I thought anti-vax is only an American thing, but recently I found that in HK, around 10% of parents refused to have their girls vaccinated with HPV because it somehow increases the chances of early sex! (http://www.thestandard.com.hk/breaking-news.php?id=116938&sid=4)

WTF!!!

What did Edward Jenner do to deserve this?!

People are dumb enough to believe every bullshit they read online instead of opening a biology book to lean how the fuck the human immune system and herd immunity works.

Zenti said:
People are dumb enough to believe every bullshit they read online instead of opening a biology book to lean how the fuck the human immune system and herd immunity works.

Same book says heavy metals (contained in vaccines) are toxic to human body and depending on the person can (and DO) cause side effects ranging from fever to death.

In some "smart" countries you can't even get tested before taking the vaccine (as the law says symptoms must show first, like wtf it's too late then) so if you are allergic to some ingredient or you are among the unlucky ones (bad vaccine sample or "bad" body) well too bad for you.

People generally don't care as long as it doesn't happen to them.
And people don't avoid them just because, they simply don't want to take the chance and be on the short end of the stick, you can lose the only thing that you can't buy with money, health.

Instead of threatening people with sanctions, jail and taking the children away then forcibly stabbing them. Populace should be educated more on the topic, while the government has too be A LOT more transparent with everything about vaccines instead of shadily hiding and lying like they do all the time.

Every so so you can read about flawed vaccines being sold/administered.
So people get scarred and refuse to vaccinate their most precious, children. Then the government plays force and just elevates the fear.

There's also dumb people too but generally in my opinion it's because of shady practices, lack of transparency and lack of knowledge.

Oh and don't forget there are basically very little studies available on the vaccines that are being administered (and they usually come from the same people that sell them, they could lie in their study we know that salesman of any product lie plus they can't be criminally charged).

If any medication has severe side effects you should be able to chose if you want to take it or not, just like with medical procedures. Where is the sense in threatening to shoot me if I don't shoot myself, that is not a choice and at the same time you claim that life is sovereign, I am free to chose, no one can force me to do something against my will...etc.

If it's the right book, it'll note that the *form* of the heavy metal that was *previously* used in vaccines was harmless to humans.

Aluminum you get more of from a sandwich,

...very little studies? They have to do a ton of research before the FDA will approve one. Lying in a study also comes out pretty quickly. See the one single study claiming to show evidence of autism from vaccines.

https://pics.me.me/and-the-evil-mr-vaccine-played-his-flute-of-never-5905729.png

I'll never miss a chance to post one of my most favorite images ever.

AoBird quoted:
... a bunch of fear mongering and bad information.

This. @theultra, this is your answer. It happens when people do just enough "research" into a topic to feel smart, but then get bad information and stop reading there because it's easier to accept confirmation bias than it is to read through papers that actually followed the scientific method.

Sorry, @AoBird. I'm not trying to be insulting, but your response was literally the answer to Ultra's question.

AoBird said:
Same book says heavy metals (contained in vaccines) are toxic to human body and depending on the person can (and DO) cause side effects ranging from fever to death.

Heavy metals that are unbound and in their pure, elemental form are in fact toxic. Vaccines do not contain unbound, pure heavy elements. All heavy elements are bound inside more complex molecules where they can't get out of, because your body isn't able to break them apart. They simply get removed from the bloodstream by the kidneys, and then urinated out without ever doing anything.

This is like arguing that chlor and natrium is poisonous to the human body, yet seasoning your dinner with tablesalt, which is a chlor-natrium compound.

These compounds are only there in the vaccine to keep the thing from spoiling as easily. The compounds interfere with the growth of bacteria and mold, both of which are good things to not have grow inside something that's supposed to go into your bloodstream.

Also, the serious side effects from a vaccine range in a 1-in-10,000 probability, or even less. A slight redness or mild fever are rather common (usually 1-in-3 to 1-in-10), but those are mild and go away in less than a week. The serious side effects are so uncommon many of them have not been able to be studied whether they're actually related to the vaccine, or just a random occurrence.

Also, all side-effects are documented for every vaccine, and every single government / doctor should be willing to give you a list of them, and instructions on what to do if any of them manifest.

AoBird said:
In some "smart" countries you can't even get tested before taking the vaccine (as the law says symptoms must show first, like wtf it's too late then) so if you are allergic to some ingredient or you are among the unlucky ones (bad vaccine sample or "bad" body) well too bad for you.

People generally don't care as long as it doesn't happen to them.
And people don't avoid them just because, they simply don't want to take the chance and be on the short end of the stick, you can lose the only thing that you can't buy with money, health.

The allergic reaction to vaccines is not an allergic reaction at all. What most people think is an allergic reaction is the regular immune system response processing the vaccine. The minor side effects like a slight red swelling at the site of injection, or a minor fever is not an allergic reaction at all, and not life threatening either.
On the chance that a person is actually allergic to a compound in a vaccine the person will manifest anaphylaxis within the next 30 minutes, and at that point the doctor can administer epinephrine to stop the allergic reaction and move them into a hospital for further treatment. However, that is incredibly rare (according to the US-government less than 1-in-1,000,000) and even then still not guaranteed to be fatal.

