[astalwick]

I'm so not surprised by the comments here, so far.

The core points here are good ones:

- In a fundamentally emotional argument, you 'win' with empathy, not by beating people over the head with the same (very reasonable) arguments they've heard a hundred times.

- Vaccines are certainly effective, they are the correct choice, but there are also absolutely legitimate reasons to distrust the medical and scientific arguments (as pointed out in the article, both medicine and the science behind drugs have been spectacularly wrong more than once). That's something that has to be addressed and overcome, and not just with numbers.

[the8472]

> legitimate reasons to distrust the medical and scientific arguments (as pointed out in the article, both medicine and the science behind drugs have been spectacularly wrong more than once)

Viewing failures in isolation is not really helpful. You need to compare them to successes and the failure/success rate of the alternatives.

Things get even more complicated when you start distinguishing cure/ineffective/harmful.

[prostoalex]

What if the numbers work out against vaccination?

To quote CDC http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/polio/dis-faqs.htm

"Of the 162 cases, eight cases were acquired outside the United States and imported. The last imported case caused by wild poliovirus into the United States was reported in 1993. The remaining 154 cases were vaccine-associated paralytic polio (VAPP) caused by live oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV)."

162 polio-related issues, 8 from actual virus, 154 from the vaccine.

[XorNot]

Vaccine induced polio is not nearly as bad as wild-type polio. And this would also be the reason we phased out giving the polio vaccine.

[prostoalex]

So the probability of a health issue attributed to vaccine is higher than probability of a health issue attributed to the original disease.

Isn't that the core of the anti-vaxxers arguments?

[XorNot]

No, the probability of getting a health issue due to the vaccine has now become much higher then the probability of getting polio. Your comment rather suggests you don't know much about polio: I suggest looking it up.

But that only applies to diseases which lack a natural harbor like polio does, where eradication is practical. Stop vaccinating for measles and oh surprise there is now an outbreak of measles. We haven't needed to seriously vaccinate for polio for over a decade.

But that itself is all sorts of iffy because there are two quite different polio vaccines of different effectiveness.

[prostoalex]

Imagine a member of general public not knowing much about polio. Imagine them reading the fact that medical establishment knowingly injected people with problematic substances, and then apologetically backed down from its position later on and reverted its recommendations. Scanning the health news seems to imply similar retractions in other areas of medical research (saturated fats were bad, and now they're not; coffee was dangerous, and now it's good for you). There's also the news that flu vaccines are basically useless as they fight last year's flu.

Now try to convince the aforementioned member of general public to treat the current corpus of medical research as a gospel.

I dont't defend those decisions, but I can see how a rational person might develop somewhat of a sceptical view.

[pc86]

It should be addressed with legislation making it a felony not to vaccinate your children by a reason early childhood age (e.g. 6 years or something), whether put in public school or not, and making proof of vaccination a requirement for federal aid for that person (e.g. student loans or assistance).

There are certain things that should be up for public debate and discourse, left to the courts, or up to personal preference. Vaccination is not one of them. "This shot will give my kids autism" is not reasonable and should not be treated as a reasonable concern any more than "Obama is Kenyan" or "We didn't land on the moon" should.

[tzs]

What would you think of a similar argument, but, instead of for forced vaccination, for forced compliance with following government nutritional recommendations when we feed children?

The health consequences of a childhood of poor eating are arguably as big a problem as many (but not all) of the diseases we vaccinate against were.

I've not been able to come up with a good argument to distinguish these, other than the health consequences of communicable diseases are more directly visible. Take measles, for instance. At the time a vaccine for it was developed and deployed, measles was infecting about half a million children in the US per year, and about 400 per year died. (40 years earlier, the number of cases per year was about the same, but deaths were about 20x higher).

If your kid gets measles, it is obvious that he's got a serious, dangerous health problem, especially if he is one of the ones who dies.

If you feed your kid in a way that ensures he's seriously obese and sets him on the road to almost certain diabetes by young adulthood, it's not immediately obvious to the naked eye that something is seriously wrong. Kids can have so much energy that even the fat kids can run around and ride bikes and skateboards and be active by adult standards. From an adult point of view, the main visible problem for the fat kid is likely to be social--the fat kid gets picked last for pick up sports games, things like that.

