Vaccination is a process with COLLECTIVE benefits.

[sibelian]

It's nothing to do how individuals feel about it.

"But what if I WANT to leave pools of gasoline lying all over my front yard? Since the ordinance prohibiting gasoline pools, figures are DOWN, so gasoline's obviously safe. Hardly anyone in my neighbourhood has had a gasoline instigated housefire for years. What about my personal, individual, American, oppression-resisting FREEDOM? People doing all stuff together.... EEEEEEEW, COMMUNISM!"

THIS is the level of debate, now.

WTF?

[Autumn]

1. I'm in fucking awe how they are controlling this message

and people are lapping it up. I saw an interview with a woman who's husband is a doctor. They have made the decision to not vaccinate their kids because it's a stepping stone to the government dictating what schools our children have to go to. There was more but my brain froze up when she said that and it just didn't process

[marym625]

2. I think I love you!

You're absolutely cracking me up!



Great response to the dumbest post I've seen yet.

[Spider Jerusalem]

3. As far as I'm concerned?

Anyone who's more worried about the right of an individual to not vaccinate their children than they are about society's right to not have fucking MEASLES EPIDEMICS probably has no place on a Democratic forum.

[DanTex]

8. Presumably you're talking about me, which means that you missed the part of my OP

where I said I was supportive of mandatory vaccinations. Precisely for the reason that even though it may not (and probably isn't, based on current numbers) in the individual's best interest, it is still in society's.

[DanTex]

17. No need for the personal attack.

Comparing the risk of adverse reaction to the risk of death from measles is dumb. You know why. Because the risk of dying from measles is starting from the point from where a person already has measles.

To compare the benefits and harms of vaccinations, you have to calculate the risk of first contracting measles and then dying from it. It's not like the instant you skip the vaccine, someone comes along and infects you with measles.

And the thing is, the risk of contracting measles in the US (for an unvaccinated person) is so low that the overall risk of contracting and then dying from measles is also on the order of magnitude of one in a million, and based on the current numbers, it's actually lower than the risk of a fatal adverse event from the vaccine.

Like I said, if the numbers change, so does the cost-benefit analysis. But barring some massive change, it's still gonna be a pretty close call.

[Spider Jerusalem]

18. US vaccination rate is 91%. Herd immunity rate is 95%.

As long as the risk is non-zero (and it increases with every person who doesn't vaccinate), vaccination is the wiser choice because of herd immunity (which requires a 95% vaccination threshold; vaccine efficacy is 95-98%, so in practice it really requires closer to 100% vaccination rates). This should not be hard to understand.

[DanTex]

19. Wiser choice for society. Not necessarily for the individual. Again, those are different things.

You know, this isn't some weird newfangled notion I'm talking about. There's a whole field, game theory, which studies individuals maximizing their own best interest and what the implications are for the common good. Try googling "vaccination game theory" or something along those lines. You'll see that people understand this concept very well. E.g.:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15329411
http://www.emis.de/journals/JIPAM/images/364_07_JIPAM/364_07.pdf
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.386.7906&rep=rep1&type=pdf
http://medicalevidence.blogspot.com/2009/05/autism-vaccines-and-tragedy-of-commons.html

I'm hoping your refusal to understand the difference between the individual good and the societal good is intentional, so as to avoid any unpleasant kinks in your dogma. They say that people's minds about the vax debate don't change based on evidence. True for both sides, I guess.

[Spider Jerusalem]

20. "What's best for the individual" doesn't enter into it.

Because we're talking about something that can be very bad for society (and in fact has been very bad for society, in the not too distant past). When one is talking about public health? Fuck the individual good. I'm sorry if you think that a one in a million chance of severe vaccine reaction justifies not vaccinating; you're wrong.

[DanTex]

21. That's a value judgement.

I get that you're repulsed by the idea that people might hold their own well-being and their family above the general good of society. But that doesn't mean that you have to be willingly blind to the concept of individual costs and benefits.

After all, a lot of people do act in their own self-interest, and I am thankful that public health experts understand this, and aren't blind to the whole concept the way you are. As those links I posted show, people who study this stuff understand perfectly well the point that I was making, which is that the individual's best interest and society's best interest can be at odds when it comes to vaccinations. And that, from the present numbers, it seems we are at that point with MMR (although, like I said, it's close).

What's odd that, if you don't care about the individual good, why all the vitriol? Why the intentional ignorance? Why not just say, fine, from the individual perspective, maybe vaccination doesn't make sense, but I don't make my decisions based only on my individual well being, I take into account society as a whole as well. That would be a rational response.

The other question is, if people are being asked to get vaccinated for the common good and not the individual good, is it ethical to lie to them or mislead them about it? Why not be upfront and say, look, if you don't get the MMR vaccine, most likely you'll be totally fine. The chance that you will eventually contract measles and die from it are about one in a million. We're talking lightning-strike, asteroid impact.