On the other hand, if you have a young child contracting measles the chance of death is roughly 1-in-10, the chance to die from the vaccine is less than 1-in-1,000,000.

AoBird said:
Instead of threatening people with sanctions, jail and taking the children away then forcibly stabbing them. Populace should be educated more on the topic, while the government has too be A LOT more transparent with everything about vaccines instead of shadily hiding and lying like they do all the time.

Most governments are incredibly forthcoming with any side effects about vaccines (US; UK; Australia ), if yours isn't you can still use google to find the information from other governments, or the WHO directly.

AoBird said:
Every so so you can read about flawed vaccines being sold/administered.
So people get scarred and refuse to vaccinate their most precious, children. Then the government plays force and just elevates the fear.

There's also dumb people too but generally in my opinion it's because of shady practices, lack of transparency and lack of knowledge.

If your health provider buys shitty vaccines report them to your government, if your government funds trash vote for other people. Vaccines are safer than any other alternative and cheaper than any other treatment method. It's in the best interest of your government to have working vaccines simply so they can safe money in the long run. A single dose costs about 50c, treatment for anything it can prevent runs hundreds of dollars. There is simply no conspiracy where using fake vaccines makes even a lick of sense.

AoBird said:
Oh and don't forget there are basically very little studies available on the vaccines that are being administered (and they usually come from the same people that sell them, they could lie in their study we know that salesman of any product lie plus they can't be criminally charged).

This is just outright wrong. Here is a list of all vaccine safety related studies commissioned and paid for the by the US Government. There have been 505 studies commissioned, paid for, and published by and for the US government since 2000. Vaccines are older than that. Not a single one of those studies found anything beyond a remote chance of severe complications for any vaccine currently in use, or previously in use.

AoBird said:
If any medication has severe side effects you should be able to chose if you want to take it or not, just like with medical procedures. Where is the sense in threatening to shoot me if I don't shoot myself, that is not a choice and at the same time you claim that life is sovereign, I am free to chose, no one can force me to do something against my will...etc.

Also incorrect. There are people that can't get vaccinated due to actual health risks instead of being ill-informed. Those people rely on herd immunity to survive. Your decision to not get vaccinated because of ignorance is a health risk to those people. And the amount of people is great enough to matter, and also includes infants. Just the way taxes aren't optional for living in a society it should be your duty to ensure the weakest parts of a society don't get killed by your actions.

I remember I used to know a guy online that was one of those idiots that believe everything they read online. He read about deodorant having aluminum in it and it can give you cancer, so he stopped wearing deodorant. He was so full of himself that he claimed he didn't need it because he didn't smell. The dude would go around with his shirt soaked in sweat stains and he would smell so damn bad.

NotMeNotYou said:
All of that correct, extremely useful information

Bless you

Over here at least, people generally do vaccinate their kids with what you get when you are young and up to the age of 18. What people avoid are the annual flu vaccinations, the rationale being that they train their immune system or that the vaccines are of a bad quality.

However we have slowly been getting some anti-vaxers, though they are not given much media space (more out of the government's desire to control information than out of any general concern).

Previously vaccinated diseases are making a huge comeback because herd immunization is starting to break down from anti-vaccination numpties. Anti-science people are going to be the death of us.

NotMeNotYou did:
his research and corrected a bunch of rampant misinformation.

Thank you, thank you, thank you.

NotMeNotYou said:
...

Thank you for taking time off your day to fight ignorance. We need more people like you

NotMeNotYou said:
They simply get removed from the bloodstream by the kidneys, and then urinated out without ever doing anything.

This is like arguing that chlor and natrium is poisonous to the human body, yet seasoning your dinner with tablesalt, which is a chlor-natrium compound.

Are you sure we know that? Salt (and water) also get filtered to a degree.If there is a limit from beyond which they become harmful and a limit beyond which kidneys can't filter them, do we know those limits?

NotMeNotYou said:
The serious side effects are so uncommon many of them have not been able to be studied whether they're actually related to the vaccine, or just a random occurrence.

If it is random occurrence, how come US pays out billions for damages? Seems like it's very clear and not random like you claim.

NotMeNotYou said:
Also, all side-effects are documented for every vaccine, and every single government / doctor should be willing to give you a list of them, and instructions on what to do if any of them manifest.

Documented, probably, WELL documented, doubtfully. Maybe in that first world country of yours.
Literally billions of people don't have such information.

NotMeNotYou said:
If your health provider buys shitty vaccines report them to your government, if your government funds trash vote for other people.

This is a serious subject, you shouldn't joke like that. How much of populace is sheep, and how many do not care? And votes wouldn't change anything, even though it's one problem, it runs much deeper than that it takes a lot more work than a simple vote to fix it.

