manages to make one particular way of doing things or looking at things the "orthodox" way, and the field as a whole rejects any doubters as heretics. (There was recently an article on HN about how most educational researchers think whole-word reading is a terrible way of learning, but how most educators think that's the best way.)
Diversification of decisions is one of the best defenses we have against that.
Or to put it differently: There is a risk if we allow parents to make this sort of decision on behalf of their kids: that a number of parents will be fooled by charlatans into making decisions that harm their kids. But there's also a risk of not allowing parents to make this sort of decision on behalf of their kids: That a single well-placed wrong individual can make a decision which harms untold millions of children.
There is certainly a time and a place for overriding parent's decisions about their children; but it should be made in circumstances where the costs of doing so are crystal clear.
However, it's also the case that "experts" are occasinally completely in left field, and when challenged by non-experts, have exactly the same "You're not equipped to make this decision" attitude. Doctors who prescribe drug after drug to elderly people, until they have functional dementia due to drugs and nothing to do with any underlying health issue.
And the same thing can happen for entire fields, when one strong-minded "expert" manages to make one particular way of doing things or looking at things the "orthodox" way, and the field as a whole rejects any doubters as heretics. (There was recently an article on HN about how most educational researchers think whole-word reading is a terrible way of learning, but how most educators think that's the best way.)
Diversification of decisions is one of the best defenses we have against that.
Or to put it differently: There is a risk if we allow parents to make this sort of decision on behalf of their kids: that a number of parents will be fooled by charlatans into making decisions that harm their kids. But there's also a risk of not allowing parents to make this sort of decision on behalf of their kids: That a single well-placed wrong individual can make a decision which harms untold millions of children.
There is certainly a time and a place for overriding parent's decisions about their children; but it should be made in circumstances where the costs of doing so are crystal clear.
I think a major part of the problem is that if you tell people that they "aren’t equipped to assess risks" then that will probably reinforce their position.
Edit: I think find ways to deal with irrational views (amplified by social media) while treating the people holding the views with a degree of respect and empathy is one of the challenges of our age.
NB "Authorities" who perpetrate these views when they really should know better do deserve contempt.
Edit: I think find ways to deal with irrational views (amplified by social media) while treating the people holding the views with a degree of respect and empathy is one of the challenges of our age.
NB "Authorities" who perpetrate these views when they really should know better do deserve contempt.
I mean, it should be weighed against the risk. Why not?
The benefit is protection against a deadly disease, for the child and for their community, and the risk is not feeling well for a day or so.
Easy answer.
The benefit is protection against a deadly disease, for the child and for their community, and the risk is not feeling well for a day or so.
Easy answer.
it's not only that measles is in itself deadly, it also resets your immune system and makes it forget a lot of the pathogens it's met before. This leaves the person vulnerable to infections that they should be immune to: https://www.sciencefocus.com/news/measles-resets-the-immune-...
Interesting. Measles could be a revolutionary cure for my diabetes. Maybe I should get measles to reset my immune system.
Yes I'm joking and not going to try.
Yes I'm joking and not going to try.
It IS a prisoner’s dilemma of sort. If everyone around you is vaccinated, you mostly enjoy herd immunity, so the benefit is much smaller.
The risks are small, and most definitely worth it from society’s point of view, and likely from a personal point of view - They are, however, harder to assess from a personal point of view.
I am somewhat familiar with a case where a serious underlying autoimmune condition was apparently triggered by vaccination. It would have surely manifested at some point, but for this condition - the later it is triggered for the first time, the better the overall outcome. (The parents in these cases often believe that the condition was caused by the vaccination, rather than revealed by it - the truth is any significant provocation of the immune system might trigger it). There have also been cases where live polio and flu vaccines where not sufficiently weakened and caused the disease.
It is also not helpful that most vaccine proponents discount anyone who considers risks a heretic.
The risks are small, and most definitely worth it from society’s point of view, and likely from a personal point of view - They are, however, harder to assess from a personal point of view.
I am somewhat familiar with a case where a serious underlying autoimmune condition was apparently triggered by vaccination. It would have surely manifested at some point, but for this condition - the later it is triggered for the first time, the better the overall outcome. (The parents in these cases often believe that the condition was caused by the vaccination, rather than revealed by it - the truth is any significant provocation of the immune system might trigger it). There have also been cases where live polio and flu vaccines where not sufficiently weakened and caused the disease.
It is also not helpful that most vaccine proponents discount anyone who considers risks a heretic.
It is not a prisoner's dilemma, it's an idiot's dilemma.