On the other hand, the chances that something fatal happens with the vaccine itself are also close to one in a million. From back of the envelope calculations, it looks like the vaccine is riskier than non-vaccine, but bottom line is, we're talking about on the order of really small probabilities either way. The real benefit of the vaccine isn't for your own life. It's for other people. Because by not vaccinating, you bring down the herd immunity and put everyone at greater risk. It's not about you, it's about society.

And then let people decide for themselves whether they want to contribute to society in that way.

Instead the strategy seems to be to call them stupid and tell them they are putting their child's life at risk, something that anyone who can add and subtract can easily figure out is not true in any non-infinitesmal way.

[Spider Jerusalem]

23. Yours is the only intentional ignorance I'm seeing here.

[DanTex]

24. OK then. I take it you have no response.

Similar to the rest of the herd. Lots of anger and vitriol, but when it comes to facts and science, nothing.

[Spider Jerusalem]

25. Facts and science:

The risk of adverse reaction to the vaccine is one in one million. (The rate of adverse reactions to all vaccines, not only MMR, observed in the UK? One in nine hundred thousand.) Here's the thing: we KNOW that vaccination is effective in eliminating diseases. Vaccinating everyone is sound public health policy. This is why there isn't any smallpox, anymore. Allowing people to opt out of vaccinating leads to larger outbreaks and creates a reservoir for the disease to become endemic. The risk in an unvaccinated population isn't one in one million; you're committing a statistical fallacy by lumping the vaccinated and unvaccinated cohorts together.

[DanTex]

26. Hmm, so you didn't read my OP at all. You're so blinded by dogma...

I specifically did not lump the vaccinated and unvaccinated cohorts together in my calculation. I assumed that all of the cases of measles came from only the unvaccinated portion of the population, and divided the annual measles cases by the fraction of the population that is unvaccinated. This, of course, is actually a generous assumption, because some vaccinated people still get measles. But for a back-of-the-envelope calculation, it's good enough.

The thing is, why is this so hard to comprehend? It's like you're not even trying to be rational. It would have taken 20 seconds for you to follow this part of the calculation. Almost like you're afraid of the actual numbers.

There's nothing to fear. You're still right that vaccinating everyone is sound public health policy. It just may not be in an individual's best interest, despite being in the best interest of society. The fact that this happens sometimes with vaccinations is something that literally every public health expert in the world understands. Just not you. For some reason...

[sibelian]

73. Yes.

It's fucking bazooka-in-the-face level crazy.

[MohRokTah]

4. I love the mathematical "logical" argument using phony data from the VAERS database.

A database where you must acknowledge that the data only reflects correlation and that no conclusions about causality can be made from the data before you can access the database.

So these anti-Vaxxer liars make an argument using data they KNOW is false to convince others to come on their death march.

[marym625]

5. That was you

That replied with the bullshit numbers, I think? Great response. Horrible excuse that was used in answer to it.

Was trying to reply +1 when the thread was locked.

[MohRokTah]

39. Yep, the closest we can get is harm caused by vaccines.

From 2006 to 2013, 1,968,399,297 doses of various vaccines were given. Of those, compensable claims for harm were 1300.

This means the chance of being harmed by a vaccine is just 0.000000066%

http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/statisticsreports.html

The mathematical argument for "personal decision" on vaccines is complete and total bunk.

[marym625]

40. ain't it though!

Even with the faulty numbers, the decision not to is just stupid.

Thanks for posting the real numbers.

[DanTex]

42. LOL @ "real numbers".

Off by a factor of a thousand, but, hey, what's a few extra zeros between friends!

[marym625]

45. evidently

For you, they mean absolutely nothing. Smart ass, incorrect answers mean nothing to you.

[DanTex]

41. Math not being your strong suit.

1300/1,968,399,297 is 0.000,066%, not 0.000,000,066%

But hey, you were only off by a factor of 1000! I get it, lots of zeros look cool...

For MMR, we get 78/65,864,745, which comes out to about 1.2 per million. Which is higher than the likelihood of contracting measles and dying from it. True, not all of those 78 cases are deaths. On the other hand, this only counts people who actually got a lawyer and saw the whole process through to either settlement or lawsuit. Likely only a fraction of the cases where someone was seriously hurt by vaccine.

So, at the very least, its a close call, regardless of how we measure the risk of MMR, and probably the risks outweigh the benefits to the individual.

[marym625]

44. Sorry genius

1,300÷1,968,399,297=0.0000006604. Not 0.000,066

How about checking before you post an incorrect snark? Better yet, stop being an ass altogether.

[DanTex]

51. You know how percentages work, right? Are you familiar with this symbol: "%"

Or maybe not. Who am I talking to? Lordy.

[marym625]

52. You are right

I didn't catch the %. My bad.

Does not change the fact that you are being a complete jerk. And, your bullshit that you are not an anti vaxxer is belied by everything else you are saying. You can't stop with your pushing your agenda based on faulty numbers and excusing the fact that the data is incorrect, while hijacking a thread and talking down to people. You are pushing an agenda that is bad for society and the individual. And you're doing it with more bullshit.

You sir, are an ass.

