top | item 20224743

(no title)

a few things:

* you're trying to focus on being data-driven, but then you posit that i should watch a bunch of anecdotes collected in a non-scientific way to get perspective? would it be valid for me to ask you to talk to everyone who got a flu shot and then didn't catch the flu? because those two things seem about equally scientific to me, and i doubt you'd go for the latter from everything i've seen in this thread.

* if you're making a case for hard data analysis, i think you'll get people to listen more if you address everything systematically instead of falling back on "That's such a complete, outright lie - I guess my brain didn't even register it" for a point you didn't cover.

* under the benefits, have you considered the benefits of herd immunity? because there are some people who really can't vaccinate. and as many people as can should, to protect the ones who can't.

discuss

yehosef|6 years ago

> if you're making a case for hard data analysis, i think you'll get people to listen more if you address everything systematically instead of falling back on "That's such a complete, outright lie - I guess my brain didn't even register it" for a point you didn't cover.

This is 100% correct - my bad. Thanks for the honesty check.

yehosef|6 years ago

1) There's no contradiction to being data-driven and respecting anecdotal reports. The entire fleet of 747 Max airplanes was grounded because what? Two planes crashed? Big deal - those were flukes, no? How many plane-hours were there that didn't involve crashes. When it comes to safety claims and peoples' lives, even rare instances are significant.

2) Ok - I think I found the reference they are talking about: https://www.cdc.gov/measles/symptoms/complications.html What I was trying to point out is that before vaccinations when everyone got the measles, the hospitalization rate seems not to be 1/4 (1M people would have been hospitalized which would have been massive - I've seen no references to it - but I can't claim it didn't happen.)

Most data I saw to 1/4 were taken from the late 80s outbreaks see https://academic.oup.com/jid/article/189/Supplement_1/S4/823... - it's possible that people hospitalized out of fear of the disease since it had become less common. If you look in the chart in that article, there were many hospitalized, but the number that had the dangerous side-effects (encephalitis, etc ) where much smaller.

But - it's a valid point - I'm for data and truth, not for rhetoric.

3) The question is to what extent do I need to put myself at risk to save someone else from risk. The party line is that "vaccinations are safe" and therefore there is effectively no risk. If you hold there is a risk, then it's something you have to weigh.

Also - it's important to note that I don't know the research, if there is any, behind "herd-immunity". The problem is that measles in particular his highly contagious and fully immune people can be a carrier of the disease for several hours. Our social structures and interactions do not match those of "herds". Many of the outbreaks this year were in places that had the required level for "herd-immunity".

Additionally, the long-term effectiveness of the vaccine is a question to herd-immunity. Just last week I was speaking with someone in his 50s that was fully vaccinated and got the measles.