Free-Rider Argument - Page 3

[shuttlt]

So much gosh darned reading to do.

Printing it off, reading it on the train.....

[mamakay]

lol

An easier first project would be trying to verify this CDC claim:

As many as three of every 1,000 persons with measles will die in the U.S.

[plunky]

Originally Posted by Deborah

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

This is a straw man because it suggests that the free rider argument coexists with a belief that vaccines are completely harmless. That is not the case. Vaxers who research do know that some people have adverse reactions to vaccines. That is why non vaxers are considered free riders. They are protected with no risk to themselves.

The question is the degree of risk. People who choose to vax do so because they decide that having a herd that is immune has a greater value than their personal risk by vaxing.

You would see the free rider argument much less if non vaxers willingly put themselves in situations where they were not herd protected. And no, chicken pox parties don't count IMO. Going to some place in Africa where they don't get any vaccines would. It is easy and convenient to deride the herd while you are protected by it.

[mamakay]

Why don't CP parties count?

ETA:
Do you think nonvaxers find measles a lot scarier than CP? What about flu? How deadly is influenza supposed to be compared to measles?

[ema-adama]

Originally Posted by plunky

Going to some place in Africa where they don't get any vaccines would. It is easy and convenient to deride the herd while you are protected by it.

This made me giggle. My plan is to take my children (only have one at the moment) to Africa to get measles if they haven't had it around 9-10 years of age.....

Imagine package deals for VPD's

[carriebft]

http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...ract/108/5/e79

an article on how healthy children can get CP complications, too. I was a health child who ended up in hospital due to CP-- not that that made me do the vaccine-- but just wanted to throw that out there.

I think by having an understanding that healthy kids get these complications, too, can help people understand how they could look at certain information and someone else could look at it and come out with different ideas of vaccination.

[mamakay]

Sort of off topic, but did you have siblings who caught CP at the same time, Carrie?

[carriebft]

My brother had already had it but I had a cousin that got it at the same time as me. when my mom tells the story, she says it like I got it from her,but I don't really remember much of the entire situation. I was 5.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by mamakay

lol

An easier first project would be trying to verify this CDC claim:

To hell with easy! Up with interesting!

OK. I've read all four links. I'd some them up like this:

Part 1: The claim that there are 33,000 lives saved by vaccination per year in the US is attacked, mainly on the grounds that the annual death rate has not fallen by enough to allow for it.

Part 2: Diphtheria figures are are claimed to make up the majority of the 33,000 lives saved. The argument is that the figure for diphtheria is overstated, undermining the 33,000 calculation.

Part 3: The figures for Hep B are attacked.
Part 4: The figures for Polio are attacked.

At the moment I'm standing by my claim that the main argument in part 1 is wrong. The argument in part 2 would be enough in and of itself to undermine the 33,000 figure though. Analysing this is much heavier going, I really don't know what I think about this yet. It may well be true.

One attack of the figure that I didn't see is that it doesn't seem to be being presented with any error bars. A lone number is OK for an interview, but the academic literature should have it. If not, then I am very puzzled as this would rob the figure of much of it's meaning.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by mamakay

Originally Posted by shuttlt

The problem I have is that the writer isn't then comparing that against changes in the death rate for children under 10 (or is he/she?)

No, they didn't, because the CDC didn't, either.

I disagree. The CDC says that 33,000 lives have been saved. The writer in the link attempts to compare this to the change in the death rate of the entire population since 1900. I'm pretty sure this is a mistake.

Originally Posted by mamakay

Originally Posted by shuttlt

The 33K is being compared to the death rate across the whole population, rather than children under 10.

Not really. The CDC went disease by disease, and calculated how many kids per 1,000 (or per 100,000, or whatever) died of the disease per year prevaccine. Then they added all the diseases up and came up with 33k. HepB is the only one of the diseases where the deaths don't overwhelmingly happen in kids under 10.

So, are you saying that the writer in the link is only ever referring to the declining death rate in children under 10, rather than the whole population. If so, I have made a mistake.

Originally Posted by mamakay

That would be an issue to take up with the CDC's article. But really, if someone's life is saved by a vaccine one year, I think it's reasonable to count it as a "life saved".

I agree. But sooner or later we are all going to get counted.

Originally Posted by mamakay

Again, the CDC's claim and methodology is simple. They're saying that out of every 4 million babies born a year NOW, 33k would be dieing of a VPD eventually if it weren't for the CDC's National Immunization Program.

I agree.

Originally Posted by mamakay

I think you should read the CDC's study first before trying to evaluate the validity of it's criticism.

But I agree with you about what their study says. I am relying on the link to accurately describe what their study says. Do you really think I need to go back to make sure that the CDC say, what the link says it says. My eyes are starting to hurt from all the reading.