[DanTex]

53. Yes I am. Good call to switching tactics to name-calling. It suits you much better than math.

I have no idea what agenda you think I'm pushing. I do some simple arithmetic with numbers drawn from peer-reviewed papers and government medical databases, and suddenly I'm an "anti vaxxer" (this despite the fact that I proposed mandatory vaccinations) and I have a crowd of buffoons who can hardly add and subtract, but are just absolutely certain that I'm wrong.

Well, at least now you're talking in the abstract about the supposed "bullshit" that I'm pushing. The people who actually tried to challenge my argument using logic and mathematics fell flat on their faces. Including you.

In the end, calling me a jerk doesn't change the numbers.

[marym625]

54. I am actually

Last edited Sun Feb 8, 2015, 11:10 PM - Edit history (1)

Great at both. I missed the %. Big deal. I admit if I make a mistake. Something you should learn to do.

No, they didn't fall on their faces. Nor did I when I pointed out your error on your thread. You are just too dimwitted to recognize when you are proven wrong.

There is absolutely nothing scientific about your numbers when you start with bullshit.

You have done nothing but post crap, pushing the agenda that personal choice to not vaccinate makes more sense than to vaccinate. Just 100% crap using crap figures, while being a dick about it. And then you can't admit defeat when you are proven wrong in numerous ways.

I keep saying I am done with you and then keep replying. The fault I have is allowing idiots to get to me.

Learned my lesson. You can't deal with idiots aka anti-vaxxers.

Have a good life. You are my first ignore in all these years.

[DanTex]

55. Of course you are. The second coming of Euler, right here on DU! Obviously...

Funny how you insisted that my (correct) numbers were wrong, but you didn't bother and check MohRokTah's (off by 1000) numbers. Gee, could that be because you're more interested in defending dogma than the truth?

Nobody has pointed out any errors in anything. See, you're still talking in the abstract, no specifics. And I know why. Because if you try making a substantive argument, you know you are going to lose. Because my numbers are right.

When you actually do the math, the chances of dying of measles are on the order of one in a million. The chances of dying from the vaccine are of the same order of magnitude (google "order of magnitude"...). A back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests that the vaccine is more dangerous. The numbers I used are from reputable sources. There's nothing wrong with the math. And I'm not the only person who's figured this out.

In fact, public health experts know exactly what I'm talking about. The fact that vaccination is one area where the personal benefit and the societal benefit don't always coincide. There are actually numerous papers written about this very topic. Google "vaccination game theory" if you're interested. Then you can write to the authors and call them idiots and anti-vaxxers. I'm sure they'll appreciate your constructive criticism just as much as I do.

As far as my agenda of "personal choice", I'll repeat again that I actually suggested mandatory vaccinations to overcome the problem that the personal benefits of this particular vaccination are miniscule, and probably outweighed by the risk. You overlook this inconvenient fact over and over again because it doesn't fit into your two-minute-hate mentality.

Much more fun to call names. Thinking is hard. I get it. And, truth be told, I usually recommend that people think for themselves, but when it comes to people like you and MohRokTah, maybe it's better that you just mindlessly repeat what other people say. At least that way you won't make a fool of yourself anymore.

[marym625]

46. He's wrong again

Eesh! Hijacks a thread because his was hidden. Then corrects you and laughs at us both with incorrect answers and snark.

If he's going to be condescending and patronizing you would think he would check his facts first.

[MohRokTah]

47. I ignore the anti-Vaxxers.

There is no reasoning with them.

[marym625]

48. Yes. I see that now

But it was fun to correct him. Again.



I'm done with him though.

[MohRokTah]

49. That sort of thinking is not confined to anti=Vaxxers.

You and I are now part of the conspiracy. This is what happens with all conspiracy theorists.

[marym625]

50. Awesome!

I've never been part of conspiracy before.

Glad to be in your company.

[DanTex]

7. Is there a better source than VAERS about adverse reactions?

VAERS surely contains some coincidental deaths. Also, it surely misses some deaths that were caused at least in part by a vaccine. What is the best way to measure the fatality rate from MMR?

[MohRokTah]

30. VAERS data has nothing to do with adverse reactions to MMR

Go read the disclaimer. It is simple correlation, not causation.

[DanTex]

31. Right, but we need to estimate this number in order to make any kind of rational decision.

It's correlation, but it's the only data we have. The true number could be higher or lower. Yes, in some cases someone might have coincidentally died right after getting vaccinated. In other cases someone could have died due to the vaccine but the doctors didn't make the connections.

Ideally we would have randomized clinical trials, but even then it would be impossible to compute the risks with a precision down to a million to one. So we work with the data we have.

The thing is, unless you're prepared to absolutely and scientifically guarantee that the risk of death is less than 2 in one million (something you wouldn't be able to do even if you were a trained scientist), then my argument holds up 100%, and the vaccine risk is greater than the disease risk. In a truly bizarre twist, you actually think that not having solid data about the vaccine risk should make people more likely to be willing to take it!

