Free-Rider Argument - Page 5

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by Th1Th2

You don't get it do you?

No, but I'm trying.

Originally Posted by Th1Th2

The body can only recognize diseases in its NATIVE form thus conferring natural immunity (disease-free) and anything that invades the body, yes those mucosal immune-mediated diseases like measles, CP, etc. that were altered to become INVASIVE thru their inoculation in the bloodstream can pave the way to the corruption of the immune system which then leads to prolonged abnormal immune response. That is, vaccinated people become carriers of that disease because the body is unable to get rid of it.

Is it true that forever and always, vaccinated people carry disease, but unvaccinated natural immune people don't? Your statement reads like it is generally true across all vaccines. By carriers, do you mean infectious carriers.

And that is precisely the goal of vaccination, to make everyone disease-carriers.

Do you mean that the goal of vaccination is to make us all artificially immune, and that by implication of you previous statement this means we are disease carriers? Or do you mean the aim of vaccination is to make us disease carriers?

Vaccines can never be fool the immune system.

Fool the immune system? OK. Can it give the immune system advanced warning of what a virus looks like so it reacts much more quickly when it sees it again?

The body knows what is natural and not.

Knows? Is cow pox natural? Could innoculation with cow pox against small pox in principle work at all?

And vaccines are designed to render an ABNORMAL immune response.

Do you mean stronger/weaker or qualitatively different?

Think about it.

I am trying....

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by mamakay

Are we just talking about measles here, or all VPDs?

Anything for which herd immunity is part of the picture.

Originally Posted by mamakay

Also, it's a slightly different dynamic because this is our children for whom we are making this decision. As parents, is our primary obligation to our children's well being, or society's?

This is exactly the dilemma. You want to maximize your outcome (the risk profile of your child) but in choosing that you degrade the common. It kind of depends on how long this plays out, but you could end up putting your grandchild at significantly more risk than your child. If the short term risk of your child is all that matters and the long term consequences don't matter, then you certainly have a solution. For me, I would still feel a moral responsibility towards society. That isn't to say that I wouldn't feel a greater one for my son. It's all about finding a balance. I wouldn't put my son first under all hypothetical made up scenarios.

I don't mean to make a moral judgement, but do you feel no moral responsibility towards society? I assume that in fact you do, it's just that in this case it's trumped by your child.

------>
A hypothetical situation.
Assume the 33,000 lives saved by vaccination figure were true. Assume also that the risk of your child dying from vaccination was a million to 1. Assume further that if you don't vaccinate you will tip the scales and 33,000 random others will die. Would you vaccinate?

This isn't realistic. This isn't an argument for vaccination. I just want to establish whether you really mean that your only responsibility is towards your child. I would most certainly vaccinate under these made up nonsense circumstances.

You get some parents who turn their children in when the murder somebody in the street. You have some parents who hide the knife and lie to the police (no that I'm likening this to you, I'm not). People vary considerably on this kind of thing.

[Th1Th2]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

Is it true that forever and always, vaccinated people carry disease, but unvaccinated natural immune people don't? Your statement reads like it is generally true across all vaccines. By carriers, do you mean infectious carriers.

Yes it is true that vaccinated people are disease carriers. It is very true that a non-diseased newborn will come down with at least 14 vaccine-induced diseases and other sequelae throughout the first year of life regardless whether they are symptomatic or not, acute or delayed. The evidence is there.

Originally Posted by shuttlt

Do you mean that the goal of vaccination is to make us all artificially immune, and that by implication of you previous statement this means we are disease carriers? Or do you mean the aim of vaccination is to make us disease carriers?

The natural disease process lasts when the body has completed its toxic elimination (disease-free). Artificial immunity is destructive and prolongs the abnormal immune response (disease-carrier).

Originally Posted by shuttlt

Fool the immune system? OK. Can it give the immune system advanced warning of what a virus looks like so it reacts much more quickly when it sees it again?

Immunological memory is NOT the primary and ultimate function of the immune system.