Confronting public idiocy saves lives, literally. I'm intolerant to idiocy, and will shoo away any loonie I come upon, sometimes physically.
Confronting public idiocy saves lives, literally. I'm intolerant to idiocy, and will shoo away any loonie I come upon, sometimes physically.
This doesn’t sound like a life-saving approach at all. Helps to frame it as the idea, not the person, that’s idiotic. Then work on being a better communicator who’s powerful at getting concepts across.
I'm not sure - stigma can actually be quite effective at compelling action.
Entertaining anti-vaccination as a non idiotic concept costs lives.
Maybe stupidity should be ridiculed? We've tried taking it seriously and it isn't helping.
Maybe stupidity should be ridiculed? We've tried taking it seriously and it isn't helping.
Very recently UK medics noticed some highly deleterious effects of Tetra Fluenz flu vaccine and pushed back the earliest age for its use to 24 months. They not only entertained not vaccinating, they advise it.
It's irrational to not consider the question of whether taking a vaccine is right (for yourself [or dependents], and for the population).
It's irrational to not consider the question of whether taking a vaccine is right (for yourself [or dependents], and for the population).
There's a big difference between a flu vaccination and MMR.
Not as big as you are thinking the MMR is normally given after one year. This is because there are some know potential negative side effects when babies get it earlier.
The point is that society already evaluates these hazards/risks very effectively so that individual parents don't need to. Indeed any individual parent's risk analysis about vaccines is likely to put their children at greater risk.
The point is that society already evaluates these hazards/risks very effectively so that individual parents don't need to. Indeed any individual parent's risk analysis about vaccines is likely to put their children at greater risk.
Vaccines can kill or have hugely deleterious consequences for some.
The Tetra Fluenz flu vaccine, according to UK medical authorities, has some negative effects (flu like symptoms, not just a pain in the arm) on ≥1:10 recipients, https://www.medicines.org.uk/emc/medicine/29112.
The problem with the simplistic "just get vaccinated" approach is when it fails you've nothing to fall back on because you weren't honest to start with.
"Take this and you won't get flu, it's _perfectly_ safe", the child gets sick from the vaccine, then gets flu anyway. So, now I should trust you? That would be irrational.
Vaccines are absolutely right for public health, they may not (in rare cases) be right for specific individuals. As vaccination rate increases (close to full vaccination) the mathematical reasoning based on not becoming personally sick sides with _not_ get vaccinated.
Moreover, vaccination advice from medics does change, infant flu vaccinations has been pushed back recently. Presumably you'd have people ignore that advice and vaccinate anyway because 'not getting vaccinated is always "idiocy"'? In your opinion it seems 'just disgusting whether vaccination is right is idiocy'?
tl;dr people lying that vaccines always work for individuals is bad in the same way as those lying that vaccines don't work.
The Tetra Fluenz flu vaccine, according to UK medical authorities, has some negative effects (flu like symptoms, not just a pain in the arm) on ≥1:10 recipients, https://www.medicines.org.uk/emc/medicine/29112.
The problem with the simplistic "just get vaccinated" approach is when it fails you've nothing to fall back on because you weren't honest to start with.
"Take this and you won't get flu, it's _perfectly_ safe", the child gets sick from the vaccine, then gets flu anyway. So, now I should trust you? That would be irrational.
Vaccines are absolutely right for public health, they may not (in rare cases) be right for specific individuals. As vaccination rate increases (close to full vaccination) the mathematical reasoning based on not becoming personally sick sides with _not_ get vaccinated.
Moreover, vaccination advice from medics does change, infant flu vaccinations has been pushed back recently. Presumably you'd have people ignore that advice and vaccinate anyway because 'not getting vaccinated is always "idiocy"'? In your opinion it seems 'just disgusting whether vaccination is right is idiocy'?
tl;dr people lying that vaccines always work for individuals is bad in the same way as those lying that vaccines don't work.
Could you stop mingling "flu like symptoms" with "serious ongoing consequences"?
Every single Flu-vaccine has a high probability of showing flu-like symptoms. These are from a medicinal standpoint nothing compared to the seriousness of the real flu.
Even MMR-Vaccines are expected to cause a harmless form of "vaccine-measles", which can show up as mild rash, low fever, etc. Again, no these are not to be concerned about.
These vaccination-associated symptoms are widely harmless and there is no reason to mingle them with ongoing side-effects caused by vaccinations.
Every single Flu-vaccine has a high probability of showing flu-like symptoms. These are from a medicinal standpoint nothing compared to the seriousness of the real flu.
