Free-Rider Argument

[Deborah]

Something has been trying to break out of my sub-conscious about this argument.

The point of the free-rider argument is:

Vaccines are risky but effective. Due to "herd immunity" non-vaxers are getting the benefits but avoiding the risks.

So...

vaccines are either risky enough that giving every baby every vaccine should be a matter for some concern among thoughtful parents

or...

vaccines are so safe that giving every baby every vaccine should not be a matter for concern among thoughtful parents

can we have it both ways?

Can vaccines be risky when we are dumping on non-vaxing parents and safe when we are demanding that everyone vaccinate?

Wouldn't it be lovely to have accurate information about the exact degree of risk involved in each vaccine individually and in combination?

And even lovelier to have accurate information about the efficacy for each vaccine and the length of immunity resulting from being vaccinated?

[MyBoysBlue]

That's just it. You can't get that kind of information because no 2 people are exactly alike. The risks and benefits are different for everyone. Vaccines don't work for everyone. I was vaxed for Mumps but I got it anyway. Does that mean it doesn't work for everyone? No, maybe it was a lifesaver for someone else. I don't think there is a right or wrong answer when it comes to vaccines.

[Fyrestorm]

Hypocrisy has always been rampant in politics (and just about everywhere else)

How can someone say terminating a pregnancy is murder, but the death penalty is a-okay or visa versa? (just and example, and a rhetorical question - I am not looking for explanation or debate...it's my personal pet peeve where politics is concerned) People will always twist facts and justify hypocrisy as long as it fits their agenda.

[Deborah]

Exactly. So vaccines are perfectly safe on one page of the agenda and a risk which good parents are willing to take for the good of the community on another page of the agenda. And never the twain shall meet.

[ema-adama]

Yes. I am guessing that this is a minor glitch in the thought process. Clear thinking does not seem to be the strong point in the case for vaccination. (I am not talking about parents, but authorities who present their reasoning as to why this is a safe and necessary practice)

[shuttlt]

Isn't the argument that vaccines are (arguably) less dangerous than the diseases they are supposed to prevent and are therefore nothing to worry about and 'safe'. By not vaccinating you get the benifit of herd immunity and avoid the small risk of a vaccine reaction.

That was always my laypersons understanding.

[ema-adama]

Oi, herd immunity is a really interesting can of worms. It has been discussed at length in various threads here.

What's the deal with herd immunity (or lack thereof)
Herd immunity and civic responsibility
Uh, herd immunity??? Tell me your thoughts

There are more threads, but these are from the archives.

I think if anyone wants to aurgue herd immunity as a reason to vaccinate babies and children, they should at least understand how herd immunity is supposed to work.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by ema-adama

Oi, herd immunity is a really interesting can of worms. It has been discussed at length in various threads here.

What's the deal with herd immunity (or lack thereof)
Herd immunity and civic responsibility
Uh, herd immunity??? Tell me your thoughts

There are more threads, but these are from the archives.

Thanks for the links.

Originally Posted by ema-adama

I think if anyone wants to aurgue herd immunity as a reason to vaccinate babies and children, they should at least understand how herd immunity is supposed to work.

I certainly don't intend to make that argument (I am as yet too ignorant even if I wanted to). Anyway, I'd probably end up with another warning for violating the forum rules if I did.

[Electra375]

How about the fact childhood illnesses are not dangerous for "most" children?

Then they argument is the non-vax family puts immunosuppressed children and adults at risk...

Considering most kids who come down with Measles or chicken pox are the vaxed children, the non-vax family is no "riskier" to immunosuppressed than the general population.

So, back to the illness are not dangerous for "most"....

For me the riskiness of the vaccine is truly unknown for each child or adult. Reactions to DTaP occur with repeat exposure. Shots 1, 2 and 3 might be fine and then 4 tips the edge. MMR 1 might be fine, the booster might tip the edge. The new ones (anything with a less than 20 yr history is "new" to me) are even worse IMO.

Measles and Mumps used to be rights of passage. There is evidence to suggest a child had a learning explosion after the Measles.

Did we die from Chicken pox? NO, or we wouldn't be here. I have a friend w 5 children all vaxed. They all got chicken pox a few years ago.

I was vaxed and I had pertusis at age 3. I see how well that worked.

There simply are NO guarantees. A vaccine is not 100% safe, nor is a vaccine 100% efffective. It's not a "free ride", it's a choice to avoid added toxins into a pure system and a clear understanding of the role illnesses play in development of the immune system.

