Vaccinating children - choice by parent or state?

[Pangur Bán]

@Illram, Vaccines routinely harm children. There is a whole court system designed to provide compensation for such harm.

Translation: "I completely made up that statistic and can't provide evidence to support it, so I'll just mock and deflect until the issue is eventually dropped."

You do this in every single thread you are involved in and it gets extremely tiresome. You just come in, make some outrageous claim and never once provide any verifiable evidence to support your claims. You made the claim, you provide the evidence to support it. I shouldn't have to do your research for you.

Afraid not. Haven't made anything up. It's probably just the case that you don't understand how to evaluate evidence.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

That's assuming we need to vaccinate all 330 million at once though, which is not the case so that's a bit of a disingenuous argument. A more accurate comparison would be the yearly cost of vaccination versus the yearly cost of outbreak containment.

Using your data we have a high side 2011 cost of 5.3 million. Lets make that fifty million a year, so we can really contain outbreaks.

So our 18.5 billion can contain outbreaks for ... three and a half centuries.

Again, I'm not opposing vaccination in the first place. I'm just suggesting that the comparative costs argument is not a favorable one.


Meanwhile, you are accusing PB of something I am commonly accused of myself. I don't provide citations for things that can be found with a thirty second Google search. I don't expect anyone else to either, no matter how much I disagree with them.

Illram...you are mis stating when you say that the 'I don't have to if everyone else does' logic is what is driving the anti-vaccination crowd. They are primarily driven by false fears of vaccination side effects amplified by star power. It is, in short, a Hollywood fad, and like all other Hollywood fads it is rapidly fading away as the next cause celebre takes the spotlight. That's why I'm saying all of these dramatic calls for sanctions are coming from people who have totally lost perspective.

 

[Commodore]

Afraid not. Haven't made anything up. It's probably just the case that you don't understand how to evaluate evidence.

I can't evaluate evidence of your claims if you don't provide any.

Meanwhile, you are accusing PB of something I am commonly accused of myself. I don't provide citations for things that can be found with a thirty second Google search. I don't expect anyone else to either, no matter how much I disagree with them.

Sure I could look it up myself, but why should I when he's the one who made the claim? Basically I treat every debate I'm in like it is a court case. That means the one who makes the claim has to provide the evidence to support it. If one does not provide evidence, I don't think it is unreasonable to ask that person to rephrase what they said in a manner that indicates it is an unsubstantiated opinion, rather than an indisputable fact.

 

[Pangur Bán]

I can't evaluate evidence of your claims if you don't provide any.

I have actually, you just aren't responding appropriately or showing that you understand how to do it. So I'll be more explicit this once. Since you don't have much knowledge about healthcare costs in general, as shown above, I drew your attention to the fact that overall costs of problematic births can often top $1m dollars. Since you seem to think this may not be true, I gave you some google search terms with which to verify this (also try <million dollar babies>). It's pretty easy to do a google search, easier than me doing it for you and copying a few links, so I don't see why this should pose you such problems. Are you not able to do such a search? Are you just trying to waste my time trying to salvage a bad argument? What do you want from me?

 

[illram]

@Illram, Vaccines routinely harm children. There is a whole court system designed to provide compensation for such harm.

Vaccines do not "routinely harm" children, unless you are defining harm as crying and a bandaid for a little booboo.

As to the vaccination court system, yet another issue already discussed in this thread. The court system was a congressional compromise to push through vaccine regulations against unfounded political disagrements premised on unsubstantiated fears about vaccines. The courts are currently clogged with dubious claims sped through under a lowered standard of evidence. Their claims rely on dubious paid for professional "experts" hired by repeat player Plaintiff lawyers taking advantage of the court's procedural flaws.

 

[Pangur Bán]

Vaccines do not "routinely harm" children, unless you are defining harm as crying and a bandaid for a little booboo.

As to the vaccination court system, yet another issue already discussed in this thread. The court system was a congressional compromise to push through vaccine regulations against unfounded political disagrements premised on unsubstantiated fears about vaccines. The courts are currently clogged with dubious claims sped through under a lowered standard of evidence. Their claims rely on dubious paid for professional "experts" hired by repeat player Plaintiff lawyers taking advantage of the court's procedural flaws.