Even MMR-Vaccines are expected to cause a harmless form of "vaccine-measles", which can show up as mild rash, low fever, etc. Again, no these are not to be concerned about.
These vaccination-associated symptoms are widely harmless and there is no reason to mingle them with ongoing side-effects caused by vaccinations.
For sure, confusion was not intended.
People act as if vaccination is perfect and has no risks and that people who try and consider the risks are thus stupid.
>"These vaccination-associated symptoms are widely harmless"
So, mild symptoms are mild, got you.
But you accept that there are people getting life altering illnesses from vaccinations?
Eg https://www.cdc.gov/flu/prevent/guillainbarre.htm says about 1-2 per million vaccinations.
People act as if vaccination is perfect and has no risks and that people who try and consider the risks are thus stupid.
>"These vaccination-associated symptoms are widely harmless"
So, mild symptoms are mild, got you.
But you accept that there are people getting life altering illnesses from vaccinations?
Eg https://www.cdc.gov/flu/prevent/guillainbarre.htm says about 1-2 per million vaccinations.
Why did you leave out this (essential) information that associates your cherry-picked statement?: (emphasis mine)
>The data on the association between GBS and seasonal flu vaccination are variable and inconsistent across flu seasons. If there is an increased risk of GBS following flu vaccination it is small, on the order of one to two additional GBS cases per million doses of flu vaccine administered.
They clearly never state your conclusion, they said 'If there is such an increased risk, it is incredibly small'.
Now the question is, why would you do that?
>The data on the association between GBS and seasonal flu vaccination are variable and inconsistent across flu seasons. If there is an increased risk of GBS following flu vaccination it is small, on the order of one to two additional GBS cases per million doses of flu vaccine administered.
They clearly never state your conclusion, they said 'If there is such an increased risk, it is incredibly small'.
Now the question is, why would you do that?
This is a brief conversation on a mobile phone, I clearly sourced my backing for that statement.
Answer this - does vaccination have any major health risks?
Answer this - does vaccination have any major health risks?
>tl;dr people lying that vaccines always work for individuals is bad in the same way as those lying that vaccines don't work.
Fully agree with you, pbhjpbhj. The nuance in the discussion is missing(no surprises). To add to the confusion we have both the govt and pharmas involved, and both entities are know for coverups. So who should a person trust? Yes a vaccine can potentially work very well, but it is only to the extent that it has been well designed and tested, no different from any other product or medicine.
Fully agree with you, pbhjpbhj. The nuance in the discussion is missing(no surprises). To add to the confusion we have both the govt and pharmas involved, and both entities are know for coverups. So who should a person trust? Yes a vaccine can potentially work very well, but it is only to the extent that it has been well designed and tested, no different from any other product or medicine.
The point here is the limitation "apparently".
Huge part of the needless discussion about the risks of vaccines happening in well educated parts of the population are misattributed effects of vaccines.
Everyone I know apparently knows someone that has a child that has a serious condition because of a vaccination. Yeah, right, if it was so clear cut and widespread, these vaccines would be pulled from the market yesterday.
Huge part of the needless discussion about the risks of vaccines happening in well educated parts of the population are misattributed effects of vaccines.
Everyone I know apparently knows someone that has a child that has a serious condition because of a vaccination. Yeah, right, if it was so clear cut and widespread, these vaccines would be pulled from the market yesterday.
>if it was so clear cut and widespread, these vaccines would be pulled from the market yesterday
That argument is empirically false, as there have been multiple medications and vaccinations which did widespread harm.
Granted, nearly all of them occurred 30+ years ago. However I don't think we should ever claim we've advanced to the point where we _know_ that there are _no_ medications or vaccinations that are causing problems we aren't aware of yet, especially given how long it might take for those problems to manifest themselves.
Not an argument against vaccination at all, just an argument for intellectual humility.
That argument is empirically false, as there have been multiple medications and vaccinations which did widespread harm.
Granted, nearly all of them occurred 30+ years ago. However I don't think we should ever claim we've advanced to the point where we _know_ that there are _no_ medications or vaccinations that are causing problems we aren't aware of yet, especially given how long it might take for those problems to manifest themselves.
Not an argument against vaccination at all, just an argument for intellectual humility.
Yes, and those vaccines were pulled.
Once a vaccine has shown to be just remotely as dangerous as the illness it is trying to prevent, it becomes pointless and is no longer available. The respective regulative bodies in either country are rather strict about which vaccine is allowed to circulate.