Also, what the parent could have done better to prevent the condition is more obvious with things like measles. Your kid gets measles, and I can confidently point my finger at you and say your mistake was not vaccinating.

Your kid is fat, and I can only speculate. Maybe you aren't making the kid exercise enough. Maybe you don't supervise his between meal eating and the kid has 6000 calories of candy and soda between each meal. Maybe you cook giant portions and make him clean his plate. Maybe the kid is a bully and steals the other kids' desserts at school.

So with measles since there is really only one thing parents can do wrong that can lead to the child getting it, it's easy to force people to not do that one thing. With childhood nutrition and fitness there are so many ways it can go wrong it is hard to force people to do it right. So maybe that's how forcing vaccination can be distinguished from forcing good nutrition?

[aharonovich]

Feeding children in a specific way: costly and complicated. Vaccinating your kids: just take them to where you're told. Free and easy. Even a monkey can do it.

[cpfohl]

Bad nutrition isn't contagious really...

[Silhouette]

I wonder, do you also believe the rest of the world should impose crippling sanctions on the US because it knowingly causes potentially catastrophic damage to the environment and consumes absurd amounts of finite natural resources?

Should everyone actively undermine the US farming industry, which uses large amounts of antibiotics in ways that could reduce their effectiveness for treating humans?

There are a lot of government policies that, for better or worse, are not set entirely based on scientific merit. There is also, frankly, a lot of "science" that gets presented as evidence in these kinds of debates that isn't very scientific (though I am not suggesting the vaccination question specifically is an example). In any case, trying to shift attitudes towards more scientifically supported positions through threats is rarely successful.

With the vaccination issue, you also have to remember that we're mostly talking about parents trying to do what is right for their kids. Those parents may be ignorant, but again the best available solution to that is probably education and showing them convincing arguments that changing their position really is in the best interests of their child. If you can't make a solid case with real evidence, legislation is just forcing your personal beliefs on someone else down the barrel of a gun, and I think we should be extremely wary of governments interfering so aggressively in the way a loving parent wants to raise their child.

[kls]

That legislation should be coupled with the removal of legal liability for children by parents. It cuts both ways, if parents are unable to make choices for their children (even if they are wrong choices) then they should be absolved of all legal responsibility for said children as they are no longer able to act as the guardian in a manner that they view as the best course of action by their children. I would go further and say all financial responsibility as well. Either we are a society that entrust parents to raise their children or we let the state raise them.

What you propose is legislating the greater body for the unsavory actions of a minority while it is becoming more common with more and more federalization of law it always conflicts with personal freedoms and leads to a less free society for all. Someone would find an action that you do at some point in your life, unsavory and illogical and quite possibly harmful to yourself or others, under what you propose we could just enact legislation for the greater good. This runs contrary to the spirit of the law of the land and ends up somewhere closer to fascism. Please note I am not implying that you are advocating fascism but taking away peoples choice to self determination even for their children certainly starts to lay the foundation for a very different society.

What you propose is a slippery slope on the path to the state raising children which in my opinion is a far scarier reality. Life involves risk, and sometimes it involves risk for children. I think it is fair to say if one has made a life choice that puts other kids at risk their kid cannot participate in activities that could place other kids at risk but it is a whole different level to mandate that we start making medical decisions for parents. If we do we should legally acknowledge that parents or at least the legal concept of guardianship as we know it no longer exist.

[XorNot]

Ye...No.

You don't get to create people and then go "well I can't do what I want with them, they're not really my responsibility any more".

[speeder]

Brazil tried that.

We got the "Vaccine Revolt" as result, people openly rebelled, and even tried to topple the government (the population formed a riotous mob and assaulted the government buildings, attempting to kill the rulers).

The government had to declare martial law, send troops to quell the rebellion, and internally exiled lots of people (the government sent the "exiles" to the state that was the most distant of the capital, and was also one of the least populous states).

I am very sure that in US, the people that would join such revolt, as the same ones that believe being armed to resist the government is good idea, you do the math.