Oh dear, no no no. Yes, vaccines routinely harm children. Vaccines are not magically produced by some fairy to be safe, they have to be thoroughly tested and even the safest ones retain demographics exposed to extra statistical risk which require medical judgment to be exercised or have to be adjusted in response to unexpected side-effects. Given the interference with the immune system, the standard vaccines around are pretty safe and the overall benefit to public health is not in question, but saying they cause nothing but crying is just wrong, and no public health official would make such a claim.

 

[illram]

Oh dear, no no no. Yes, vaccines routinely harm children. Vaccines are not magically produced by some fairy to be safe, they have to be thoroughly tested and even the safest ones retain demographics exposed to extra statistical risk which require medical judgment to be exercised or have to be adjusted in response to unexpected side-effects. Given the interference with the immune system, the standard vaccines around are pretty safe and the overall benefit to public health is not in question, but saying they cause nothing but crying is just wrong, and no public health official would make such a claim.

It is widely accepted by public health officials that vaccines are safe and do not harm or "routinely harm" children. Such as the United Stated Assistant Surgeon General:


Link to video.

 

[Commodore]

I have actually, you just aren't responding appropriately or showing that you understand how to do it. So I'll be more explicit this once. Since you don't have much knowledge about healthcare costs in general, as shown above, I drew your attention to the fact that overall costs of problematic births can often top $1m dollars. Since you seem to think this may not be true, I gave you some google search terms with which to verify this (also try <million dollar babies>). It's pretty easy to do a google search, easier than me doing it for you and copying a few links, so I don't see why this should pose you such problems. Are you not able to do such a search? Are you just trying to waste my time trying to salvage a bad argument? What do you want from me?

I want you to actually support your claims and do your own research. It is a poor debater that makes a claim and then asks his opponent to verify it for him. I already explained this to Tim. Sure I could do the search myself, but I'm not the one who made the claim now, am I? I have posted links to evidence supporting my claims in this argument instead of telling you to go find the information yourself so I don't see what is so hard about you providing the rest of us with that same courtesy. Were I a more petty person, I might even take it as disrespectful that you do not provide others with the same courtesies they provide to you.

Basically, I want you to stop being so intellectually lazy and do what most of the other posters on this forum do and post some damn links to some evidence that actually support your arguments. Because until you do that, I'm just going to assume you have no evidence and that you are just making things up. In fact, my opinion of you as a debater is so low right now, you could tell me the earth revolves around the sun and I would demand a citation of evidence before I would believe you.

 

[Pangur Bán]

@Illram, total non sequitur (and Elizabeth Warren is not the US Assistant Surgeon General, in case you didn't realise ). Routine vaccines do routinely harm children and they are, statistically, very safe. There is not a contradiction between the two. Cf. cars: they are safe but routinely kill people and cause injuries. You're above assertion that vaccines cause no harm other than tears is a bit like claiming cars don't hurt people.

@Commodore, you're just wasting your time with the faux insults. Get over it, your argument wasn't very good, but this is how we grow.

 

[Cheetah]

What's the actual statistics of incidents of side effects of the most common vaccines then?

When words like 'routinely harm children' and 'pretty safe' are thrown around, I'm wondering what we're really talking about.

 

[warpus]

Yeah, "pretty safe" and "routinely harm children" are contradictory terms.

Unless your definition of "routinely" is messed up.

 

[illram]

@Illram, total non sequitur (and Elizabeth Warren is not the US Assistant Surgeon General, in case you didn't realise ). Routine vaccines do routinely harm children and they are, statistically, very safe. There is not a contradiction between the two. Cf. cars: they are safe but routinely kill people and cause injuries. You're above assertion that vaccines cause no harm other than tears is a bit like claiming cars don't hurt people.

@Commodore, you're just wasting your time with the faux insults. Get over it, your argument wasn't very good, but this is how we grow.