I guess the argument is:
Here, take this vaccine. It prevents measles.
-Well what are the chances that I'll get measles and die from it if I don't get vaxxed?
Well, about one in a million.
-Hmm, pretty low. So the vaccine risks must be tiny if it's worth taking just to prevent a one-in-a-million-shot.
Actually, we're not sure about the risks. We have correlative data that suggests about 2 in a million, but the true number could be higher or lower, we just can't say for sure.
-Wait, WHAT? You want me to take the vaccine to prevent a 1-in-a-million chance of death, and you can't even say with confidence that the vaccine's chances of killing me are lower than that?!?!
Umm, yeah, that's it!

[MohRokTah]

32. Then the estimate must be ZERO deaths due to MMR.

And with that, I'm done. I refuse to argue with anti-Vaxxer arguments.

[DanTex]

35. LOL. Yes, 0%. With a confidence interval of lower than one in a million.

That would be 0.000,000%. With zero data, you're prepared to make that claim.

I don't think there's a single study in the entire history of medical research that has made a claim this absurd, but hey, that's what the internet is for, right? And you're trying to pretend to be on the side of science!

[Major Nikon]

56. You were cold hard busted posting anti-vax bullshit and got your OP hidden for it

It's not even as if you came up with this nonsense on your own as snopes already had it cold hard busted. Just like whoever the anonymous anti-vax nutter was that came up with this nonsense, you simply assumed that every single death that was coincident with a MMR vaccine was causal to the MMR vaccine.

So now your excuse for this bullshit is "we need to estimate this number", which means you feel the need to pull some number straight out of your ass and present it as if it smells like a rose.

Now when someone pours a cold bucket of reality over your head that you can attribute exactly zero of those deaths to the MMR vaccine, you try to turn the tables and pretend it's up to someone else to disprove the bullshit you never proved to begin with.

Brilliant!

[DanTex]

60. Yeah, umm, no, that's not what happened.

I posted links to purely reputable sources and did some simple math. The concept I'm referring to is something that every public health expert in the world understands.

The fact of the matter is, the best available data suggests on the order of one in a million death rate from MMR. That's not the slightest bit surprising, it's a very low number. It's true that the data isn't perfect, but like I said, that should make a rational person more concerned, not less. The data is correlative, not causal, and it is voluntarily reported, it's not collected systematically. But we work with the data we have.

More importantly, ignorance is not bliss, and saying that one needs to estimate the risk before injecting foreign biological agents into an infant's bloodstream isn't "bullshit", it's something that every doctor in the world would agree with. The morons who think that the lack of quality data to estimate the risk number precisely, that this means that the risk should actually be assumed to be zero (or at least lower than a million to one) -- this level of stupidity, I admit, is something I'm not accustomed to. If anyone tried making an argument this dumb on any topic that wasn't as religious here at DU as vaccinations, even you I think would understand the flaw.

At the end of the day, the one thing we can quantify reasonably well is the benefit associated with MMR. And we know that this is truly miniscule. The risk of dying from measles is close to one in a million over an unvaccinated lifetime, based on current infection and fatality rates. It's probably actually a little lower than that. And there's simply no scientific argument that the risks associated with the MMR vaccine are proven to be lower than that. "We don't know" doesn't mean "it's safer than a million to one".

[Major Nikon]

62. Two questions

1) Was your OP, which is virtually identical to the anti-vax bullshit that was cold hard busted by snopes, hidden or not?
http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/mmrdeaths.asp

2) Is this statement bullshit?

The Government's VAERS database (http://www.medalerts.org/) says that there have been 86 deaths from MMR vaccine reactions in the last 10 years.

I dare you to say no to either question. If the answer is yes to both (and please don't insult both of our intelligences by pretending it isn't), then ...

Yeah, umm, yes, that's exactly what happened.

[DanTex]

64. Answers.

1) Absolutely not.
2) Absolutely not.

For 1, my OP was different in many ways from the Snopes article. I guess you haven't read my OP. For example, I calculated the actual risk factor with respect to the two choices. I didn't just add up the total number of deaths. I also explained why this information supports a case for mandatory vaccination. Etc.

For #2, obviously, there are caveats with any data source. With VAERS, there are at least two major ones. One is that the data is correlative, it's not causative. This should be obvious to anyone, since VAERS is not a randomized clinical trial, which is the only way to truly measure causality. For people dumb enough to not realize that, I apologize. The second is that the data is collected voluntarily by submission, not systematically. This means the data set will contain both false positives and false negatives. Again, I apologize to people too dumb to understand this.

Now my turn.
1) What do you think the risk of dying from measles is for someone who refuses MMR?
2) Are you convinced that the risk of dying from MMR is lower, and if so, what scientific evidence is there that the risk of dying from MMR is lower than that?

Please, show your work.

[Major Nikon]

67. Actually I'd rather show your work

The Government's VAERS database (http://www.medalerts.org/) says that there have been 86 deaths from MMR vaccine reactions in the last 10 years.

For #2, obviously, there are caveats with any data source. With VAERS, there are at least two major ones. One is that the data is correlative, it's not causative. This should be obvious to anyone, since VAERS is not a randomized clinical trial, which is the only way to truly measure causality. For people dumb enough to not realize that, I apologize. The second is that the data is collected voluntarily by submission, not systematically. This means the data set will contain both false positives and false negatives. Again, I apologize to people too dumb to understand this.