NotMeNotYou said:
Not a single one of those studies found anything beyond a remote chance of severe complications for any vaccine currently in use, or previously in use.
There are people that can't get vaccinated due to actual health risks instead of being ill-informed.

Remote chance and not being able to vaccine, yes that is great, what if you are one of those people? Sure you should have an option to get tested before taking the vaccine and if sideeffects are severe enough you should be able to chose if you take the vaccine or not, just like you can chose with other medication.

NotMeNotYou said:
Your decision to not get vaccinated because of ignorance is a health risk to those people.

As I said, life changing side effects. Not "just because".

AoBird said:
Are you sure we know that? Salt (and water) also get filtered to a degree.If there is a limit from beyond which they become harmful and a limit beyond which kidneys can't filter them, do we know those limits?

Yes, the 505 studies I linked earlier have plenty of material regarding just that. The daily dosage from any of those materials is far below the limit you should take in a day, even with the combo shots.

AoBird said:
If it is random occurrence, how come US pays out billions for damages? Seems like it's very clear and not random like you claim.

The US has currently a population of 325.7 million people. Even with a 1-in-1,000,000 chance some people are bound to "lose" the lottery every now and then. The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program is more of an extra insurance claim people can file on the remote chance that something negative does happen.

As for billions, that program has been running since 1989, and most cases appear to be settlements instead of actual court cases where a judge has ruled whether the claim is justified or not. You can find the document here, do note that the first table on page 2 actually shows how many doses have been administered, and how many claims have been filed.

AoBird said:
Documented, probably, WELL documented, doubtfully. Maybe in that first world country of yours.
Literally billions of people don't have such information.

The vaccines your country uses are most likely the same "we" use. In fact, many studies the US paid for have been made in third world countries with help by the WHO, which also included giving those countries access to the same vaccines the people in the US, EU, Canada, and elsewhere use.

AoBird said:
This is a serious subject, you shouldn't joke like that. How much of populace is sheep, and how many do not care? And votes wouldn't change anything, even though it's one problem, it runs much deeper than that it takes a lot more work than a simple vote to fix it.

Every solution starts with the first step, sure it's grossly oversimplified but the kernel of truth remains, get up and help push for change.

AoBird said:
Remote chance and not being able to vaccine, yes that is great, what if you are one of those people? Sure you should have an option to get tested before taking the vaccine and if sideeffects are severe enough you should be able to chose if you take the vaccine or not, just like you can chose with other medication.

Life changing side effects are 1-in-1,000,000 or less. You have a much higher chance being in a freak accident while outside of your apartment than getting any sort of negative effect from a vaccine.
Again, most of those side-effects are trivially to treat, and even many of more the severe ones are rather easy to treat but might require hospitalization for a bit. The devastating effects from the disease these vaccines prevent are much, much more likely.

Measles has, in healthy adults, a 0.2% chance to kill. That is a 1-in-500 chance. The vaccine has a 1-in-1,000,000 chance to put you into a hospital for a while, but you'll survive that. That is a 0.0001% chance of hurting you. The chance to die from measles is 2000 times higher than having a truly negative thing happen to you from the vaccine.

AoBird said:
As I said, life changing side effects. Not "just because".

All disease that have a vaccine available have much, much higher chances to have a life changing side effect than the vaccine has. If you, as an individual, can't get vaccinated due to pre-existing conditions or a known allergy than that is obviously a different story. But if you're an average person not getting vaccinated it's a gamble you are all but guaranteed to lose.

Oh, this is gonna be a fun thread.

Ladies and gentlefurs and other gender furs, what we are seeing here is a brilliant display of Dunning-Kruger.

CCoyote said:
Ladies and gentlefurs and other gender furs, what we are seeing here is a brilliant display of Dunning-Kruger.

Where? I don't see anyone pretending to be superior anywhere.

And also a late question for your previous post, how is "educating people instead of threatening them with <insert threat here>, and giving them a choice if there are life changing consequences of taking the vaccine" answer to his question? I simply stated what happens, nowhere did I say people shouldn't get vaccinated nor do I believe that vaccines make children go have sex early.

randomguy85 said:
Oh, this is gonna be a fun thread.

D...did I do something wrong?

This is probably going to get me some heat but...
Let's say that 1 in 1mil vaccinations cause some serious side effects, provided that the vaccines work, i'd say that it'd be an acceptable ratio of people getting sick vs people getting immunised.

Heck, even if it was 1 in 100k it'd be ~7000 in a population of +300 million and still worth it.

Also, o.k, one could make an argument that people have the private right to not vaccinate themselves or their kids, but in return you get zero rights to promote your views to the broader populace (though this compromise would merely be less bad in my opinion).

AoBird said:
"educating people instead of threatening them with <insert threat here>, and giving them a choice if there are life changing consequences of taking the vaccine"

Voluntarily declining vaccination against life-threatening diseases makes one a health risk. It is a very simple concern -- your 'life changing consequences' may not just change your life.

What's the deal with airline food?