Once a vaccine has shown to be just remotely as dangerous as the illness it is trying to prevent, it becomes pointless and is no longer available. The respective regulative bodies in either country are rather strict about which vaccine is allowed to circulate.
Those vaccines were pulled _eventually_. We cannot know if we're in the period where harm is being done but before it's realized and the vaccine then pulled.
Most "Vaccine injured" children have a no vaccine related cause to their problems. It has become hip to blame autism on vaccines even though there is no relation.
Something like 1 in million do have a serious side effect of the vaccine. This is far less than the 6000 dead in Congo because they don't have the vaccine, but it isn't zero. The fact that it is far less is reason to vaccinate anyway - but if doctors can determine that your child is one of that 1 in a million before hand (they normally cannot!) it would be wise to skip vaccination for just those kids.
Something like 1 in million do have a serious side effect of the vaccine. This is far less than the 6000 dead in Congo because they don't have the vaccine, but it isn't zero. The fact that it is far less is reason to vaccinate anyway - but if doctors can determine that your child is one of that 1 in a million before hand (they normally cannot!) it would be wise to skip vaccination for just those kids.
People who are immunocompromised or who have an autoimmune condition may get serious complications from vaccines. It is, in fact, a well known contraindication.
Some people do not know they are in one of those groups, and ARE likely to experience harm. These groups (unaware immune issues) are statistically insignificant compared to the entire population, of course.
But ignoring them is in fact contributing to the antivax movement; primes are statistically rare but if you told people they don’t exist, you would be working for the antimath movement.
Some people do not know they are in one of those groups, and ARE likely to experience harm. These groups (unaware immune issues) are statistically insignificant compared to the entire population, of course.
But ignoring them is in fact contributing to the antivax movement; primes are statistically rare but if you told people they don’t exist, you would be working for the antimath movement.
I fully agree.
The problem is: Even to well educated parents the summary "Everyone could be affected by life-long effects due to vaccination" has a drastically different meaning compared to an objective bystander that looks at the real numbers, and this leads to (seemingly irrational) decisions. Some even are mislead into feeding crusades against this "well known danger called vaccination".
The problem is: Even to well educated parents the summary "Everyone could be affected by life-long effects due to vaccination" has a drastically different meaning compared to an objective bystander that looks at the real numbers, and this leads to (seemingly irrational) decisions. Some even are mislead into feeding crusades against this "well known danger called vaccination".
>if it was so clear cut and widespread, these vaccines would be pulled from the market yesterday
bipson, Ever read of Vioxx or Thalidomide? Yes it was pulled, a tad late though. What is the point that you are trying to make that somebody doesn't already know?
bipson, Ever read of Vioxx or Thalidomide? Yes it was pulled, a tad late though. What is the point that you are trying to make that somebody doesn't already know?
1. Yes, I heard about them. And the point remains, as soon as their effects were discovered, they were pulled.
2. These are not vaccines, but medications. So this has virtually nothing to do with "known vaccine-induced ongoing illnesses"
2. These are not vaccines, but medications. So this has virtually nothing to do with "known vaccine-induced ongoing illnesses"
Which is the prisoner’s dilemma I mentioned earlier - if you already enjoy herd immunity, why risk being part of the group in which the problems are discovered?
>Yes, I heard about them. And the point remains, as soon as their effects were discovered, they were pulled.
Then you have not read of Vioxx or Thalidomide in sufficient detail. There were also massive coverups (or being dismissive of reported negative effects) did you notice that when you read it?
> These are not vaccines, but medications.
bipson, what the point that you are trying to make? Is it that the production/administration of vaccines (but not medications) are not prone to incompetence and coverups by govt, pharma? It is not a rhetorical question.
Then you have not read of Vioxx or Thalidomide in sufficient detail. There were also massive coverups (or being dismissive of reported negative effects) did you notice that when you read it?
> These are not vaccines, but medications.
bipson, what the point that you are trying to make? Is it that the production/administration of vaccines (but not medications) are not prone to incompetence and coverups by govt, pharma? It is not a rhetorical question.
[deleted]
Hmm, I don't know anyone whose personally got an ongoing condition attributed to a vaccine.
Scarlett fever vaccine (decades ago) made me very ill. Flu vaccine this year seemed (it could be coincidental) to make one of my children ill enough to be off school. These are expected consequences.
It's also expected that some few people will die and others will have life altering conditions. These vaccines should still be used, because vaccines address the needs of a population in the first instance.
Scarlett fever vaccine (decades ago) made me very ill. Flu vaccine this year seemed (it could be coincidental) to make one of my children ill enough to be off school. These are expected consequences.