The only children who will be surviving childhood and reproducing off spring are those who's parents are smart enough to protect them and thus smart enough to protect their children. We are loosing our future daily to auto-immune disorders and other diseases.

[ema-adama]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

I certainly don't intend to make that argument (I am as yet too ignorant even if I wanted to). Anyway, I'd probably end up with another warning for violating the forum rules if I did.

I don't think you would be warned for anything if you were discussing all the facets of herd immunity theory in an honest manner. Just flinging the term around without understanding it, is likely to annoy some. (not saying you did this, but it has been done)

Back to the OP, I think it would be fanastic to understand more about *who* is at risk for vaccine reactions and why. I think it would be wonderful to actually have the numbers on the efficacy of each vaccine and the duration of immunity. Also a more in depth understanding / discussion on how vaccines actually work and what the difference is between vaccine immunity and illness acquired immunity. Only when these issues are more clearly understood can you begin to make an informed choice.

[Deborah]

I don't think informed choice is really what the vaccine enthusiasts are pushing for. You don't achieve informed choice by scaremongering.

Let's choose some other health situation:

constipation

constipation can kill! left untreated constipation can lead to serious health conditions! etc. So you must use our drug to make things go!

or

constipation is a common problem in cultures where people eat processed food and especially where fermented foods have been replaced with cooked versions (from sauerkraut to pickles, for example). It can be treated most successfully by a change of diet. This condition can eventually lead to health problems.

Which information constitutes informed consent and which is scaremongering? And which block of info is closer to the popular info on vaccination?

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by Electra375

How about the fact childhood illnesses are not dangerous for "most" children?

I have definately seen this argument.

Originally Posted by Electra375

Then they argument is the non-vax family puts immunosuppressed children and adults at risk...

I have definately seen this argument.

Originally Posted by Electra375

Considering most kids who come down with Measles or chicken pox are the vaxed children, the non-vax family is no "riskier" to immunosuppressed than the general population.

The non-vaxed children only (so far as I can see) could be argue to contribute to the risk as part of the herd immunity argument. I mean, assuming we accept that vaccination does work to some extent then I guess any one un-immunized child is somewhat more likely to be infectious than any one immunized one, but the real danger is from an outbreak rather than an individual.

Originally Posted by Electra375

So, back to the illness are not dangerous for "most"....

OK

Originally Posted by Electra375

For me the riskiness of the vaccine is truly unknown for each child or adult. Reactions to DTaP occur with repeat exposure. Shots 1, 2 and 3 might be fine and then 4 tips the edge. MMR 1 might be fine, the booster might tip the edge. The new ones (anything with a less than 20 yr history is "new" to me) are even worse IMO.

Difficult to quantify thought the risks might be, I would imagine most pro-vax people would still claim that the risks are low.

Originally Posted by Electra375

Measles and Mumps used to be rights of passage. There is evidence to suggest a child had a learning explosion after the Measles.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Are you saying that catching measles is important in mental development? At the risk of digressing this thread, I'm really curious where you are coming from with this.

Originally Posted by Electra375

Did we die from Chicken pox? NO, or we wouldn't be here. I have a friend w 5 children all vaxed. They all got chicken pox a few years ago.

Come now! :-) You could argue that the Second World War was safe because nobody alive today died in it. The fact that none of the other mums you know died in childhood tells you nothing about whether childhood diseases can kill.

Originally Posted by Electra375

I was vaxed and I had pertusis at age 3. I see how well that worked.

I'm glad you were OK. As we are all agreed, these illnesses are generally perfectly survivable, just horrid while you have them. Some people may be under the impression that vaccination is 100% effective, but that is a minor and easily corrected error that I don't see has much to do with the disagreement between the two camps.

Originally Posted by Electra375

There simply are NO guarantees.

I agree completely. Unvaccinated people can get autism (pick another condition linked to vaccines), and vaccinated people can get measles. Does anybody really disagree with this?

Originally Posted by Electra375

A vaccine is not 100% safe, nor is a vaccine 100% efffective.

I agree. That was the part of the OPs version of the "free ride" that I was objecting to.

Originally Posted by Electra375

It's not a "free ride", it's a choice to avoid added toxins into a pure system and a clear understanding of the role illnesses play in development of the immune system.

I didn't introduce the term "free ride". It's kind of flippant and certainly plays down the perfectly sincere concerns that you mention. What I would normally take it to mean is that vaccination programs contribute (I make no claims, I am just repeating them) to an environment that is much safer in regard to the illnesses being vaccinated against. Everybody who is vaccinated takes a small personal risk to contribute to a community wide reduction in risk. By not vaccinating people are benifiting from the community wide reduction in risk while not taking the personal risk.

