Debate on Vaccines

[Emsyboo]

I have seen a few threads where mums have an opinion pro or con vaccine and asking for more information I would like to know your reasons for being one or the other.
My MIL is very anti vaccine and told me 4 out of 30 children die from vaccinations - I don't believe this to be true think their may be a decimal point missing although I have seen some posts from people who seem to have backed up information about vaccines.

I am pro vaccine but like to see both sides before I make a decision so if anyone has any information pro or con and more importantly has info to back up I would be really interested.

Thanks

"If you have the money and time to be selective about which vaccines to give your children and when, good for you."

Many people do. Certainly a lot of people frequenting MN vaccine threads have mentioned single vaccines and their timing if necessary later on in their children's lives. It is not only the very rich and the very idle who have the time to research serious matters of health and the money for single vaccines.

"The subject you are referring to is actually called Games theory"

Uh, no, it is called Game Theory It has never been called "Games" Theory. You obviously have internet connection, Google it: Game Theory gives 87,500,000 results. Games Theory directs to the Game Theory search, so weak is its relevance.

Before you insist (and I have to admit that I'm hoping you will), you might like to know that I studied this stuff as part of my MB. The course was called Game Theory.

Here is a game theory analysis of vaccination choices. It is a difficult read, but the conclusion is plain enough:

difficult to read, but the conclusion is plain enough:

For any perceived relative risk r > 0, the expected vaccine uptake is less than the eradication threshold, i.e., P < p crit (Fig. 1). This finding formalizes an argument that has previously been made qualitatively (8, 14); namely, it is impossible to eradicate a disease through voluntary vaccination when individuals act according to their own interests. In situations where vaccination is perceived to be more risky than contracting the disease (r > 1), one would expect, even without the aid of a model, that no parents would vaccinate their children.*

To make it clearer to those of us who don't even know the names of subjects they make statements about:

We are willing to vaccinate our babies if the payoff is positive.
(Payoff = benefit - cost)

Benefit: Increased immunity to disease
Cost: Risk (real or perceived) to baby's health.

Note that we are not talking about probabilities here (probability of negative effect to child is small, but so is probability of that child catching and then developing a complication to the disease). We are talking about the risk and the benefit.

Risk = probability x how bad outcome will be
..... although probability of autism after MMR seems to be very small, this possible outcome is so horrible that the risk is important enough to influence our decisions. Say, 0.00001 x 1000000 = 10

Benefit = probability * how great the outcome will be
.... and what is the benefit? The teeny tiny probability that my 4 month old who had rubella could have passed it to an irresponsible non-immune pregnant woman multiplied by the near-zero effect that would have on me and my children (except for the slight feel-good factor). Expected benefit is so near zero as to be indistinguishable from it. Say, 0.0001 x 10 = 0.001

Sorry, but the pregnant stranger who might or might not walk into my DC's path just as they are contagious will lose every time.

Maybe you need to factor in the risk attached to deviating from the recommended programme. (I wonder how many last minute panics there have been about going to France on holidays in the middle of a measles epidemic)

If you try to reduce the vaccinate/not vaccinate decision to a mathematical formula you have to put a numerical value on 1. the probability on catching each of the diseases (now, or in a possible future upsurge of incidence in the community), 2. the probability of those diseases causing permanent damage (blindness, brain damage etc etc) 3. The guilt you would feel if your child suffered these.

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Arthur Schopenhauer

What stage are we at in the discussion about the dangers and long-term side-effects of vaccination?

rosi7 - I'm still wondering why you won't answer a couple of questions I asked - would you take your children into an area where there was cholera or yellow fever, relying on their immune systems to protect them, and do you believe that bacteria and viruses cause disease?

Cote D'azur,

Firstly, apologies re Game Theory. I was completely wrong and you clearly know a lot more about it than me. I have read of it and it was introduced to me at uni but it is not a subject I have studied in depth.

On the other hand, you are highly disingenuous in citing a paper without highlighting its conclusions in a meaningful manner to everyone on the thread.

1/ It assumes that everyone acts purely for their own benefit. Luckily, we are not all as selfish as you.

2/ It assumes that the probability of certain outcomes and their effects are accurately known by all the players in the game. As it says, the probabilities used are the "perceived morbidity risks", not the actual ones, leading to BAD decisions.

3/ Its main conclusion seems to me that in VACCINE SCARES, the perceived risks of the vaccine and the disease (I understand the concept of statistical expectation, thanks) are skewed, leading to people making bad decisions, even on a purely selfish basis. It actually highlights the MMR vaccine in the UK as a vaccine scare.

Even if your conclusions were correct, which they are not, it would be a great argument for compulsory vaccination because it would show a divergence between population benefit and individual benefit.

What age do we live in that people still think about compulsory vaccination? Violating people and making decisions for them.

Rosi,

You would not "violate" anyone. However, you could make it a condition of receiving state benefits, such as free schooling or free healthcare were they to get one of the diseases they have chosen not to vaccinate against and get serious complications.

If people truly want to take themselves outside society and pay for everything (schooling, healthcare etc) then they would have every right to do so.

I believe in several modern democracies, admission to school is contingent on vaccines being up to date.