It's also expected that some few people will die and others will have life altering conditions. These vaccines should still be used, because vaccines address the needs of a population in the first instance.
Why adding the last paragraph, in particular the first sentence of it?
Although I can't prove the sentence incorrect as such, it is stated in such a vague and alarmist way, that it could easily taken as an example of fueling the FUD?
Although I can't prove the sentence incorrect as such, it is stated in such a vague and alarmist way, that it could easily taken as an example of fueling the FUD?
What's the problem, you don't believe vaccination causes any harm, ever? Just look up a vaccine (eg https://www.medicines.org.uk/emc/product/1159), febrile seizures, conjunctivitis, anorexia, etc., even just the vaccination might render someone dead/hospitalised through anaphylaxis.
You know crossing the road can kill too. You'll probably be fine, but I'm not going to lie and say you'll never be the one who gets hit. If I did lie to you, then you heard about someone getting hit, you should then not trust me and be hesitant about taking advice from me. Now, do you see how this works with something like flu vaccine? "It's perfectly safe" and "≥10%" get minor illness from it are not the same thing - saying the former when the evidence supports the latter means someone won't trust you for health advice even if you're objectively the best source because they can no longer be as objective about it.
You know crossing the road can kill too. You'll probably be fine, but I'm not going to lie and say you'll never be the one who gets hit. If I did lie to you, then you heard about someone getting hit, you should then not trust me and be hesitant about taking advice from me. Now, do you see how this works with something like flu vaccine? "It's perfectly safe" and "≥10%" get minor illness from it are not the same thing - saying the former when the evidence supports the latter means someone won't trust you for health advice even if you're objectively the best source because they can no longer be as objective about it.
She's right though, vaccination for anyone should be weighed against the risk.
We spend considerable amounts of money ensuring that vaccinations are safe and effective, and we only recommend vaccination if they are safe and effective and if the very small risks (and all interventions have risks) make sense against the disease being vaccinated against.
In the case of measles there are considerable risks of death or life long harm, so this balancing question is easy.
Maybe we need better ways of telling people like her about how the risks are weighed up, because at the moment she has multi-millionaires (trying to sell her vitamin pills) telling her things she wants to hear and that make sense to her. Clearly we (the people who want her to vaccinate) are failing to communicate.
We spend considerable amounts of money ensuring that vaccinations are safe and effective, and we only recommend vaccination if they are safe and effective and if the very small risks (and all interventions have risks) make sense against the disease being vaccinated against.
In the case of measles there are considerable risks of death or life long harm, so this balancing question is easy.
Maybe we need better ways of telling people like her about how the risks are weighed up, because at the moment she has multi-millionaires (trying to sell her vitamin pills) telling her things she wants to hear and that make sense to her. Clearly we (the people who want her to vaccinate) are failing to communicate.
I broadly agree: I think part of the problem is those in government, including on issues of healthcare, have lied in the past. Trust is easily lost and very hard to win back.
You can win people back by lying more (Brexit!), short termist (advertisers, politicians) need not worry about that, but it creates even more harm down the road.
You can win people back by lying more (Brexit!), short termist (advertisers, politicians) need not worry about that, but it creates even more harm down the road.
risk of something really bad happening after a measles vaccine is something like 1:40 000. risk of going deaf after measles is 1:1000.
she's absolutely right, that's why she should be begging for the vaccine.
she's absolutely right, that's why she should be begging for the vaccine.
That's a great argument for persuading someone in a population where measles is rampant that they need to get vaccinated (or get their kids vaccinated). The US in the 1950s, for example, was such a population. 95% of the population got measles by age 15 [1].
Given the numbers you give [2], as long as the measles rate is above 2500 per 100k in your population the probability of going deaf from measles in a non-vaccinated person is higher than the probability of something really bad happening to that person from vaccination.
For persuading someone in a population where measles is rare due to past eradication efforts and herd immunity it's not so great an argument. In the US, we are way below 2500 per 100k.
To make a persuasive case using that approach you are going to need to pull in all the possible bad outcomes of measles. Deafness, death, and whatever else it can do. That might do it.
The ideal way to deal with a diseases is universal vaccination (except for people who for medical reasons cannot be safely vaccinated) until the disease is completely eradicated, then stop vaccination people.
Near the end of that, though, you reach a stage where the disease has not been completely eradicated but is rare enough that for any given individual skipping vaccination may actually be lower risk for them personally provided that enough other people do get vaccinated.