That's some dishonest shit right there. Damn dishonest even. Either that or I guess I'm just too fucking stupid to understand that what you actually said wasn't what you actually said.

[DanTex]

69. So you're dodging my questions. Just as I expected.

You're too giddy about having "busted me" to actually care about the substance of the argument. How do the flaws in the data source actually affect the cost-benefit analysis? What do you think the risks are?

I understand why you won't even try to engage me in any kind of debate. Because you know how it would turn out. So you dodge, dodge, dodge, and play silly games.

[DanTex]

22. Well is there one? A better source than VAERS?

What would you say the probability of death from reaction to MMR vaccine is? VAERS data suggests about 2 in a million. Does that seem outlandishly high to you? Yeah, VAERS is imperfect, as all data sources are. The true number could be higher, or it could be lower, as the VAERS webpage points out. Welcome to data.

Is there any scientific analysis that places the confidence interval of the fatality rate at lower than 2 in a million? If so, I'd be very interested.

If you want to argue that VAERS is safe with confidence level of significantly below 2 in a million, you sure better back that with some research.

[MohRokTah]

29. VAERS data suggests NOTHING about the number of deaths from reaction to MMR

That's precisely the point.

[DanTex]

33. Awesome. So, according to you, we know absolutely nothing about the risks of the MMR

vaccine, and yet you're still gung-ho insisting that every needs to take it to prevent the one-in-a-million chance they end up dying from measles. And if they don't then they're an idiot. LOL.

[MohRokTah]

34. Good bye

I put people who make anti-Vaxxer arguments on ignore.

[DanTex]

36. Good bye. Ignore is a good option when math isn't working out for you.

That's the first rational thing you've done this conversation!

[Major Nikon]

59. Sure, because correlation proving causation is so rational

[DanTex]

61. You're missing the point completely.

We're measuring risk factors here. Find me a study that places the risk factor at less than a million to one, and then we'll talk. Oh, wait, there is no such study. You seem to think that somehow the lack of quality data implies that the vaccine is risk-free. Not at all. The best available data suggests a risk factor of one or two deaths per million vaccines.

More importantly, the lack of better data most certainly does not imply that the risk factor is lower. I hope you can see the stupidity of that argument. But from the rest of the dumb things I've seen in this thread, honestly nothing will really surprise me.

[Major Nikon]

63. What part of this bullshit am I missing?

Or more to the "point" what part of it are you missing?

The Government's VAERS database (http://www.medalerts.org/) says that there have been 86 deaths from MMR vaccine reactions in the last 10 years.

[DanTex]

65. Again, missing the point, and dodging questions. Not looking good for you.

I'm not the one calling people "idiots" for refusing vaccination. Or for taking vaccination. Like I said, it's a close call.

The thing is, the only way to rationally defend the decision to vaccinate based only on personal benefit is if MMR has a risk of less than a million to one. This is because the risk of dying from measles if you don't vaccinate are about a million to one -- this part of my OP hasn't been challenged. So that's the baseline. The question is, what are the risks of the other decision.

Well, one thing to do, is look at the best data available, flawed as it may be. It might over-estimate, it might underestimate, but at least it's something. But you are insisting that, because the data is flawed, we should just assume the risk is zero!

Since you didn't respond to my request for evidence, let's just assume you have none. So, you think someone is an idiot because they are willing to take a one in a million risk of someday dying of measles, but you don't think anything at all of the risk of injecting a vaccine for which you believe there is no solid data about it's riskiness. And, more staggeringly, you think that the very fact that we don't know the risks exactly, you think this actually supports your case! Ignorance is bliss, is what it boils down to.

[DanTex]

66. Oh, and since you don't seem to like thinking for yourself, here's an article by an MPH making

almost the same argument I made. Maybe since it comes from an expert in the field, you'll actually try to understand what's actually going on here, as opposed to getting all giddy about that snopes article.

In fact, this guy would have gotten his post hidden even faster than me. Why? Because he actually uses autism as his example of a potential downside risk. Not because there is evidence of an autism link, but because the lack of evidence of a link isn't absolute proof that there's no link, there's always a confidence interval, and given the incredibly small risk of contracting and dying from measles, almost any possible risk at all associated with the MMR vaccine could rationally convince a person not to take it.

Such is the sad state of health discussions on DU. It's like religious cult-like devotion to "science" without any actual understanding of science.

http://medicalevidence.blogspot.com/2009/05/autism-vaccines-and-tragedy-of-commons.html

Here are his conclusions.

1.) The individual child's absolute risk of death from Measles is VERY small, as is the increase in risk from failure to be vaccinated.

2.) The risk of autism from MMR based on the Madsen data has a wide confidence interval which does not exclude what some parents may think is a meaningful increased risk of 24%. The meaningfulness of this risk may be especially important in the context of comparing it with another very small risk, such as that of death or diasbility from measles, or motor vehicle accidents.