AoBird said:
And also a late question for your previous post, how is "educating people instead of threatening them with <insert threat here>, and giving them a choice if there are life changing consequences of taking the vaccine" answer to his question? I simply stated what happens, nowhere did I say people shouldn't get vaccinated nor do I believe that vaccines make children go have sex early.

What folks object to, I think, is that several of the issues you raised were based on incomplete information, presented in a way that casts anti-vax believers in the best possible light.

I'm not convinced that anti-vaxxers deserve that benefit, however. Those are people who are using sixth-hand anecdotes (homelands of the term "superstition") to overrule the advice of their physicians, whom they otherwise trust for sound medical advice, and increase the risk to the population at large when doing so.

Most superstitions have relatively localized harm. If they harm anyone at all, it's the believer and/or the people in their immediate circle who tolerate them or are subject to their will (think "family", "kids", that sort of thing).

Leaving a fan running is not going to exhaust the oxygen in a room and cause a person to suffocate, but I'm sure people die every year because they refused to use one during a heat wave out of the ridiculous notion that the heat was less dangerous than the fan.

Vaccinations are different, however, due to the herd immunity effect and the real-life existence of people who cannot use vaccines for true medical reasons. Only your doctor can authoritatively tell you if you or your loved ones fall into that category. People buy into the superstition anyways, and their effects are not localized to those immediately around them: suddenly random strangers have to be afraid that their newborn infants or immunocompromised family members will randomly come down with a life-threatening illness because they dared to leave the house.

theultra said:
I thought anti-vax is only an American thing

Can confirm, not only an American thing anymore.
And if you think HPV is bad, well, how about measles?

Like there's an actual discussion, why bother with vaccines, we can just treat individual cases. That's of course said by people born into and still living in a mostly-vaccinated society where 10 cases in a city make local news. They've never seen a real epidemic.

Zenti said:
People are dumb enough to believe every bullshit they read online.

Loss of trust in authorities (not without reasons by the way) is a big deal as well. Vaccination is much more of a policy than it is a healthcare problem, so it gets discussed in political mode, not in healthcare mode.

Also the target audience for this are young moms. Not the most rational part of the society, by a looong shot.

EightyNine said:
Voluntarily declining vaccination against life-threatening diseases makes one a health risk.

Just like lepers back in the day.

TheHuskyK9 said:
What's the deal with airline food?

Pressurized air inside the cabin affects taste.

AoBird said:
Where? I don't see anyone pretending to be superior anywhere.

"In the field of psychology, the Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people of low ability have illusory superiority and mistakenly assess their cognitive ability as greater than it is."

When it says "superiority" in that context, it's referring to people who think they are higher performers than they actually are. The definition is speaking of a lack of humility from people in the face of things they don't understand. These people assume they understand a greater portion of the available knowledge than they actually do.

When people do half-assed internet searches to come up with poorly supported excuses not to vaccinate their children, that is a precise demonstration of Dunning-Kruger.

CCoyote said:
"In the field of psychology, the Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people of low ability have illusory superiority and mistakenly assess their cognitive ability as greater than it is."

When it says "superiority" in that context, it's referring to people who think they are higher performers than they actually are. The definition is speaking of a lack of humility from people in the face of things they don't understand. These people assume they understand a greater portion of the available knowledge than they actually do.

When people do half-assed internet searches to come up with poorly supported excuses not to vaccinate their children, that is a precise demonstration of Dunning-Kruger.

Yarp.

CCoyote said:
When people do half-assed internet searches to come up with poorly supported excuses not to vaccinate their children, that is a precise demonstration of Dunning-Kruger.

And who is doing that in this thread exactly?

AoBird said:
And who is doing that in this thread exactly?

I'm sorry, but I think that's already been well documented above. I'm not going to debate with someone who refuses to listen to well-reasoned arguments, and who answers sound science with logical fallacies.

Reading through your arguments, you don't answer with research so much as you cast doubt on research that's already been done. "Are we sure we know?" "Doubtfully." "Remote chance." You don't offer any facts, just doubt of the facts we have.

Frankly, your nonspecialist lack of trust and vast misinformation just don't carry as much weight as experts' deep and profoundly well-informed understanding of the topic.

theultra said:
D...did I do something wrong?

Not really, but you did started an interesting discussion between an anti-vaccine guy who believes stuff he reads online without fact-checking it and an admin who knows his facts and does his research, and that's why I've said that.

CCoyote said:
I'm sorry, but I think that's already been well documented above. I'm not going to debate with someone who refuses to listen to well-reasoned arguments, and who answers sound science with logical fallacies.

Reading through your arguments, you don't answer with research so much as you cast doubt on research that's already been done. "Are we sure we know?" "Doubtfully." "Remote chance." You don't offer any facts, just doubt of the facts we have.

Frankly, your nonspecialist lack of trust and vast misinformation just don't carry as much weight as experts' deep and profoundly well-informed understanding of the topic.

