Unsure about vaccinations? Try reading "Deadly Choices"

[arkestra]

I got Whooping Cough recently at age 43, what fun. Apparently vaccine immunity for WC wears off after a few decades. It was as ill as I have ever been and I was pretty much out of action for 3 months. There has been an increase of WC cases recently in the SW of England, where I live. I could rant at anti -vaccine campaigners, but what would be the point? I am more concerned that the people who are unsure have access to a clear statement of the pro-vaccine position.

So can I suggest that anyone who is unsure about vaccination reads "Deadly Choices" on the pro-vaccine front even if they read nothing else?

I just had my early summer ruined. But babies get killed by this kind of thing. I totally get why people find vaccines icky and unsettling, there are hard wired ways we intuitively think about our bodies that foster that kind of reaction. So just read this book if you're on the fence OK? It would be nice if lots of other 40-somethings don't irritate everyone else with their wheezing and self-pity

(Gets back off soapbox)

And yet PoppyAmex you were the one who said:

I'm sure you'll allow me to stand by my original opinion which is that people who choose not to vaccinate are, in my opinion, social parasites.

I don't see any caveat in that statement.

I think that if you are willing to deal with what ever your choice is so be it but just don't be bitches about it not nameing any names btw am pro jabs

LaVolcan that post was a reference to my initial post upthread where I said:

"When I think of the vulnerable population who can't be vaccinated and rely on herd immunity, it's very hard for me to consider anti-vax individuals as more than social parasites."

That's why I alluded to my "original point".

HTH

choose is the key word, i think.

when someone makes a choice based on medical reasoning, ie danger to their own (or child's) health, based on something that has already become apparent, then it's not really a "choice", but a medical necessity.
It's all to do with risk assessment.
People who choose not to vaccinate for no reason other than something "might" happen, without any historical backing, they're the ones who are the parasites who are hoping that the herd protection will protect them.

I was thinking about this this morning, actually.

say I broke my arm because I fell on the ice.
I ask person A and Person B to help me carry my bags.
person A carries my bags for me, even though there's a tiny weeny risk that they too might fall on the ice (but no reason other than the presence of ice to suggest its risk). Person B refuses to help me carry my bags because they might fall on the ice (exactly the same statistical probability of falling as Person A)
person C has bags, too, but they also have a disability in their leg, meaning that it is more likely that they will fall on the ice. They find it hard to carry their bag, but if they ask person A and B, person A will say yes and person B will say no, even though, by carrying their own bag, they have a significantly higher risk of falling on the ice.

Me: someone with a disease that's vaccinatable
A and B are in sound health, but A has chosen to have the vaccine and B has chosen not to.
C is better not to have the vaccine for apparent and pre-existing medical problems that would make them more likely to suffer complications if they have the disease.
B is basically also relying on A to be there to carry their bag, in the hope that I don't make them fall over.
In the vaccine case, though, it's even harder, because B could quite easily catch the disease from me, and pass it onto vulnerable C

I've said this on another thread
There is a risk to my child with the vaccine
I don't know what it is, my doctor doesn't know what it is, not even Poppy Amex knows what it is
So it's up to me if I take the risk, and that's the end of it.

Nickelbabe: no one has "broken their arm" in the first place, to take your analogy further. You are being asked to take the risk for someone who might break their arm on the ice, not someone who already has.

And in your analogy, the worst that can happen is you losing your bag - not your speech, your ability to walk, and talk, and be continent.

Frontdoorstep, were you advised by a medical professional, NOT to vaccinate your children?

Nickelbabe: )(I'm not so convinced by your argument for your child, unless it's also listed as having a genetic precursor)

Do you think she took take the risk? Do you think if her child reacted it would be accepted as a vaccine reaction or just poo pooed?

Think most of us would agree on B bad and C good ASSUMING that B is the equivalent of someone proudly self-identifying as a pure freeloader. Such people do exist but are very rare I think (I have met exactly one).