3.) The refusal to vaccinate is more of a social responsibility issue, a Tragedy of the Commons, than it is an individual patient safety and health issue. (Such is also the case with PPDs, TB, and INH prophylaxis, but don't get me started on that.)

4.) The risks that parents take for their children through vaccination refusal is similar risks they take via motor vehicle travel. We are not encouraging parents to cut in half the number of miles they drive with their children per annum to reduce the risk of death from MVAs from 0.000145 to half of that, so why are we so adamant about their getting MMR? Because it's an issue of the commons, not the individual.

And if it is an issue of civic responsibilty, we should frame it as such, rather than guilt-tripping parents about exposing their children to risk via neglect. Just like driving a massive Ford Excursion, where your children may be safer but everybody else's are worse off (because of the size of your projectile or its impact on the environment), vaccination is better for the commons, if not for your own children.

[Major Nikon]

68. Wow! Two replies even.

Since I can't think for myself, perhaps you can explain this, because as yet you're kinda wearing yourself out trying to dodge it. I read your source and I'll be damned if it comes within a cab ride of claiming anything about the risk of death from the vaccine so I'm afraid I'm at a loss here.

Here it is again so you don't forget this time:

The Government's VAERS database (http://www.medalerts.org/) says that there have been 86 deaths from MMR vaccine reactions in the last 10 years.

[DanTex]

70. OK, clearly you don't actually care about the substance of the argument, you just like the feeling

that you "got me." I mean, with all these people that are just 100% certain that taking MMR is such a great idea, and that the risks are lower than the benefits, you'd think even a single one of them would be able to quantify the risks.

But no. I wonder what you're afraid of. Could it be that you know the math won't come out in your favor?

I know exactly what I said. I like my calculations. I'm still waiting for yours.

What are you scared of?

[Major Nikon]

74. That WAS the substance of your argument

Throw out your obviously busted and nonsense claim which you are "scared of" even acknowledging in hopes it will just go away....

The Government's VAERS database (http://www.medalerts.org/) says that there have been 86 deaths from MMR vaccine reactions in the last 10 years.

...and whatever substance you are claiming falls apart like a house of cards. When the number of deaths attributed to the MMR vaccine is zero, you have no substance. It's just not that complicated.

[DanTex]

75. Again, I don't think you realize the absurdity of what you are saying.

If you truly think that the risk associated with the MMR vaccine is zero -- that there have been zero deaths caused by MMR --then, well, that's pretty much the kind of thinking I've come to expect from you.

If not, I'm anxiously awaiting your assessment of the risks of the MMR vaccine, and your argument as to why your estimate is better than mine, and why it's lower than the million-to-one odds that the MMR vaccine will actually end up saving your life. If not we'll stick with my numbers. We've already been over the potential for errors in the dataset, I understand that completely, the real question is how to get a better estimate.

I really don't get why you are so scared to try to come up with an estimate yourself.

Unless, of course, you don't think assessing the risk is important in an individual's decision whether or not to take it. This seems to be what you honestly believe. In which case, well, I'm sure glad you're not in a position to give public health advice.

Anyway, interesting that the people most adamant about how safe MMR is are the least willing to even attempt to assess the risks. Almost like it's a kind of religious belief.

[Major Nikon]

76. Oooops! Strawman. Gotta call bullshit. Death and risk don't even sound the same.

Try harder. This is too easy.

Me:

When the number of deaths attributed to the MMR vaccine is zero, you have no substance. It's just not that complicated.

You:

The Government's VAERS database (http://www.medalerts.org/) says that there have been 86 deaths from MMR vaccine reactions in the last 10 years.

[DanTex]

77. Cute. I'm talking about risk of death. LOL.

You don't seriously think it's zero, do you? Come on, let's have some answers! Enough dodging! I wanna see how deep the lunacy goes.

What do you thing the risk of death is? And what data do you base it on? How many times do I have to ask?

What are you scared of?

[Major Nikon]

78. Why are you afraid of talking about those 86 deaths you duplicitously attributed to the MMR vaccine?

The Government's VAERS database (http://www.medalerts.org/) says that there have been 86 deaths from MMR vaccine reactions in the last 10 years.

Kinda hard to talk about risk when that part is all fucked up, no?

[DanTex]

79. Dodge. Again. Getting boring.

I've talked about those 86 deaths at length. I've explained in detail that I understand the dataset is incomplete and flawed. And I've explained it's the best data we have. Like I said, I think my number is pretty accurate. It might be too high, and it might be to low, such is the nature of imperfect estimates.

Now if you weren't so afraid of making a fool of yourself, you could come up with your own estimate, and then we could discuss who's estimate is more accurate and why.

That would be great. It would also be amusing, seeing you try to do math.

I get why you're afraid.

[Major Nikon]

80. You have yet to walk back this statement and even claimed it was "absolutely not" bullshit

The Government's VAERS database (http://www.medalerts.org/) says that there have been 86 deaths from MMR vaccine reactions in the last 10 years.

So let's not pretend otherwise, OK?