Originally Posted by shuttlt

Knows? Is cow pox natural? Could innoculation with cow pox against small pox in principle work at all?

The inoculation of disease-causing microorganisms in the bloodstream is destructive to the immune system. Do you ever wonder why they do not INJECT polio and rotavirus?

Originally Posted by shuttlt

Do you mean stronger/weaker or qualitatively different?

An ABNORMAL immune response is destructive physiologically.

[Fyrestorm]

IMO - Based on the fact that most adults are not getting boosters and have lost immunity + the fact that no vaccine is 100% effective, I don't think that me vaccinating my DD would make any difference to the 'herd' I don't think there is an immune 'herd'

[mamakay]

I don't mean to make a moral judgement, but do you feel no moral responsibility towards society? I assume that in fact you do, it's just that in this case it's trumped by your child.

I do, but I draw my own line in a completely arbitrary kind of way. As do public health officials who devise immunization policies.
For example, "they" think it's ethical to vaccinate toddlers against HepA to protect adults. I don't think it's my toddler's duty to comply with this societal objective.

A hypothetical situation.
Assume the 33,000 lives saved by vaccination figure were true. Assume also that the risk of your child dying from vaccination was a million to 1. Assume further that if you don't vaccinate you will tip the scales and 33,000 random others will die. Would you vaccinate?

Of course.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

]It kind of depends on how long this plays out, but you could end up putting your grandchild at significantly more risk than your child.

When I said grandchild I was somehow assuming briefly that your child would be vaccinated. I can only attribute this to some kind of neurological problem. Depending on the timescale, you could put your child at significantly more risk (and your grandchild too - global warming, running out of oil and collapsing economies permitting).

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by mamakay

I do, but I draw my own line in a completely arbitrary kind of way. As do public health officials who devise immunization policies.
For example, "they" think it's ethical to vaccinate toddlers against HepA to protect adults. I don't think it's my toddler's duty to comply with this societal objective.

I don't know so much about HepA. Would vaccination protect your child as an adult, or would children vaccinating protect your child as an adult in any way?

A hypothetical situation.
Assume the 33,000 lives saved by vaccination figure were true. Assume also that the risk of your child dying from vaccination was a million to 1. Assume further that if you don't vaccinate you will tip the scales and 33,000 random others will die. Would you vaccinate?

Of course.

OK. It was a silly example. I just wanted to check that you weren't absolutist about it. Your reasoning seems similar to mine, you're maybe just assessing the risks differently

[shuttlt]

@mamakay
Arguments about the pecking order of moral responsibility aside for a second. Do you agree that IF the pro-vax/CDC position on the relative risks and benifits of vaccinating, not vaccinating and herd immunity are correct that by not vaccinating one is getting a free lunch.

[mamakay]

I don't know so much about HepA. Would vaccination protect your child as an adult, or would children vaccinating protect your child as an adult in any way?

They don't know how long vax immunity will last, but it probably won't until adulthood. Vaccinating children will provide some protection for adults, but far from 100%. They'll have to get themselves vaccinated later if they want reliable protection.

@mamakay
Arguments about the pecking order of moral responsibility aside for a second. Do you agree that IF the pro-vax/CDC position on the relative risks and benifits of vaccinating, not vaccinating and herd immunity are correct that by not vaccinating one is getting a free lunch.

Yeah, for the most part. If their "message" was accurate and they weren't missing anything important.

[Deborah]

Hi,
I'm the OP.

I've read a lot of pro-vax messages. I was highlighting one inconsistency that stood out for me:

vaccines are touted as safe in one context (when you bring your baby in for the vaccine)

and described as as a bit of a risk in another context (good parents will get their children vaccinated for the good of the herd, bad parents don't want to take the risk, so they are free riders)

It usually isn't laid out side by side, but said in different contexts at different times. I thought it would be interesting to put the two pieces next to each other, and I did inflate them a little to highlight the contrast.