At that point, you have to switch to arguments based on the good of the group as a whole instead of personal risk to individuals.
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6878996
[2] I'm assuming 1:N means odds are 1 to N, meaning a probability of 1/(N+1).
Given the numbers you give [2], as long as the measles rate is above 2500 per 100k in your population the probability of going deaf from measles in a non-vaccinated person is higher than the probability of something really bad happening to that person from vaccination.
For persuading someone in a population where measles is rare due to past eradication efforts and herd immunity it's not so great an argument. In the US, we are way below 2500 per 100k.
To make a persuasive case using that approach you are going to need to pull in all the possible bad outcomes of measles. Deafness, death, and whatever else it can do. That might do it.
The ideal way to deal with a diseases is universal vaccination (except for people who for medical reasons cannot be safely vaccinated) until the disease is completely eradicated, then stop vaccination people.
Near the end of that, though, you reach a stage where the disease has not been completely eradicated but is rare enough that for any given individual skipping vaccination may actually be lower risk for them personally provided that enough other people do get vaccinated.
At that point, you have to switch to arguments based on the good of the group as a whole instead of personal risk to individuals.
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6878996
[2] I'm assuming 1:N means odds are 1 to N, meaning a probability of 1/(N+1).
To be very clear, I fully support vaccination, my kids are vaccinated, as am I.
Having said that, when people hear the risk of a bad reaction is 1:40000, I believe that what they think is "my kid's chances of getting this disease are lower than that, so I am making the smart choice by picking the lower risk and avoiding the vaccine risk".
Having said that, when people hear the risk of a bad reaction is 1:40000, I believe that what they think is "my kid's chances of getting this disease are lower than that, so I am making the smart choice by picking the lower risk and avoiding the vaccine risk".
And in some cases that's probably the rational position; even then it's still rational (and right) for the medical community to advise vaccination as they "don't care" about that one person, they care about the billions.
This dichotomy lies at the heart of this issue IMO.
This dichotomy lies at the heart of this issue IMO.
By those numbers, if she thinks the chance of getting measles is less than 1/40, then if acting purely selfishly she'd prefer not to get the vaccine?
No. If you hadn't added "she thinks" to your sentence you would be correct - but the if condition is false (the risk is worse than 1/40) and so she should get the vaccine.
Where are you getting the measles risk from?
All the numbers I can find put the risk of measles in the US at a couple of orders of magnitude lower than 1/40. About 1000 cases a year in a bad year, 320 million population, 80 year lifespan give about a 1/4000 chance of getting measles sometime over your lifespan.
All the numbers I can find put the risk of measles in the US at a couple of orders of magnitude lower than 1/40. About 1000 cases a year in a bad year, 320 million population, 80 year lifespan give about a 1/4000 chance of getting measles sometime over your lifespan.
This is complex. Measles risk depends on how many other people are vaccinated. Right now the US is above herd immunity rates meaning that for everybody the risk is insignificant. However we are close to a tipping point, if vaccination rates go much lower the risk for everybody increases dramatically (but how much I don't know). Note that risk for everybody is just that: for some vaccinated people the vaccination doesn't work (As I recall it is about 95% works) - the risk is drastically higher for the non-vaccinated of course.
If it is only one person in isolation asking this question the risk of vaccines is worse than the risk of the disease - but if more than one person asks this questions the risk of measles for everybody is higher.
There is also the risk that some mutation of the virus will evade the current vaccine. I don't know how big that risk is (the flu mutates such that a new vaccine is needed yearly), at which point everybody is vulnerable. If enough people are vaccinated the disease has many less opportunities for this and will die.
If it is only one person in isolation asking this question the risk of vaccines is worse than the risk of the disease - but if more than one person asks this questions the risk of measles for everybody is higher.
There is also the risk that some mutation of the virus will evade the current vaccine. I don't know how big that risk is (the flu mutates such that a new vaccine is needed yearly), at which point everybody is vulnerable. If enough people are vaccinated the disease has many less opportunities for this and will die.
[deleted]
She also is not wrong because not even the CDC recommends the measles vaccine until 12 months of age. Hepatitis B is the only vaccine recommend for newborns. The rest are staged out over time, starting at 2 months.
I think the parent comment was implying she was not going to vaccinate until they saw risk, unrelated to CDC recommendation. Many people put off vaccines beyond what the CDC or other health agencies recommend because of misinformation that has been spread.
I don't actually know what's recommended. I was just taken aback by her "we're not sure we're going to vaccinate the child" as if that was somehow optional. At least I got her to agree to listen to a doctor about the risks.