Sounds like you didn't even read what I wrote, I haven't given any information to begin with so I can't spread any misinformation, and I simply noted the events that occurred and are occurring.
And no, we do not exactly know how human body works if we did ailments would simply not exists.
(PS. Look at the facts from like 50 years ago, we laugh at them and how people were idiots, are you sure our grandchildren or their children won't laugh at us?)

randomguy85 said:
Not really, but you did started an interesting discussion between an anti-vaccine guy who believes stuff he reads online without fact-checking it and an admin who knows his facts and does his research, and that's why I've said that.

Is that "anti-vaccine guy" me? NOWHERE did I say people shouldn't take vaccines.
I said that instead of fucking threatening with jail and literally forced vaccination, people should be educated first and that test should be done before taking them so that people that can't take them don't end up fucked up for life while with those that have severe sideffects there should be a choice.

If advocating fucking education is anti-vaccine then yes I guess I am, sorry for thinking that people are better than sheep and that you have to talk to them.

And what's so wrong with getting tested before actually taking the vaccine?

AoBird said:
Sounds like you didn't even read what I wrote, I haven't given any information to begin with so I can't spread any misinformation, and I simply noted the events that occurred and are occurring.
And no, we do not exactly know how human body works if we did ailments would simply not exists.
(PS. Look at the facts from like 50 years ago, we laugh at them and how people were idiots, are you sure our grandchildren or their children won't laugh at us?)

The US alone has administered 3.1 billion (yes, billion, not million) vaccines from 2006 to 2016.^{[Source]] Less than 3,800 people were able to file claims to any sort of harm that happened to them if they had reasonable belief this happened due to a vaccine they got.In fact, I can't find a reliable source saying how many people actually died because of an administered vaccine, or had any "life changing consequences" at all. This happens so incredibly seldom it's hard to actually get data to make studies.So, yes, insisting we don't know if vaccines are safe is readily, and knowingly, dismissing evidence that exists and says they're incredibly safe. And they're much more safe than any of the disease they prevent, both for the person getting the vaccine and the people around them that can't get vaccinated.}

AoBird said:
Is that "anti-vaccine guy" me? NOWHERE did I say people shouldn't take vaccines.
I said that instead of fucking threatening with jail and literally forced vaccination, people should be educated first and that test should be done before taking them so that people that can't take them don't end up fucked up for life while with those that have severe sideffects there should be a choice.

If advocating fucking education is anti-vaccine then yes I guess I am, sorry for thinking that people are better than sheep and that you have to talk to them.

And what's so wrong with getting tested before actually taking the vaccine?

The checks for allergies to things inside a vaccine are done if there is a reasonable chance that they the patient in question might be allergic. Usually the person will have had exposure to similar compounds before in their life and has had a reaction already. In other cases this is done if another person in the family has had allergic reactions before.

The chance that a healthy person, from a family with little to no allergies has a preexisting allergy is so incredibly small that it's simply not worth testing for.

Again, less than 1 in a million people do have allergy reactions, and most of those allergy reactions are so minor they can be treated without a hospital stay. Insisting that the chance is realistic or reasonable to plan for is like insisting you'll be hit by a meteor from outer space while sitting on your couch watching. It has happened once but this does not in any way mean it's going to happen again any time soon.

Another example would be that there is a chance that you're going to find a lottery ticket on the ground one day and become a millionaire. But if you'd plan your life around such an event happening in the future you'd be crazy and completely ignoring the most basic statistical principals.

The average person has an incredibly poor understanding about statistics and will readily try to kill themselves by driving drunk or without a seatbelt and insisting "it won't happen to me", but will start witch hunts against things like vaccines which are so ridiculously safe to administer that we don't have reliable data to their negative consequences, thinking they are going to be the person that will be negatively affected by them.
As such, I am very much for forced vaccinations, and jail time if needed. Just as it happens for driving under the influence, driving without a seat belt on, not ensuring your kids wear their seat belts properly, and similar things.

I really don't want to be here but I feel like I need to chip something in.

I will say one thing to AoBird's credit. And this this thread, while mostly pro vaccination, is proof that, what is need is education, clearly there is a SEVERE lack of education, not only on vaccines, but other fields such as common goddamn sense. (Edit: I mean just in general not any particular person or persons in this conversation.)

Before I continue this is still on topic.

NotMeNotYou said:
As such, I am very much for forced vaccinations, and jail time if needed.

No. We have jail time for driving drunk, and no seatbelts, because the consequences are easily visible, still happen but most follow that rule on this because the alternative is bloody messy. And we could potentially drop that statistic even more with better education in that regard, maybe even a simulation(Not video or photos) to demonstrate how close to death you can get if you drive drunk, don't wear your seatbelt, pay more attention to your phone then the road.(I am digressing.)

However Jail time for not getting vaccinated is a very dangerous and slippery slope and open for abuse,(Note the U.S. for example has the constitution for a reason.) plus thats exactly the fear inducer AoBird mentioned if something is forced on someone it builds up their fears more. Whats need is needed is better education. Of course there will still be holdouts but better education will drop number holdouts to where they don't even matter and they just look like crazy people.