[Scattershoot]

People who choose to vax do so because they decide that having a herd that is immune has a greater value than their personal risk by vaxing.

I seriously doubt there is that much thought put into it. I would suggest that a vast majority of people vaccinate because they think they are supposed to, they have not really studied it at all, and because they believe it will protect their own children from what they think are serious and deadly diseases like mumps and measles.

This whole herd thing is only a very recent phenomenon to the general public. It is a p.r. compaign for the masses. It's an attempt at a mass guilt trip.

[shuttlt]

In so far as ignorance goes, it cuts both ways. Numbers wise, I'm sure many more people have vaxed out of ignorance than the other way around. Equally, our society is based on doing things out of ignorance. The gears would grind to a halt if everybody made a point of thinking things through.

[mamakay]

The CDC says that 33,000 lives have been saved. The writer in the link attempts to compare this to the change in the death rate of the entire population since 1900. I'm pretty sure this is a mistake.

I see what you mean.
You very well might be right. I hadn't really paid attention to that before. I am familiar with the flaws in the disease-specific statistcs, though. I should have read the thread more carefully. Sorry. My bad. I'll actually email them and ask them what they think about what you're saying.
I *think* they meant that as a lead into the diphtheria article with confounding factors in infectious disease (primarily diphtheria) mortality, but I see what you mean.

But I agree with you about what their study says. I am relying on the link to accurately describe what their study says. Do you really think I need to go back to make sure that the CDC say, what the link says it says. My eyes are starting to hurt from all the reading.

Sorry, no. lol

I was misunderstanding you.

[shuttlt]

I'm so relieved you understand! I thought I was going mad. 5 minutes ago I went off and asked somebody to check my workings because I was beginning to doubt myself. I'll go tell them not to bother.
::::::::::

[mamakay]

Yeah, sorry bout that.

[shuttlt]

Don't worry! I can only see that something is wrong with the maths if I squint and look at it sideways.

[ema-adama]

Originally Posted by Scattershoot

This whole herd thing is only a very recent phenomenon to the general public. It is a p.r. compaign for the masses. It's an attempt at a mass guilt trip.

In a very aggressive, insulting way. As well as planting seeds that unvaccinated children are breeding grounds for dangerous mutations of diseases. And here I am coming to the conclusion that being unvaxed might actually be in the publics best interest (not everyone, but those who chose to).

Originally Posted by shuttlt

In so far as ignorance goes, it cuts both ways. Numbers wise, I'm sure many more people have vaxed out of ignorance than the other way around. Equally, our society is based on doing things out of ignorance. The gears would grind to a halt if everybody made a point of thinking things through.

By implication, you are saying that the numbers do no support not vaccinating, and people who chose not to vaccinate are ignorant. I do not think we would see eye to eye on this, but that is not a surprise.
Thinking things through has kept me and my family safe, healthy and happy (until IL's - doctors- start meddling, and then we are a little less happy). I am an expert on my family like no doctor could ever be. Doctors are to be consulted and asked the relevant questions. If they do not know, I certainly would never follow their advice.

Why would the gears grind to a halt?

[shuttlt]

Lots of people here have thought their decision not to vax through and put lots of effort into it. I'm just not convinced that this is a representative sample. It might be. I don't know.

[mamakay]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

Lots of people here have thought their decision not to vax through and put lots of effort into it. I'm just not convinced that this is a representative sample. It might be. I don't know.

Well, nonvaxers tend to put more thought into it than total-vaxers, as a general rule. People who have a "selective vax" mentality (once dipping their toes into the subject, which often does not happen until their kids are older and fully vaxed previously), in my experience, tend to put the most thought into it, with some rare exceptions.

Most people just do what they're told, and what one is told depends on who one chooses to listen to.

[ema-adama]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

Lots of people here have thought their decision not to vax through and put lots of effort into it. I'm just not convinced that this is a representative sample. It might be. I don't know.

I guess you could have parents thinking it is trendy not to vaccinate and send their babies off to daycare with a bottle of formula and top them up with junk food and chocolate milk as soon as they take it. I have not met such a person, but I guess they could exist. To be less extreme, you could have parents who choose not to vaccinate thinking it is natural and also are not responsible in how the practice preventative medicine in their homes. And also not knowing what the risks are and how to minimize them. I guess there are all sorts. But there are parents who make informed choices not to vaccinate.

ETA: for the record, I do not consider myself making an informed choice just yet. I am in the process of informing myself. I am working in the direction that I need to be convinced to vaccinate. My choice is by default until I find the reason why my family would be better off being vaccinated for measles.