This is false information. If you are in the risk group BCG is also recommended for newborns. Source: https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/vaccinations/bcg-tuberculosis-...
In the UK MMR is given to babies around age 1. The reason is that if their mother is vaccinated, they have the antibodies, but "These maternal antibodies decline with age and are almost all gone by the time MMR is normally given – around the age of 1 year." Source: https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/vaccinations/mmr-vaccine/
Please, read before you are posting false information.
In the UK MMR is given to babies around age 1. The reason is that if their mother is vaccinated, they have the antibodies, but "These maternal antibodies decline with age and are almost all gone by the time MMR is normally given – around the age of 1 year." Source: https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/vaccinations/mmr-vaccine/
Please, read before you are posting false information.
It is not false information, we just live in different countries, and I specifically said I was talking about the CDC. Here is their info: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/hcp/imz/child-adolesc...
Today, my child had their second dose of the MMR vaccine. I'm thankful for the access that we have to healthcare here in Norway. I can't imagine what it is like in the Congo, but I'm grateful that people and organizations are working hard to provide help to people in need.
Yesterday I read about someone paying 4000 USD for an operation for their old cat. People have strange priorities. Perhaps it would be good to see what poverty is like.
It’s easy to spend someone else’s money.
I am sorry, what is the point of your comment?
Are you saying people are not allowed to love their pets and should let them die, and not care for them when they are sick?
The life of ten thousand sick pets does not reach the value of one human life. I think the point of that comment was simply how some people have no access to basic medicine, while at the same time a team of highly trained people are dedicating their time and effort to saving a cat. Of course, this can be said of many things: jewelers, yacht - builders, sports car engineers.
> The life of ten thousand sick pets does not reach the value of one human life.
You don’t get to make that decision for anyone else.
You don’t get to make that decision for anyone else.
> The life of ten thousand sick pets does not reach the value of one human life.
Typical selfish human response.
Typical selfish human response.
> The life of ten thousand sick pets does not reach the value of one human life.
At the same time complains like the OP is just hypocrisy, since we've spent a lot of money in things we don't need (a simple smartphone) while we can feed a family of the 3rd world for 1/2 year with the same money.
And (not trolling and not personal) I still prefer my pets' lives over yours, as many of the users here would prefer their pets over the life of a random dude on the internet (like mine).
But this doesn't mean that we should stop caring about our pets. I believe that the initial statement (human life > pet life) is wrong since we should all be caring about all living things (maybe?).
At the same time complains like the OP is just hypocrisy, since we've spent a lot of money in things we don't need (a simple smartphone) while we can feed a family of the 3rd world for 1/2 year with the same money.
And (not trolling and not personal) I still prefer my pets' lives over yours, as many of the users here would prefer their pets over the life of a random dude on the internet (like mine).
But this doesn't mean that we should stop caring about our pets. I believe that the initial statement (human life > pet life) is wrong since we should all be caring about all living things (maybe?).
U don't think anyone said to " let them die" just spending that much money on a cat when other people could benefit much more with a fraction of that amount.
the same argument could be made for elderly care. how many people in {insert poor country} could have been saved for the cost of one day your grandma spent in a hospital?
most people have to work to accumulate money. once they've done so, they are a lot more likely to spend it on people and animals they know and love than some people on the other side of the world they've never met. I don't think this is inherently wrong.
most people have to work to accumulate money. once they've done so, they are a lot more likely to spend it on people and animals they know and love than some people on the other side of the world they've never met. I don't think this is inherently wrong.
I anticipate you will get a lot of criticism by people who have extremely strong emotional connections to their animal companions.
And who are we to say they are wrong? The problem isn't that people care too much about their pets: it's that we don't care enough about human beings we've never met.
And it's a hard problem to solve, because it's like a wetware problem, and we are hard to upgrade.
And who are we to say they are wrong? The problem isn't that people care too much about their pets: it's that we don't care enough about human beings we've never met.
And it's a hard problem to solve, because it's like a wetware problem, and we are hard to upgrade.
HN is really immature in this regard. The way I framed my post left nothing specific to pick out as objectionable but these people obviously don't even like the suggestion that their values are in question.
So do I let them continue as before and be a hypocrite by valuing fake internet points more than human lives?
So do I let them continue as before and be a hypocrite by valuing fake internet points more than human lives?
[flagged]
> I have pretty much zero sympathy for adult antivaxxers who get infected.