Originally Posted by Electra375

The only children who will be surviving childhood and reproducing off spring are those who's parents are smart enough to protect them and thus smart enough to protect their children.

Almost all children survive childhood. Many of them have rotten and stupid parents that feed them processed food and never read to them. It may be that a future will come where these children do not survive to breed, but there are a lot of IFs in any argument that leads to that conclusion. At the moment those children seem to be doing all to well at breeding.

Originally Posted by Electra375

We are loosing our future daily to auto-immune disorders and other diseases.

It's beyond my pay scale to know whether you are right, or wrong on this. Given that all the bankers turned out to be rubbish with money, I'm not going to argue that such a future is totally impossible.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by ema-adama

I don't think you would be warned for anything if you were discussing all the facets of herd immunity theory in an honest manner. Just flinging the term around without understanding it, is likely to annoy some. (not saying you did this, but it has been done)

Well, if I started the thread I'd probably fall victim of the "we will not host threads on the merits of mandatory vaccine, or a purely pro vaccination view point" rule sooner or later. Anywho... I don't feel competent at the moment to engage in such a debate... too much knowledge on one side takes all the point out of it.

Originally Posted by ema-adama

Back to the OP, I think it would be fanastic to understand more about *who* is at risk for vaccine reactions and why. I think it would be wonderful to actually have the numbers on the efficacy of each vaccine and the duration of immunity. Also a more in depth understanding / discussion on how vaccines actually work and what the difference is between vaccine immunity and illness acquired immunity. Only when these issues are more clearly understood can you begin to make an informed choice.

I certainly would find those figures helpful. My understanding from this board is that they don't exist. I hope I've misunderstood.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by Deborah

I don't think informed choice is really what the vaccine enthusiasts are pushing for. You don't achieve informed choice by scaremongering.

In a democratic sense I think there is certainly a problem for the pro-vaccination movement. They *know* that high vaccination rates are good for the community as a whole, at the same time, they *know* that getting into a discussion about the whole thing isn't going to do the job in getting the vaccination rates up.

Originally Posted by Deborah

Let's choose some other health situation:

constipation

constipation can kill! left untreated constipation can lead to serious health conditions! etc. So you must use our drug to make things go!

or

constipation is a common problem in cultures where people eat processed food and especially where fermented foods have been replaced with cooked versions (from sauerkraut to pickles, for example). It can be treated most successfully by a change of diet. This condition can eventually lead to health problems.

You'll find a lot of sympathy for taking lifestyle choices over pills on conventional Science Blogs (Big Pharma itself, probably less so). The problem is that one has to be pragmatic and realize that a great deal of people aren't going to make the lifestyle change.

Originally Posted by Deborah

Which information constitutes informed consent and which is scaremongering? And which block of info is closer to the popular info on vaccination?

Both are true, but if you've given people health information and they're still eating junk food and getting constipated......? Position one though, I fully agree isn't really about treating the patient as a fully informed and automous chooser of healcare.

I don't think though that constipation really captures the herd immunity (I know, I know) aspect. That does alter the moral case a little, no? I mean, my constipation really is my own business (not that I have it).

[ema-adama]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

Well, if I started the thread I'd probably fall victim of the "we will not host threads on the merits of mandatory vaccine, or a purely pro vaccination view point" rule sooner or later. Anywho... I don't feel competent at the moment to engage in such a debate... too much knowledge on one side takes all the point out of it.

If you posted the question and were open to discussing the points you bring up, you could be surprised. About not getting into the debate until you feel more competent, I can see your point. There is plenty here on MDC to look at the other side as well as plenty on the web to look at for epidemic theory and what role herd immunity plays in that. The weird thing for me, it took looking at epidemic theory itself to realise that it is not all that it is cracked up to be. I realised that doctors/scientists are making HUGE assumptions and ignoring the inherent problems in creating herd immunity with vaccination....

I certainly would find those figures helpful. My understanding from this board is that they don't exist. I hope I've misunderstood.

If you ever find them, please share.

Originally Posted by shuttlt

In a democratic sense I think there is certainly a problem for the pro-vaccination movement. They *know* that high vaccination rates are good for the community as a whole, at the same time, they *know* that getting into a discussion about the whole thing isn't going to do the job in getting the vaccination rates up.

I'm not sure how they can *know* that it is good for the community. But yes, getting into a debate isn't going to strengthen people's resolve to go out and vaccinate.