Think point at issue is rather D. D is very unsure about how risky the ice is but reckons there is definitely more risk than some like to pretend.

orthodox pro-vaxers might end up being rude about D for several reasons. Maybe they view D like someone who thinks the ice is a thin layer over a deep lake, when it's just a small patch on a pavement (eg a nutter). Or maybe they think D is just not bothering to evaluate the risk (this is where things shade towards the freeloader end). Or maybe they reckon D heard of someone else breaking both legs on an ice patch and now they think all ice is like that (eg D is daft). Can't D see there's nothing to fear?

Those with a more sceptical view of vaccines totally get where D is coming from and reckon the pro-vaxxers are nasty, snide, etc. Maybe they start hearing nasty stuff even when it hasn't been said, they're so used to it.

Perhaps the problem is more with differing perceptions of risk than lots of people being parasites.

D would like to be surer about how risky the ice is but it's hard for them to know who to trust. The orthodox pro-vaxxers? Lots of mainstream experts. Can be brusque and dismissive though. Maybe what's best for them isn't what's best for D. The sceptics? They clearly believe what they are saying, but why is it so different?

Arkestra, unfortunately the analogy doesn't hold at all. The risk is not falling on the ice, it's lifetime disability. No one has "broken their arm" - the risk is being taken for someone who might break their arm at some point. Furthermore, in the real world B and C are two older people who can't carry bags, so that A is asking their children to carry bags, and it's their children who might fall on the ice / have a lifetime disability. So there's no real point in judging anyone on that analogy, because the analogy is full of holes.

Crumbled: analogies tend not to be logically correct in every particular. I would avoid focusing on the specifics of injuries and focus more on the categorisations of people's motives that the analogy's primary purpose is to show.

Eg A, B, C all have correct perceptions of risk (by assumption). Assuming that then A and C act well. B acts badly assuming their perception of negligible risk for themselves is correct.

But the real point at issue for me is D who is not sure of the risk.

I admit it's much easier to ignore the difference between a fall on the ice and lifetime disability for their child. But when you are judging someone's reaction as "bad" then you really do need to take that into account. The analogy also misses the part where B and C are told that the chance of falling on the ice is one in a million, so that the person who takes the risk doesn't really believe it will happen to them, whereas B is saying no matter what the risk, lifetime disability or death for my child is not worth the hypothetical bags of someone who may break their arm in the future.

it's not the "negligible risk for themselves". It's a risk they believe is not negligible for their children.

Starlight McKenzie, no I was Not advised to not vaccinate my children. in fact it was never mentioned, the health visitor put me under a lot of pressure and our last discussion was a total falling out.

I am in at risk group for a flu jab but will NOT have one or indeed any other vaccine for that matter.

My children did have the first vaccines but I am not consenting to any more. But I don't expect others to vaccinate their children to protect me or my children. If everyone else vaccinated their children, some children will suffer and I do not want to see a child suffer from a vaccine.

I would be perfectly prepared to take on a very very small risk to my children if there was a correspondingly very very large social benefit by so doing.

Is there no level of risk and no social benefit level where you would do the same? Would be a perfectly coherent and honourable moral position for you to say "no".

Or is it more disagreeing about the levels of risk and reward?

Thank you Front, for answering my question.

I find it interesting then, that there are pro-vaccinators on this thread who have deemed themselves adequate judges of your decision to not vaccinate your children, and ruled in favour of your decision.

A very small, incalculable risk of your child's death or serious damage for the sake of a hypothetical child in the future? When you aren't prepared to have a blood test on your own immunity for the sake of that future hypothetical child? What if someone said to you, do you know what, I and thousands of other people fell through that ice, I don't think it's safe. Your child could fall through too.

I perceive the risk differently to you arkestra, and on different evidence, and I perceive the benefit differently, likewise. The other point to note is that you are saying you take the risk entirely for other people and there's no benefit to your child. That part of the analogy also fails.

Did you say you were going to have your immunity to checked? If so I've forgotten and apologise.

Crumbled - how lame to excuse your own vaccination reluctance by other people not checking their immunity. We know that in countries where nearly everyone vaccinate on schedules, measles, mumps and rubella are eradicated, even without testing anyone's immunity.

Eh? I don't.

If people are going to lecture others about herd immunity they need to make sure their immunity is sound, otherwise there's hypocrisy.

"measles, mumps and rubella are eradicated" - what?