NotMeNotYou said:
As such, I am very much for forced vaccinations

As is the most of population I believe.
But I guess you wouldn't not be for it if that 1 in 10 billion chance was handed to you or someone you care dearly about. Could you be completely unaffected by it then?

Since these things do happen, it clearly shows we do not know everything there is to know about us (human body), let alone the world, and lets not begin with universe.
All the humans combined maybe know like 0.01% of things that are on this world.

Lets take last century, time of our grandparents, even though medicine has exponentially advanced since then, no one payed any though to following things as they were the thing at the time.
They used mercury and malaria to treat syphilis, doctors recommended smoking for respiratory problems, they also used heroin for cold/fever, gave morphine to children to make them sleep easier you could buy drugs in the store. They did Plombage, cut the blood flow to cysts..etc. Many things that we today know (range from) stupid to deadly. I wonder how our grandchildren will look at our medicine practices at their time of (probably) gene editing and stuff.

Back to vaccines, with them there are these scenarios:
(By sick I mean the thing they prevent)

Now the person that takes the vaccine should have at least partially prepared immunity so when they get infected it kills it earlier than in not vaccinated person. There's is also a low chance not vaccinated person could do equal and better than vaccinated person (dna/transferred immunity from parent playing a role)

Now there is one thing that I don't understand, nor is there a black and white answer given.
If you as a single person are vaccinated, why do you care about others being unvaccinated.
Could you get sick multiple times from the same thing?
If so, I guess the compounding exhaustion of immune system could make it so that you are the same just as not taking it in the first place.

Theres also a question of dosage and single vs combined but that's a whole another topic.

The reason vaccinated people care about non vaccinated people is simple. Virus's are living things too, and are constantly growing and evolving to overcome people's defenses. However, they can only do that if they can infect someone. If everyone or nearly everyone is vaccinated, the virus can't take root and dies. The problem is, now that anti-vaccers are a thing, now viruses that were on deaths door are making a comeback.

Now keep in mind that some people can't take vaccines, so they are reliant on vaccinated people to keep the virus weak. Since the virus is now getting stronger, those people are getting sick. The virus evolves and could reach the point it could overcome current vaccines, putting everyone in danger.

I apologize if I got any of that wrong, I am not an expert.

AoBird said:
Since these things do happen, it clearly shows we do not know everything there is to know about us (human body), let alone the world, and lets not begin with universe.
All the humans combined maybe know like 0.01% of things that are on this world.

Lets take last century, time of our grandparents, even though medicine has exponentially advanced since then, no one payed any though to following things as they were the thing at the time.
They used mercury and malaria to treat syphilis, doctors recommended smoking for respiratory problems, they also used heroin for cold/fever, gave morphine to children to make them sleep easier you could buy drugs in the store. They did Plombage, cut the blood flow to cysts..etc. Many things that we today know (range from) stupid to deadly. I wonder how our grandchildren will look at our medicine practices at their time of (probably) gene editing and stuff.

They'll think, just like we do "isn't it great that we keep learning and advancing our sciences?" and they'll probably get confused and lump us in with the same people who used leeches, and blood letting and all sorts of strange things that they did back in centuries past, because we're past that. And they'll be naive in their own ways, because this is their distant past. Just like we have people who believe all sorts of things about the past that are false, they'll one day believe things that aren't right either. and that's okay.

It's easy to look at the past and say we were ignorant, and look in the future and say we will be wiser... but we're right here, right now and only have the tools left to us by those in the past. And those in the future will only have what we give them.

In the future, we might have better ways of dealing with this stuff. Maybe we'll find a new key to defeated diseases. Maybe all infants will have built in immunity. Maybe doctors will give us a single injection at birth and vaccines will slow-release over the course of our lives. Maybe we'll live in enclosed bubbles where the air is regulated and monitored and we receive our vaccinations that way. But we're not there yet. We're here.

Now there is one thing that I don't understand, nor is there a black and white answer given.
If you as a single person are vaccinated, why do you care about others being unvaccinated.

Well... because I am not so selfish that the only person I think of is myself.

The CDC has a long list of vaccinations and who should not get them. Having a weakened immune system is a reason. being treated for cancer is a reason. Having a history of seizures is a reason. Being pregnant is a reason. Some vaccines you cannot give if a child is too young. Or too old.

I don't get vaccinated for me. I get vaccinated for the kid who might be too young, for the old lady over there, for the person with HIV, for the person getting chemo. I get vaccinated because not everyone CAN get vaccinated. It's not about me. It's about the person you mention who DOES have a severe reaction to the vaccine. I am vaccinated to protect them.

AoBird said:
And no, we do not exactly know how human body works if we did ailments would simply not exists.
[...]
Since these things do happen, it clearly shows we do not know everything there is to know about us (human body), let alone the world, and lets not begin with universe.
All the humans combined maybe know like 0.01% of things that are on this world.