You'll find a lot of sympathy for taking lifestyle choices over pills on conventional Science Blogs (Big Pharma itself, probably less so). The problem is that one has to be pragmatic and realize that a great deal of people aren't going to make the lifestyle change.

Who needs to be pragmatic? Health care provider of health care consumer?

Both are true, but if you've given people health information and they're still eating junk food and getting constipated......? Position one though, I fully agree isn't really about treating the patient as a fully informed and automous chooser of healcare.

I don't think though that constipation really captures the herd immunity (I know, I know) aspect. That does alter the moral case a little, no? I mean, my constipation really is my own business (not that I have it).

Moral case? Moral is quite a heavy word. I really do think a more thorough understanding of epidemic theory and herd immunity would make this discussion more relevant. I by no means claim to understand it all, but I get enough of it to know that vaccinations are falling short of the expectation their role can play in providing herd immunity.

I like the constipation/VPD analogy It is not an infectious disease, but it does highlight some of the problems in the marketing of vaccines.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by ema-adama

I'm not sure how they can *know* that it is good for the community.

That's why I put it in the asterisks. I think we both know why they think they *know* it. They question is are they mistaken, misinformed, wrong....

Originally Posted by ema-adama

But yes, getting into a debate isn't going to strengthen people's resolve to go out and vaccinate.

Originally Posted by shuttlt

You'll find a lot of sympathy for taking lifestyle choices over pills on conventional Science Blogs (Big Pharma itself, probably less so). The problem is that one has to be pragmatic and realize that a great deal of people aren't going to make the lifestyle change.

Who needs to be pragmatic? Health care provider of health care consumer?

Hypothetically taking the strong pro-vax position of herd immunity etc, etc... as true, but that there is a small risk associated with each vaccination. If you were suddenly to become Prime Minister/President you might decide that it would be a very good thing if everybody was vaccinated, after all, you would be reducing the total suffering of your population. The pragmatic way to achieve this would, as we seem to agree, not be to discuss it overly. It seems to me somewhat similar to the current position on smoking (at least in regards to free choice that 'society' believes causes harm).

Where the "free ride" thing comes in is, in the same hypothetical universe, where you are instead a citizen. The pragmatic thing to do is to avoid being vaccinated as you don't need it to get the benifits of the herd and you avoid the risk of vaccination. For what it's worth, I don't think this is a fair reflection of peoples reasoning for not vaxing, but the net effect is the same.

I'm probably teaching you to suck eggs by going through this, but I keep seeing versions of this, like the OP, that don't make sense to me.

Originally Posted by ema-adama

Moral case? Moral is quite a heavy word. I really do think a more thorough understanding of epidemic theory and herd immunity would make this discussion more relevant. I by no means claim to understand it all, but I get enough of it to know that vaccinations are falling short of the expectation their role can play in providing herd immunity.

I like the constipation/VPD analogy It is not an infectious disease, but it does highlight some of the problems in the marketing of vaccines.

Well, in relation to the "free ride" thing, I think the criticism at the root of it is a moral one, that you are putting your welfare above the welfare of the community. If one is going to discuss whether the criticism is based on a true understanding of the facts, then I agree with you that that can only come from an understanding of the theories you mention. I think it's a given that the criticism is based on a totally different understanding of the world than a great many people on this forum subscribe to.

[ema-adama]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

That's why I put it in the asterisks. I think we both know why they think they *know* it. They question is are they mistaken, misinformed, wrong....

Ooops, *---* emphasises words when I use them... sorry I misunderstood that.

Hypothetically taking the strong pro-vax position of herd immunity etc, etc... as true, but that there is a small risk associated with each vaccination. If you were suddenly to become Prime Minister/President you might decide that it would be a very good thing if everybody was vaccinated, after all, you would be reducing the total suffering of your population. The pragmatic way to achieve this would, as we seem to agree, not be to discuss it overly. It seems to me somewhat similar to the current position on smoking (at least in regards to free choice that 'society' believes causes harm).

Yes, depending on who you were getting your information from as it does not necessarily follow that suffering is reduced.... another whole can of worms.

Where the "free ride" thing comes in is, in the same hypothetical universe, where you are instead a citizen. The pragmatic thing to do is to avoid being vaccinated as you don't need it to get the benifits of the herd and you avoid the risk of vaccination. For what it's worth, I don't think this is a fair reflection of peoples reasoning for not vaxing, but the net effect is the same.