I'll restate it this way:

Parents who get their child all the shots on the CDC recommended schedule on time and in order are complimented for societal virtue and for putting their child on the line for herd immunity. There would be no virtue without a risk. Therefore, logically, there is a risk to the child and secondarily to the parent (who will have to care for or bury the child in case things go wrong).

On the other hand, parents who refuse to vaccinate are constantly attacked for worrying about nothing, for not understanding the horrendous dangers of the diseases and so forth. Only when they are being attacked for not doing their share for the herd is there a hint that they might be trying to avoid the risk. The real risk.

I doubt if this helps. I'm struggling with what I see as two contradictory frames for the vaccination narrative. In one narrative there is a risk, but virtuous parents are willing to bear the burden. In the other narrative there is no risk, only parents who are making up nonsense to scare themselves and ignoring the real danger of disease.

When you look at the two frames at the same time there should be some degree of cognitive dissonance.

[ema-adama]

I think a question the 'provax' people are not asking is what the price for vaccine induced herd immunity is.

And not even the best of them could give a coherent answer, as no one knows. A true double blind placebo controlled study done on vaccinations just does not exist. There are all sorts of signs that the programme is not going that brilliantly, but nothing completely concrete.

If I were advocating mass vaccination, I would be pressurising the authorities to do the study and give me the hard numbers that establish that in 99999 out of 100000, vaccination is indeed as safe as we have been saying.

ETA: telling parents it is safe, but not risk free and herd immunity is essential would mean a lot more if there was any actual discussion on what the risks are.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by ema-adama

I think a question the 'provax' people are not asking is what the price for vaccine induced herd immunity is.

And not even the best of them could give a coherent answer, as no one knows. A true double blind placebo controlled study done on vaccinations just does not exist. There are all sorts of signs that the programme is not going that brilliantly, but nothing completely concrete.

If I were advocating mass vaccination, I would be pressurising the authorities to do the study and give me the hard numbers that establish that in 99999 out of 100000, vaccination is indeed as safe as we have been saying.

ETA: telling parents it is safe, but not risk free and herd immunity is essential would mean a lot more if there was any actual discussion on what the risks are.

Even then, how long would the study need to be? 5 years? 30 years? 50 years? There seems to be a lot of concern about unknown long term problems. Is there really a study that would satisfy people?

Another thing. Given that we don't know what bad things we are looking for any study would risk sharp shooter/barn door type problems.

[ema-adama]

Perhaps start with active surveillance instead of passive. Sure, this means that essentially the entire population is being experimented on, but that is what is happening anyway. At least some real figures could start to emerge instead of manipulations of numbers.

I do not think it would be too hard to find a sample to match the unvaccinated by choice. This poses no ehtical dilema's.

I am curious as to what kind of study would give you the information that you would be confident using to assess the risks of vaccines.

ETA: I guess it is fitting that it happened on the vax forum

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by Deborah

Hi,
I'm the OP.

I've read a lot of pro-vax messages. I was highlighting one inconsistency that stood out for me:

vaccines are touted as safe in one context (when you bring your baby in for the vaccine)

If you are just saying that the message given to the public is an oversimplification, then I have no problem at all with what you said.

The moral side of it aside, do you agree that IF the CDC are right about the risk/benefits of herd immunity vaccination that people who don't vaccinate are getting the benefits with none of the costs?

It usually isn't laid out side by side, but said in different contexts at different times. I thought it would be interesting to put the two pieces next to each other, and I did inflate them a little to highlight the contrast.

OK. Look I really didn't mean to attack you and I hope it didn't come across that way. The whole cost/benefit for the individual and the group of herd immunity is an interesting topic and I wouldn't suggest there is only one answer.

I'll restate it this way:

Parents who get their child all the shots on the CDC recommended schedule on time and in order are complimented for societal virtue and for putting their child on the line for herd immunity. There would be no virtue without a risk. Therefore, logically, there is a risk to the child and secondarily to the parent (who will have to care for or bury the child in case things go wrong).