You talk like as if we don't know 100% of what there is to know then it's useless information, in fact in science there is no such thing as 100% certainty, there is just what appears to work (treated as theories/fact) and that which doesn't (rejected hypotheses).

Besides do you know how easy it is to kill any bacteria, any virus? It's in fact very, very easy, the problem is that you don't want to kill the host as well. That's why we don't have super drugs that cure infectious diseases like they were nothing.

Knowing a lot about human biology doesn't magically solve all problems, we have a pretty good understanding about the human body and biological pathways, the only real part that is not very well understood is the brain and especially the mind, which isn't very surprising since it's a neural network of seemingly random processes forming something that sometimes seems greater than the sum of its parts. And even at that we're starting to see mind controlled tech already.

AoBird said:
(PS. Look at the facts from like 50 years ago, we laugh at them and how people were idiots, are you sure our grandchildren or their children won't laugh at us?)

No-one with true interest in science or history will laugh at the attempts before ours, such people look back and instead see how far we have come. There's a big difference between being ignorant and being idiotic. However, I could see how people with no interest in either could do that, but it doesn't change anything, and just makes them look stupid instead.

AoBird said:
Lets take last century, time of our grandparents, even though medicine has exponentially advanced since then, no one payed any though to following things as they were the thing at the time.
They used mercury and malaria to treat syphilis, doctors recommended smoking for respiratory problems, they also used heroin for cold/fever, gave morphine to children to make them sleep easier you could buy drugs in the store. They did Plombage, cut the blood flow to cysts..etc. Many things that we today know (range from) stupid to deadly. I wonder how our grandchildren will look at our medicine practices at their time of (probably) gene editing and stuff.

That's because of two things, the first as you say is because we didn't know any better back then, so they practiced "experimental" medicine en masse, something that is quite rare today. The second thing is because these things were driven by small groups of people or purely commercial companies doing whatever they wanted to get paid with little oversight from governmental agencies (which weren't exactly top of the line either). And many of the ads showing doctors recommending smoking and such were just scams by companies to sell cigarettes, there were rarely any real doctors involved and if there were they were probably payed a lot of money to just endorse it anyway, though I doubt many did as it was frowned upon even then, few people become doctors so that they can hurt people and since people weren't any better at not believing everything they saw than nowadays, unsuspecting people went along with it.

And we can already do gene editing, especially preembryonal, it's not really that difficult, the problems here are more of a moral nature than technological. And gene therapy is already in general phase I not to mention has already had several (post) phase III releases to the public.

United_Gamers said:

However Jail time for not getting vaccinated is a very dangerous and slippery slope and open for abuse,(Note the U.S. for example has the constitution for a reason.) plus thats exactly the fear inducer AoBird mentioned if something is forced on someone it builds up their fears more. Whats need is needed is better education. Of course there will still be holdouts but better education will drop number holdouts to where they don't even matter and they just look like crazy people.

Sorry, I should have explained that. Jail time only for parents that don't vaccinate their children and these children then get crippled or die due to the parent's choices. That is simply child abuse and should be treated as manslaughter, if applicable.
Of course I don't want jail time for people that can't get vaccinated due to them being immune compromised, or if they were in any other situation where they simply could not get vaccinated in time. Life happens, plans go up in smoke, but that is simply not the same as making a completely stupid choice to not vaccinate your kids, not take them to the doc once they're ill, and then watch as they die thanks to the fact that chicken soup doesn't help.

AoBird said:
As is the most of population I believe.
But I guess you wouldn't not be for it if that 1 in 10 billion chance was handed to you or someone you care dearly about. Could you be completely unaffected by it then?

I absolutely take my 1 in a million chance to die and still get my vaccines. I have the same chance to die from eating steak and choking to death. I'm not going to live in fear at such ridiculously low probabilities, and then ignore the elephant in the room that is that 1 in a 1000 chance to die from something like measles.

AoBird said:
Since these things do happen, it clearly shows we do not know everything there is to know about us (human body), let alone the world, and lets not begin with universe.
All the humans combined maybe know like 0.01% of things that are on this world.

Lets take last century, time of our grandparents, even though medicine has exponentially advanced since then, no one payed any though to following things as they were the thing at the time.
They used mercury and malaria to treat syphilis, doctors recommended smoking for respiratory problems, they also used heroin for cold/fever, gave morphine to children to make them sleep easier you could buy drugs in the store. They did Plombage, cut the blood flow to cysts..etc. Many things that we today know (range from) stupid to deadly. I wonder how our grandchildren will look at our medicine practices at their time of (probably) gene editing and stuff.

Nearly everything you just said is certifiably wrong. Yes, medicine before the last century was mostly hit and miss, but since then we have established a set of very strict guidelines on how to test and verify that any given treatment works or doesn't work. For example here is how the FDA handles that. The abbreviated version is that doctors perform tests on cell cultures, then animals, then real people, and then ultimately double blind tests with people. We very much know if a drug or treatment that is being administered is safe due to the incredibly rigorous vetting process where nothing is left to chance.