Ability to work in the NHS is determined by immunisation status.

Patient contact is not deemed safe unless workers are up to date with vaccines AND have proven immunity to hep b and rubella

Sorry but that is violation in disguise

Rosi,

No, it is making people take the consequences of their decision. You are not entitled to the state providing everything for you and doing nothing in return. Clearly, I guess it depends on how much tax you pay but unless you are paying more than enough, you are depending on everyone else's charity. That charity can come with conditions attached.

Seriously, what do you think would happen to "individual liberty" were a new and deadly flu to come to the UK. Not only would vaccine become compulsory but movement might be restricted etc. I am a libertarian, but when it comes to public health, clearly there are certain decisions that need to be taken at a population level and enforced. In addition, how would you feel about someone bringing a child infected with a deadly virus in contact with your child. How would you feel about their liberty?

You are referring to a system which is slowly falling to bits. Centralization of power is a model which belongs to the middle ages but not to an information age with a networked world of individuals working and deciding on their own responsibility.

Rosi,

So do you believe in a private healthcare only model?
Do you believe in a private education only model?
Do you believe in the right to bear arms?

If so, fine, you are consistent in your views.

And, in this "information" age, would it be reasonable for me to publish the vaccination status of your children over my network so people could take an informed decision over whether they wanted their own children to go anywhere near them?

Can't stop, but all my friends know the vaccination status of my child. It is not a secret and never has been. Why would it be?

We shall see how it develops. Just a matter of time.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Sorry, nearly fell off my stool.

Mutually exclusive no?

And:

1/ It assumes that everyone acts purely for their own benefit. Luckily, we are not all as selfish as you.

It is a law of nature (which includes humans last time I looked) that everyone acts in their own interests all the time. Even if you donate to charity you're doing it for the feel-good factor. If you help an old lady across the road you do it for the smile and the thank you receive. There are no truly altruistic acts.

If you vaccinate your kids for the "good of the community" you are doing it so you can feel good about being part of a certain community that has vaccinated.

Sorry, but that's the truth.

Soooooooo, if I chose not to vaccinate my child and that child becomes ill larrygrylls would like my child to receive no health care.

Nice.

But to be honest why do we keep discussing the issue of no one having vaccination. I am not anti-vaccine, I would love my dcs to be able to line up and have their jabs and not give it a thought but I can't. But why would anyone prevent people who want to have their children vaccinated from doing so.

And fwiw everyone at my dds school know she is unvaccinated. Why would I hide it? I can't see anyone would object - except the types that throw rocks at paediatricians houses.

Is this thread now just about that - throwing things at each other. Because if it is of any help a few of the comments made by those advocating things like compulsory vaccination make me less likely to be swayed by their arguments rather than more so.
Is it just about being as unpleasant as possible now?

Can I just at the right to bear arms....

So big a part of my decision making process.

I too will be informing any school or nursery of my child's vaccination status.

Vaccination at gunpoint?

Illumina,

Your point about everyone acting in their own benefit all the time is clearly true if you include the "feel good factor". Of course, it is a meaningless semantic point because the opposite position would be someone doing something that they chose not to do; clearly an impossibility. And where does doing something that you feel you ought to do but does not make you feel good fit in? You would argue that on some level it does make you feel good otherwise you would not do it...pure semantics.

Not mutually exclusive, no. One can believe in as much indivicual liberty as possible for society to function and be a libertarian. I assume that not allowing people to kill one another and being a libertarian are not mutually exclusive.

Pagwatch,

If you have vulnerable children, then of course they should not be vaccinated and you should be very much on the side of encouraging vaccinations for those who are otherwise healthy, in order to protect your own children

Larry
I would feel much happier about encouraging other people to vaccinate their children if it did not cause me to stand uncomfortably close to the kind of bullying, small minded bigots who feel able to tell other people how to care for their own children.

I would hate to be on the same moral page as someone who would advocate denying health care to an eight year old child because of the actions of her mother.

Or who would breach the privacy of an eight year old child and publish their medical records in the name of information when actually it is just vicious bigoted point scoring.

Oh no. Wouldn't want people to think I was that kind of a shit

lg - I'm not going to argue minutae with you. Mainly because I can't be bothered. However, feeling good is not the only benefit from an act. Bolstering your ego can be another. Or fulfilling an expectation. And from your example of doing something that you feel you ought that doesn't make you feel good, the benefit comes from feeling like you have achieved - done something you ought to have done, been a good person, etc, etc etc. Your ego and sense of self is bolstered.

Enforcing vaccination are not the views of a libertarian. Sorry.

Nor is saying "you should be very much on the side of... " being a libertarian is saying "think and do what you want".

Libertarian dictionary definition: a person who advocates liberty, especially with regard to thought or conduct.

Again, sorry to burst your bubble etc.

Over and out.

imadgeine - re "factor in the risk attached to deviating from the recommended programme"

Naturally. This is why my DC are vaccinated against measles, because in my personal risk assessment, measles is a dangerous disease. Rubella is not, so I would rather they have it and develop life-long immunity. Therefore, there is no need for MMR and that is why they have not had it.

This is very simple logic and I'm surprised that I have to explain it over and over.