I think this has been the clearest explanation of not vaxing and herd immunity, from a pragmatic point of view, when you believe that vaccination results in herd immunity. Of course I would say that I am quite happy with the idea of my child having diseases like measles, mumps, chickenpox and rubella. Enough to create a mad panic reaction in many parents, but I am hoping DS gets these illnesses before he is an adolescent. My point is that I *want* the disease, I am not relying on 'herd immunity' to protect my child.

I'm probably teaching you to suck eggs by going through this, but I keep seeing versions of this, like the OP, that don't make sense to me.

I still am not entirely clear on what does not make sense to you.

Well, in relation to the "free ride" thing, I think the criticism at the root of it is a moral one, that you are putting your welfare above the welfare of the community.

I think there are a couple of assumptions made when this claim is made. Like the assumption that parents are relying on herd immunity to protect their children, when in many instances the complete opposite is true. You have to believe that vaccination leads to herd immunity in all cases to believe that despite not vaccinating you are protected. If I had come to the conclusion that vaccination leads to herd immunity and I was not happy to risk my child being vaccinated, that would make me a selfish person.

If one is going to discuss whether the criticism is based on a true understanding of the facts, then I agree with you that that can only come from an understanding of the theories you mention.

I agree. And not many people know just what the cornerstones of epidemic theory are. Even when they use this aurgument to try and coerce parents into vaccinating their children.

I think it's a given that the criticism is based on a totally different understanding of the world than a great many people on this forum subscribe to.

I'm not sure world view has anything to do with it. When life long immunity is recquired for herd immunity and vaccination does not provide life long immunity (without regular boosters throughout the entire population), it's not a matter of world view, it's a matter of fact.

[Proverbs31]

My beef with the "free rider" argument is it almost exclusively referring to children, but not the significant percentage of adults who don't get boosters. Children only account for about 1/4 of the population, yet they are expected to take the risks for the sake of the adults?

[shuttlt]

I reread the OP and I'm inclined to feel my initial reading was coloured by another thread I was commenting on. Having reread it, I would say the answer for me to the "can we have it both ways" question is yes. vaccines could be good for the population as a whole and bad for the individual. Clearly there are a lot of people on the forum who freely admit to only considering their childrens needs. For them it's simple.

There is a thread in me about my previous reading of the OP, but I can't state it clearly enough right now. I'll let it simmer for a while and get back to you.....

I've got a few questions on herd immunity coming along as well. When I've gotten through the previous threads I'll post them.

[ema-adama]

Originally Posted by Proverbs31

My beef with the "free rider" argument is it almost exclusively referring to children, but not the significant percentage of adults who don't get boosters. Children only account for about 1/4 of the population, yet they are expected to take the risks for the sake of the adults?

Yes, so when 25% (approx) is being vaccinated and 85 - 95 % immunity is recquired for herd immunity(depending on which disease), it becomes clear that vaccinating children is not that relevant to herd immunity - ie the immunity of the whole population.

Originally Posted by shuttlt

I reread the OP and I'm inclined to feel my initial reading was coloured by another thread I was commenting on. Having reread it, I would say the answer for me to the "can we have it both ways" question is yes. vaccines could be good for the population as a whole and bad for the individual. Clearly there are a lot of people on the forum who freely admit to only considering their childrens needs. For them it's simple.

With the aurgument for herd immunity from vaccination so shaky, I would never fault a parent for putting their child's safety first. After all, it is a parents prerogative to ensure the health and wellbeing of their children. I think a point of contention, is that parents are often not informed that there is even *any* risk, let alone what the risks can be. From reading and talking to people, I think there is a very firm belief that vaccinations are safe and necessary and you would have to be seriously deranged to question that. When pushed it is admitted that there are risks. 1 in a million. Million what? shots? children? By putting 5 vaxes in one shot, is the risk minimized or increased? No one knows. No one can actually tell you what the risks are for your child, in your circumstances. And when something bad does happen, it does not evoke warm fuzzy feelings to be told that it is temporally associated event and it cannot be proved it was the vaccine. I guess I should also say that different vaccines have a different role to play with regards to how the vaccinated person is protected. Not all vaccines prevent transmission. Phew, that was a lot. I personally find the whole epidemic theory to be quite central to the mess that has become the pediatric vaccine schedule. Almost like the root of the problem.

There is a thread in me about my previous reading of the OP, but I can't state it clearly enough right now. I'll let it simmer for a while and get back to you.....

I look forward to reading

I've got a few questions on herd immunity coming along as well. When I've gotten through the previous threads I'll post them.

I will be interested to see what your questions are.