And again, vaccines have been administered 3.1 billion times in the last decade in the US alone. On average every person in the US in the last decade got 10 different vaccines. The numbers we have obtained of complications from using them is so low there aren't enough cases to actually make a proper study. If vaccines were a safety risk we'd know.

AoBird said:
Back to vaccines, with them there are these scenarios:
(By sick I mean the thing they prevent)

Not Take	Not get sick
Take	Not get sick
Not Take	Get sick
Take	Get sick

Now the person that takes the vaccine should have at least partially prepared immunity so when they get infected it kills it earlier than in not vaccinated person. There's is also a low chance not vaccinated person could do equal and better than vaccinated person (dna/transferred immunity from parent playing a role)

Again, this is not how any of this works.

A vaccine introduces a heavily weakened strain of the virus into your blood, so that the immune system can recognize the virus and develop anti-bodies. Once this has happened whenever the virus shows up again for a visit your immune system can then more quickly deploy the antibodies and destroy the virus before the disease manage to incubate itself. The transferred immunity does not work for any disease where vaccines are recommended. The chance that a person has a better immune system response than a vaccinated person is extremely low. Even if that were the case them getting the vaccine will just further improve their response as well. If a person did not have the disease before and gets vaccinated their immune system will be stronger than it was before, regardless of how well their immune system worked beforehand.

Let's take measles as example because that's the most devastating disease vaccines can prevent at the moment.

Measles as a disease got described for the first time by Rhazes (a Persian physician) sometimes around 500 A.D, and it is thought to have developed around the same time. Measles as a disease is extremely contagious and spreads like wildfire through any population that has not yet developed immunity, and during old times many, many more people died than nowadays. As a few examples, in 1529 a measles outbreak in cuba killed 2/3 of the natives that survived small pox shortly beforehand; 1531 measles killed half the population of Honduras; it also ravaged Mexico, Central America, and the Inca, but I can't find numbers for them. During the 1850s Measles killed 20% of all Hawaiians, in 1875 roughly 1/3 of the Fijians, in the 19th century roughly 50% of the Andamenese. Another estimate claims that roughly 7 to 8 million people died every year before the vaccine got introduced.

Before the vaccine got developed the US alone had roughly 3 to 4 million cases of measles, and 450 deaths annually. After the vaccine this number sharply dropped to less than 220,000 cases by 1990, and a total of 66 cases during 2005. Between 2003 and 2015 not a single person died to measles, thanks to vaccine.

AoBird said:
Now there is one thing that I don't understand, nor is there a black and white answer given.
If you as a single person are vaccinated, why do you care about others being unvaccinated.
Could you get sick multiple times from the same thing?
If so, I guess the compounding exhaustion of immune system could make it so that you are the same just as not taking it in the first place.

There are multiple reasons why it is important that as many people are vaccinated as possible, even if I am vaccinated already.

1.) Herd immunity

Many people, especially elders, infants, and HIV positive people, have less effective working immune systems and are more susceptible to disease. If more people are immune the risk to get infected for those immune compromised people sharply declines. This is especially important for infants because vaccines like measles are only applied when the child turns 5. Before than it is incredibly dangerous for a kid to contract measles. This should be prevented as much as possible.

2.) Viruses evolve

Viruses are living things. Every time a virus has a chance to multiple we have a risk that a new strain is born that our current immune system is not effective against. If that happens we go back to having epidemics that would potentially kill millions of people every year again.
Compare that to when a person is immune against the current measles strains and contracts the virus, the immune system of that person completely eradicates the virus, and thus it can't evolve.

Oh man this exploded overnight.

I want to chime in as someone who has had an allergic reaction to a major vaccine. Whooping cough isn't fun, vaccinate yo' kids.

This whole topic is actually totally my jam and I've tried very hard not to say anything except post a silly picture so I'm going to post one more thing because I can't stand it.

Taking one single disease, measles, which has been popping up more and more because people refuse to vaccinate: to protect a population with "herd immunity" from measles means a 93% to 95% rate of vaccination (Source: http://www.who.int/immunization/sage/meetings/2017/october/2._target_immunity_levels_FUNK.pdf ).

That means there is NOT a lot of wiggle room in vaccination rates. Literally the ONLY people who shouldn't be vaccinated are those with valid medical reasons, which have been mentioned by other users up there.

Because once we fall below the threshold, 93%, herd immunity breaks down and this disease can start to spread through a population. And the people who get sick, maimed, and die from measles are going to mostly be people who can't get vaccinated because of medical or age reasons. They depend on us.

Other thresholds are a bit lower (mid 80's in percentage) but this is, still, not very much wiggle room at all.

Vaccinate yourself, your kids, and your pets.

this thread gives me a headache. just vaccinate urselves and ur kids so immunocompromised people, newborn infants and elderly people wont die just because you think that the words in the vaccine ingredient list are scary and you are scared of the 0,05% chance of getting a bit nastier reaction from the vaccine.

thread title is like the bizarro seinfeld