This stuff always makes me think that avoiding vaccines for most reasons that people avoid them (that is, excluding a significant reaction on the part of that individual) is a privilege of those who live in a time and place where such experiences are vanishingly rare.
So true. Even today, your chance of dying from diphtheria is still alarmingly high. According to the CDC, even with modern medical treatment you have a 10% chance of dying. No thanks!
Sometimes the risk/benefit logic that NVers use baffles me. They say things like " Well, only 1 in 200 people with polio became permanently paralyzed, it was normally a mild illness...becoming paralyzed from it was SO RARE" But then think that the risks of having an allergic reaction to a vaccine (1 in a million) is somehow outrageously high.
I think part of that math is estimating their own odds of actually getting polio combined with the odds of being paralyzed if it did happen... but yeah, some of it is pretty mindboggling.
Polio is natural, though, and vaccines aren't.
I've heard that too. But I meant when I hear things more along the lines of " Polio was generally a mild illness... it very rarely caused paralysis. Less than 1%!" etc and I just think it's funny to think that a 1 in 200 chance of becoming permanently paralyzed is low risk or mild illness but the much much smaller chance of being harmed by a vaccine is high.
Of course that risk/benefit analyses you described that some of them use only works as long as most people vaccinate...
just wanted to point out the UA... generalizations about non vaxxers are uncool and violate the UA.
Gryphonn is correct. Please do not bring criticism of a group or an individual into your discussions. This is a support forum and should not become an exclusive debate forum against the beliefs or practices of people who have opposing beliefs from you own.
I'm not clear on what constitutes criticism in this context, and would appreciate clarification. I personally am not criticizing any individual, but stating I do not agree with particular positions that are held by some people. I don't see anyone in this thread offering any personal criticism. There's a difference between "People are so stupid for believing ____" and "I don't agree with the belief that _____". If that second is not allowed, then most of the debate forum should go kerflooey. And I could find plenty of examples in INV where they criticize positions held by our camp in a very similar manner as what is seen in this thread--should I be intervening in those threads and flagging their posts?
There is a difference in specifying a group of people when you make a statement to take issue with what they believe and stating a specific opinion you disagree with, without attributing it to an individual or general group.
"I think NVers are naive to think polio was a relatively mild disease..."
"I think the idea that polio was a relatively mild disease..."
Do you see the difference? One sets up a discussion to criticize and generalize about a group of people. The other is a discussion of beliefs regarding polio. If you truly want a support forum for your needs as vaccinating parents it should be to discuss the vaccinations and diseases and not groups of people with whom you disagree.
Yes, you may flag posts that have done similarly in INV and I will explain the same to them. But please keep it to currently active threads. We're not going to go back and address things post in discussions no longer active.