Why? Some of them will have been lied to by people who have considerable amounts of money to spend on disinformation, and we (who support vaccination) have done a poor job of explaining that vaccination is safe and effective.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/nov/13/majority-...
https://khn.org/morning-breakout/important-donor-to-anti-vax...
We know that many people struggle to understand health information. In England we see:
https://beta.nhs.uk/service-manual/content/health-literacy
> More than 4 in 10 adults struggle with health content for the public and more than 6 in 10 adults struggle with health content that includes numbers and statistics.
Attacking people with anti-vaccination views does not work to change their minds.
Why? Some of them will have been lied to by people who have considerable amounts of money to spend on disinformation, and we (who support vaccination) have done a poor job of explaining that vaccination is safe and effective.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/nov/13/majority-...
https://khn.org/morning-breakout/important-donor-to-anti-vax...
We know that many people struggle to understand health information. In England we see:
https://beta.nhs.uk/service-manual/content/health-literacy
> More than 4 in 10 adults struggle with health content for the public and more than 6 in 10 adults struggle with health content that includes numbers and statistics.
Attacking people with anti-vaccination views does not work to change their minds.
Adults are responsible.
I’m not trying to change their minds.
I’m not trying to change their minds.
Most adults are just grown up children and should be treated with compassion even when they make idiotic decisions.
That would be a reasonable outlook but antivaxxers spread cult like anti scientific beliefs that endanger the lives of many people beyind the individual antivaxxers.
This cult like behaviors isn’t deserving of ordinary empathy it needs to be seen for what it is and stopped. Fortunate many countries are doing this.
This cult like behaviors isn’t deserving of ordinary empathy it needs to be seen for what it is and stopped. Fortunate many countries are doing this.
Absolutely it needs to be stopped - all I'm saying is that those unfortunate bumpkins who have fallen for it don't deserve to die (or have "evolution take its course") simply because they are naive and gullible.
Not everyone is smart, some are easily manipulated or prone to irrational anxieties. They are still deserving of life and happiness.
Not everyone is smart, some are easily manipulated or prone to irrational anxieties. They are still deserving of life and happiness.
For Fucks sake.
The awful people in this world are the ones who know vaccines are important but just go on about anti-vaxxers while millions die who couldn't afford access to vaccines.
Any chance we could skip bullying anti-vaxxers, it's not on topic to this article and talk about how you can get vaccines to the people in the DR Congo. And it's not drones..... probably something to do with refrigeration and money. Or hiring remote people.
The awful people in this world are the ones who know vaccines are important but just go on about anti-vaxxers while millions die who couldn't afford access to vaccines.
Any chance we could skip bullying anti-vaxxers, it's not on topic to this article and talk about how you can get vaccines to the people in the DR Congo. And it's not drones..... probably something to do with refrigeration and money. Or hiring remote people.
I'll sound like a conspiracy theorist here but hear me out.
The anti-vaxx movement is a successful underground propaganda attack by the Russians to weaken the population. They are also behind the election of unfit leaders and anti-European (read: anti-unity) sentiments, or more broadly speaking, making people argue about internal affairs so they're no longer a strong front against the outside world.
Where's the state funded counter propaganda? There used to be propaganda posters that portrayed not vaccinating as un-American and / or working with the enemy.
The anti-vaxx movement is a successful underground propaganda attack by the Russians to weaken the population. They are also behind the election of unfit leaders and anti-European (read: anti-unity) sentiments, or more broadly speaking, making people argue about internal affairs so they're no longer a strong front against the outside world.
Where's the state funded counter propaganda? There used to be propaganda posters that portrayed not vaccinating as un-American and / or working with the enemy.
Evidence? I think most of these "Russian funded propo attacks" are vastly overstated.
We have our own monied interests to do that for us
We have our own monied interests to do that for us
It's funny, this might be the one-in-a-million case where a conspiracy theorist actually hit the nail on the head.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Infektion
Of course this was in the 80's, and probably stopped now
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Infektion
Of course this was in the 80's, and probably stopped now
>a successful underground propaganda attack
You could make the exact same argument about the ecological movements opposing nuclear power generation. Not sure if that goes along, or perhaps across, the point you are making.
You could make the exact same argument about the ecological movements opposing nuclear power generation. Not sure if that goes along, or perhaps across, the point you are making.
It still strikes me as one of the greatest ironies in the last half century, that in trying to protect the environment from contamination from nuclear accidents, many encormnetalists have committed and condemned us to this path of climate change. Some even going as far as directly taking funds from big oil/coal.
The problem is and always has been NIMBYs far more than environmentalists