[DanTex]

84. Enough going in circles. You've got nothing. This conversation has run its course.

[Major Nikon]

85. You stole my line!

[sibelian]

72. Yes, that was insane and THANK YOU for posting that.

Your pinpoint accuracy in that thread was perfect and beautiful.

[DanTex]

6. Exactly. I agree. Individually, it may not be a net beneficial decision, but for society as a

whole, it is. Let's just be honest about it. Let's not pretend that skipping vaccinations to diseases that barely even exist is a hugely risking thing to do. Because it's not.

It's bad for society if vaccination rates drops. And, really, if we can't trust parents to potentially put their own children at risk for the benefit of society as a whole, then vaccination should be mandatory.

[marym625]

9. I almost wish that thread wasn't locked.

the poster here and some others were beating down the argument left, right and center.

I posted twice about this in the last couple days. Once because a suburb of Chicago, where I live, had a near outbreak at a daycare center. Babies infected where vaccination is not required. Until this happened, not even the staff had to be vaccinated. It's despicable. So very many people at risk because one idiot doesn't care.

[DanTex]

10. Pretty surprising, huh. I actually advocated in favor of mandatory vaccinations,

and still I get painted as an anit-vaxxer. Just getting some numbers from reputable sources and doing some math.

It adds to my belief that there's something emotional behind the pro-vax side, almost as much as the anti-vax side. I would love to have had a spirited debate, and let the numbers come out where they may. I guess that's not what alerter and the jury wanted. Oh well.

[marym625]

13. I edited my reply here

I didn't mean to say you. My apologies for the error.

I am surprised that the thread was hidden because I don't think it violated any TOS. I would have liked more debate because your numbers were extremely faulty for many reasons.

If you are not an anti vaccination person, you are hiding it well.

I will reiterate, we live in a global society. Besides the other many reasons given by many that your numbers are wrong, to decide what happens in other countries doesn't effect us here is just living in a dream land.

I won't continue this conversation. Wasn't going to on your post. Won't do it on this one. I made a mistake in the name. My fault. My apologies. I'm done.

[DanTex]

15. Here's the a quote from the OP.

None of this is to say that vaccination is bad or ineffective. It is a great thing, responsible for eradicating horrible diseases and saving millions or more lives over the years. In fact, I believe there is a case for mandatory vaccination, even for things like measles which pose almost no health threat at all in the US. This because the benefits of vaccination don't just go to the person vaccinated, most of them go to other people, because if you catch measles, you are likely to end up being responsible for the net transmission to more than one person besides yourself. So even though the cost-benefit analysis of MMR may be negative for an individual, it is positive for society as a whole.

So, no I'm not "anti-vax", I'm just someone who pointed out that, even if you skip MMR, your odds of dying from measles are close to one in a million. I also would have liked more debate, instead I got anger. I'm still waiting for someone to point out what part of the numbers are "extremely faulty".

The only legitimate criticism so far is that VAERS contains events that weren't necessarily caused by MMR. This is true. It's also true that it surely misses some events that were caused by MMR. It's a voluntary submission system. I'm still waiting for the person who made that argument to find a better way to measure the risk of MMR. It's not like the VAERS numbers are outlandish. It's a few deaths per million vaccines.

[Spider Jerusalem]

14. I didn't see you advocate in favour of mandatory vaccinations, at all.

I saw you advocate in favour of "individual decisions", based on some bullshit analysis of the threat of measles being lower than the risks of adverse vaccine reaction (which it isn't). Of course your thread was hidden so no-one can actually go back to check, but I'm 100% positive that none of your posts that I read or replied to said anything about favouring mandatory vaccination.

[DanTex]

16. I didn't "advocate" in favor of individual decisions, what I did is recognize that an individual

cost-benefit analysis is different from a societal cost-benefit analysis. Pretending not to understand that these are different things is dumb.

The closest I came to advocating for anything was this:

None of this is to say that vaccination is bad or ineffective. It is a great thing, responsible for eradicating horrible diseases and saving millions or more lives over the years. In fact, I believe there is a case for mandatory vaccination, even for things like measles which pose almost no health threat at all in the US. This because the benefits of vaccination don't just go to the person vaccinated, most of them go to other people, because if you catch measles, you are likely to end up being responsible for the net transmission to more than one person besides yourself. So even though the cost-benefit analysis of MMR may be negative for an individual, it is positive for society as a whole.

I'm not surprised you missed that. Emotions run so high on this topic, people on both sides lose their minds.

The argument being that, since the individual cost-benefit analysis is close, and probably net negative, mandatory vaccinations are necessary for the good of society. Otherwise, we would be trusting parents to be altruistic enough to risk their children's health for the good of the community.

Anyway, it's also surprising that everyone is convinced my numbers must be wrong without actually finding anything wrong with them.

[HereSince1628]

12. Too bad your otherthread got locked...conditioned vs unconditioned risk and their impact on thinking

about illness and vaccination decisions.

If people don't understand that things like disease transmission are density-dependent functions, and that risks of disease vary across populations, reality becomes a black box and edifying discussion ends.

I think that threat provided opportunity to show the weakness of rational/logical consideration of unconditioned risk vs conditioned risks.