Elizabeth Warren is questioning the Asst. Surgeon General. Watch the video before trying to be clever and snarky.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

@ warpus comment, not targeted at anyone in particular though..
I wouldn't think so. Most drugs have side-effects of various seriousness and incidence. I've given info of some serious side effects for one vaccine, backed with the scientific evidence everyone begs for. It's pretty much disregarded because people don't like evidence that show their ignorance. boohoo.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The adverse effects to vaccines impact one in thousands, or ten thousands, or maybe hundred thousands. To go on some wild "ban the vaccines, death to modern medicine" campaign in response demonstrates a total loss of perspective.

The anti vaccination fad has changed the probabilities of catching what used to be called routine childhood diseases. The probabilities were very small, and the change in those probabilities is very small, and the probabilities are still very small, on the same one in thousands, or tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands order. To go on some wild 'forced administration is warranted' campaign demonstrates an equivalent loss of perspective.

There is a hysterical fringe on both sides. Nothing unique about that.

 

[warpus]

@ warpus comment, not targeted at anyone in particular though..
I wouldn't think so. Most drugs have side-effects of various seriousness and incidence.

Yes, but if a drug "routinely harms children", it isn't generally administered to children. Because "routinely" means "very common". And if it's very common, that implies large amounts of children being harmed.

 

[Pangur Bán]

Elizabeth Warren is questioning the Asst. Surgeon General. Watch the video before trying to be clever and snarky.

Like I said, your point was a non sequitur, and you don't have to be particularly clever to know that vaccines can, contrary to your claim, cause more than tears.

Yeah, "pretty safe" and "routinely harm children" are contradictory terms.

Unless your definition of "routinely" is messed up.

They are differing statistical scales. If you vaccinate, say, 1 million children a year and only one a week has serious side-effects, that's statistically pretty safe, but it is means that side-effects are routinely occurring (and certainly more than just crying). The point that probably confuses Illram and others is that public health officials are prepared to declare things safe even if harm is still caused.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

Yes, but if a drug "routinely harms children", it isn't generally administered to children. Because "routinely" means "very common". And if it's very common, that implies large amounts of children being harmed.

I guess it depends how you look at it. If something is administered to 300 million people, you can expect it to routinely cause side-effects in that population. Some may be more severe. Not that it would be very common on a smaller sample.

 

[Pangur Bán]

@ Cheetah, I'd like to have info on this myself, but I doubt it will be available with any accuracy. In the US; since the official policy of health providers is to deny or remain silent on links between vaccines and side-effects, and the politics of the judicial system is to tolerate this denial while enforcing some liability (the logic being that overexposure to tort would put off development of such vaccines and discourage public uptake).
http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/statisticsreport.pdf
It's not something that lends itself to easy scrutiny, and I'm not an expert, so I don't know how that would be measured beyond that. How many people go into anaphylactic shock and don't seek compensation, how often is it written off as part of the incompatible pre-existing condition, how many is the link deniable or minor enough to put off suits, and so on.

 

[warpus]

Fair enough, but the use of the word "routinely" isn't a good one here. Routinely implies that it happens often - with respect to the number of vaccinations performed.

Instead of wordplay, can we look at some numbers?

 

[Cheetah]

@ Cheetah, I'd like to have info on this myself, but I doubt it will be available with any accuracy. In the US; since the official policy of health providers is to deny or remain silent on links between vaccines and side-effects, and the politics of the judicial system is to tolerate this denial while enforcing some liability (the logic being that overexposure to tort would put off development of such vaccines and discourage public uptake).
http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/statisticsreport.pdf
It's not something that lends itself to easy scrutiny, and I'm not an expert, so I don't know how that would be measured beyond that. How many people go into anaphylactic shock and don't seek compensation, how often is it written off as part of the incompatible pre-existing condition, how many is the link deniable or minor enough to put off suits, and so on.

Hmm. I'll see if I can find some Norwegian numbers tomorrow then. We're a pretty damn open society.

I don't agree with your assessment that health providers are trying to hide anything at all, but I can't say I've been trying to look for these numbers before either.

Oh, and I must agree with warpus: I think you're usage of the term 'routinely' in this context is way off the mark.