[pc86]

Originally the anti-vaccine idiocy had its roots in the far left. It's found a home in the extremes of both ends of the spectrum. Pro-2A belief is not necessarily an extreme viewpoint in and of itself, but you'll certainly not find it in the extreme left. You will, however, find it in the moderate left and most of the right.

There's certainly some overlap but to imply that you're "very sure" they're the same group would make you very wrong.

[sharemywin]

just like buying a gun since more people die from guns in the US than the diseases we vaccinate against. The troll is on the other foot now...

[zachrose]

Yeah, as I was reading the article I noticed a lot of parallels to gun control in the US.

The harder one part of society pulls against guns, the more convinced gun rights advocates become that this is all a bigger conspiracy to to disarm them and take away their agency.

[pc86]

I live in a rural part of the US and have many, many strong pro-gun friends and acquaintances. The vast majority (95%+ at least) do not think there is any conspiracy to disarm existing gun owners. To imply otherwise is disingenuous at best.

The problem is that a lot of times the restrictions don't make any sense. We'll ban 30-round magazines but not 20. We'll ban barrel shrouds that are entirely cosmetic. We'll ban pistol grips on shotguns that actually reduce the lethality of the weapon by making is less accurate. All the while these things are proposed by legislators who truly do not understand what they're talking about. It's worse than octogenarian Senators discussing the internet, it really is. There you have "it's a series of tubes," and here you have people referring to "the shoulder thing that goes up."

If you could have a well-spoken conservative Democrat who actually understood firearms and the culture surrounding them, who could propose real gun control solutions that aren't based on emotion or cosmetics, you'd probably get something passed.

[pc86]

You want to make it a felony not to give your child a gun by the age of six? :)

[vox_mollis]

In a fundamentally emotional argument, you 'win' with empathy

Except you don't actually win. In conceding to their fears with an empathetic approach, you are enabling their delusions. That's the problem with placating unreasonable people - doing so inevitably emboldens them.

[calinet6]

You're thinking too logically. It is a human connection you're building with empathy, not a strategy. Play the long game.

[aharonovich]

But do you want to live with this person? If I hold an opinion that's so sub optimal and I hold it because of emotional reasons I'd like someone to shake me out of it, not pet me on the head and smile.

[isolate]

That's like the worst thing you can do for a delusion.

[vdaniuk]

>both medicine and the science behind drugs have been spectacularly wrong more than once

On the other hand, non-medicine (alternative medicine) and non-science (pseudoscience) have been spectacularly right more than once. That's the point. Agree with empathy angle and need for emotional arguments, though.

[jacquesm]

Can you give some examples of what you're thinking of here?

[_eyc9]

My guess is that this demographic would tend to categorize traditional Chinese medicine as being pseudoscience – if you agree, here's an example from within that system:

The 2015 Nobel Prize in Medicine was awarded to a Youyou Tu, a Chinese pharmacologist who identified powerful antimalarial compounds in a traditional Chinese medical formula that has been used for centuries to treat Malaria:

> Youyou Tu in China turned to traditional herbal medicine to tackle the challenge of developing novel Malaria therapies. From a large-scale screen of herbal remedies in Malaria-infected animals, an extract from the plant Artemisia annua emerged as an interesting candidate. However, the results were inconsistent, so Tu revisited the ancient literature and discovered clues that guided her in her quest to successfully extract the active component from Artemisia annua. Tu was the first to show that this component, later called Artemisinin, was highly effective against the Malaria parasite, both in infected animals and in humans (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/20...).

There are plenty of other examples if you are curious and inclined to do the research.

As an aside, I would argue that the type of empiricism within this system of medicine is indeed a type of science (cataloguing pharmacological agents for thousands of years and recording their effects in the treatment of myriad medical conditions), but it probably has little to no examples of the modern day notion of randomized clinical trials.

[vdaniuk]

Medicine is usually right and only sometimes wrong, but alternative medicine is usually wrong and only sometimes right. The fact that medicine can be spectacularly or trivially wrong doesn't provide any inputs for change of personal healthcare strategy.

[jacquesm]

I understand what you wrote. I was asking for specific examples.