[uppityperson]

27. skipping vx to "a disease that barely exists" DUE TO vaccinations is not risky?

I wish measles vx was available when I was a kid because maybe I'd be able to hear better. I wish my 21 yr old cousin had gotten the flu vx because he might be alive. No individual benefit to being immunized? Bull.

[DanTex]

28. Yes. Exactly that.

When you were a kid, obviously, getting a measles vax would have been a good idea, had such a vax existed. Even today, if you live in, say Sudan, again, very good idea.

But living in 2015 US, where the disease barely exists, from an individual point of view, it's at the very least a close call. This is a problem for public health -- a "free loader" type problem. If people start skipping the vax, then the disease can come back. But with the disease barely in existence, even a risk as low as a few chances in a million of death from the vaccine makes the cost-benefit analysis for the individual unfavorable.

Don't get me wrong, as a society we want people to vaccinate. The question is, how do we get there
1) Lie, or at the very least mislead people, about the personal risk they face without the vaccine, to scare them into taking it
2) Be honest, and tell people that individually the risks of skipping are tiny, but as a society we need people to keep getting vaxxed to prevent the disease from coming back.

Based on the fact that my OP laying out this argument was hidden, it's pretty clear to me that DU at least is on the side of lying to people.

[ucrdem]

38. You opened the Cabinet of Dr Lilly.

Beware.

[ucrdem]

37. Great, let's collectivize the profits instead of the liability:

The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program ("Vaccine Program&quot comprises Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 ("Vaccine Act&quot . See Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755 (1986) (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to -34). The Vaccine Act became effective October 1, 1988. It establishes the Vaccine Program as a no-fault compensation program whereby petitions for monetary compensation may be brought by or on behalf of persons allegedly suffering injury or death as a result of the administration of certain compulsory childhood vaccines. Congress intended that the Vaccine Program provide individuals a swift, flexible, and less adversarial alternative to the often costly and lengthy civil arena of traditional tort litigation.

http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/vaccine-program-readmore

The current distribution system is not exactly a recipe for transparency or accountability not to mention accuracy in advertising.

[Major Nikon]

58. That law was sponsored by Henry Waxman (D)

The law was written because people had sued all but one DPT vaccination manufacturers out of the market despite consensus of the medical community that the claims were baseless. The law not only guarantees transparency by requiring full disclosure to all recipients of the vaccine, but excludes manufacturers from protection if they make deceptive claims.

Vaccine court is the popular term which refers to the Office of Special Masters of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, which administers a no-fault system for litigating vaccine injury claims. These claims against vaccine manufacturers cannot normally be filed in state or federal civil courts, but instead must be heard in the Court of Claims, sitting without a jury. The program was established by the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA), passed by the United States Congress in response to a threat to the vaccine supply due to a 1980s scare over the DPT vaccine. Despite the belief of most public health officials that claims of side effects were unfounded, large jury awards had been given to some plaintiffs, most DPT vaccine makers had ceased production, and officials feared the loss of herd immunity.[1]

Some parents of children with autism spectrum disorders have attributed the disorders' onset to vaccines, often citing the mercury-based preservative thiomersal as the cause, and some have filed suit for compensation from vaccine makers. The medical and scientific communities nearly unanimously deny a link between routine childhood vaccines and autism, as no evidence has been found to support this.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_court

[LWolf]

43. So is eradication of poverty.

So is regulation of a healthy food supply.

So is a universal national health care plan, free at point of service, paid for 100% by taxes.

So is public education.

So is union membership.

So many things that have collective benefits are hated in the U.S. Vaccinations get more support than any of the rest.

[Jamaal510]

57. It's funny that

the people whining about their freedom being taken away via mandatory vaccines don't seem to care as much about the freedom of the rest of us to not catch their germs and diseases.

[Fumesucker]

71. Which is why conservatives are turning against it...

Someone else they may not approve of gets a benefit from something they do, they are definitely against that.

http://www.balloon-juice.com/balloon-juice-lexicon-a-h/

“The salient fact of American politics is that there are fifty to seventy million voters each of who will volunteer to live, with his family, in a cardboard box under an overpass, and cook sparrows on an old curtain rod, if someone would only guarantee that the black, gay, Hispanic, liberal, whatever, in the next box over doesn’t even have a curtain rod, or a sparrow to put on it.”

[The2ndWheel]

81. It also contributes to our environmental situation

More healthy people means more people doing more things. From that perspective, we're privatizing the profits of that vaccination process, and socializing the costs to other forms of life on the planet that have to do with less because we want more.

[greatauntoftriplets]

83. ...

[William769]

86. Oh snap!

[greatauntoftriplets]

87. He looks so young there!

[William769]

89. He's still young at heart besides all the bullshit thrown at him.

[greatauntoftriplets]

90. True.

I imagine he's pretty immune to the bullshit. He's a bigger man than the critics -- and the Republicans.

[William769]

91. I see what you did there.

[greatauntoftriplets]

92. ...

[leeroysphitz]

88. Sounds like socialism to me. n/t