Agreed. There is definitely a risk associated with vaccination. A position that the risk is technically, scientifically zero is foolish and indefensible.

On the other hand, parents who refuse to vaccinate are constantly attacked for worrying about nothing, for not understanding the horrendous dangers of the diseases and so forth. Only when they are being attacked for not doing their share for the herd is there a hint that they might be trying to avoid the risk. The real risk.

I would say that the worrying about nothing probably comes from a feeling that they are worrying disproportionately about a very small risk. Whether that is a true reflection of the danger is another question. Realistically there is a risk associated with every intervention. You seem to be talking here about the politically slanted way that the pro-vax message is presented, in which case again, I agree. I kind of sympathise with why the might do it, but it would piss me off if I was spoon fed half the truth as well.

I doubt if this helps. I'm struggling with what I see as two contradictory frames for the vaccination narrative. In one narrative there is a risk, but virtuous parents are willing to bear the burden. In the other narrative there is no risk, only parents who are making up nonsense to scare themselves and ignoring the real danger of disease.

It does help. I am a little clearer about your thinking. One of the ways that I think we differ is that you are comparing the risk for your child (or grandchild) in this world given that you as an individual aren't actually going to put an appreciable dent in herd immunity. I think the CDC are comparing the risk for a vaccinated society with herd immunity and one without and presumably finding that our children are less at risk with herd immunity.

When you look at the two frames at the same time there should be some degree of cognitive dissonance.

Agreed. It wouldn't be a dilemma if that wasn't so.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by ema-adama

Perhaps start with active surveillance instead of passive. Sure, this means that essentially the entire population is being experimented on, but that is what is happening anyway. At least some real figures could start to emerge instead of manipulations of numbers.

I do not think it would be too hard to find a sample to match the unvaccinated by choice. This poses no ehtical dilema's.

I am curious as to what kind of study would give you the information that you would be confident using to assess the risks of vaccines.

When I know I'll share it. I do think you have to take into account the Texas Sharp Shooter Fallacy in any study you do where you don't know in advance what you're looking for.

[Yulia_R]

Originally Posted by ema-adama

I think a question the 'provax' people are not asking is what the price for vaccine induced herd immunity is.

And not even the best of them could give a coherent answer, as no one knows. A true double blind placebo controlled study done on vaccinations just does not exist. There are all sorts of signs that the programme is not going that brilliantly, but nothing completely concrete.

If I were advocating mass vaccination, I would be pressurising the authorities to do the study and give me the hard numbers that establish that in 99999 out of 100000, vaccination is indeed as safe as we have been saying.

ETA: telling parents it is safe, but not risk free and herd immunity is essential would mean a lot more if there was any actual discussion on what the risks are.

There can never be such study which would be accurate. The only thing this study would do is to show immediate side affects (for me personally this would be the least of a concern). But what about growing like crazy rates of childhood cancers, what about endless allergies, eczemas, neurological disorders?! They will never fallow up vax'd kids for 10 years or so to show the correlation.

[mamakay]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

When I know I'll share it. I do think you have to take into account the Texas Sharp Shooter Fallacy in any study you do where you don't know in advance what you're looking for.

That's why you look to see if results can be replicated. It's not a fallacy when it's a pattern.

ETA:
And they wouldn't be going into it completely blind, either. They would know what to look for in advance.

[shuttlt]

I really think it is in principle very difficult to do such a study if you aren't specific in advance about what association you are testing.

[mamakay]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

I really think it is in principle very difficult to do such a study if you aren't specific in advance about what association you are testing.

That wouldn't be hard to do. Atopic disorders, neurological disorders, all cause mortality, hospitalizations, etc.

[ema-adama]

I am going to throw this out there again. Why is active surveillance not being clamoured for, by people who are 'pro vax', selective vax and 'anti vax'? I can only see the public and medical professionals benefiting from such a system. In this situation I really do think everyone benefits. Or am I missing something?