This system was established in the 90s and turned out to be very successful. In 2008, a popular initiative trying to revert this policy was rejected by 68% of the voters.
I just love how the human mind works. The therapy is actually pretty effective -> we must ban it!
The human brain is actually really, really bad at properly estimating things like risk factors. For example, assume the following hypothetical situation (which actually isn't all that far off from reality):
- Assume a new strand of flu starts spreading over the entire world. The death rate of people who contract this flu is 1%. (Some strands of flu can really be pretty deadly, especially when they cause an overreaction of the body's immune system, which was the case eg. with the Spanish fly pandemic. Ironically, strong healthy young people were more likely to die than old and/or weak people.)
- A vaccine is developed that protects against the flu. If you don't take the vaccine you are pretty much certain to catch the flu.
- It is later discovered that something in the vaccine has a 0.1% chance of causing a severe chronic disease.
A significant portion of people will refuse to take the vaccine. They prefer taking the 1% chance of dying than the 0.1% chance of getting the disease. It doesn't matter how much you explain the math to them. It won't help.
That's just how the human brain works.
Joined: 9/21/2009
Posts: 1047
Location: California
Warp wrote:
- A vaccine is developed that protects against the flu. If you don't take the vaccine you are pretty much certain to catch the flu.
.....
A significant portion of people will refuse to take the vaccine. They prefer taking the 1% chance of dying than the 0.1% chance of getting the disease. It doesn't matter how much you explain the math to them. It won't help.
That's just how the human brain works.
I think you're looking at it the wrong way in this case. "They prefer taking the 1% chance of dying than the 0.1% chance of getting the disease." <--- No. They prefer risking that they won't get said flu because the diseases from the vaccines are far worse than the flu itself (there's no stupid ultimatum as you made it sound like: die if you don't get the vaccination). I would know the thought-process since I refuse to take flu shots and other vaccines as well. And guess what...I haven't had the flu or any major sickness (outside of mono in early 2011) since I was in grade school well over 5 years ago (probably 7 years now since my last stomach flu). Your hypothetical scenario is flawed and there's no chance that would never happen. ie, kills young instead of old, etc. Of course I would never tell an at risk person (like the elderly) to turn down a vaccination. But not everyone has the same living circumstances and conditions. I'm not telling anyone not to take vaccines. I just personally feel like I'm not at risk for certain things that common vaccines cover. It has nothing to do with what you said here: "It doesn't matter how much you explain the math to them. It won't help." I would argue that my thinking is more logical than blindly receiving a vaccine that could have who-knows-what chemicals and compounds in it. To each his own.
I would know the thought-process since I refuse to take flu shots and other vaccines as well. And guess what...I haven't had the flu or any major sickness (outside of mono in early 2011) since I was in grade school well over 5 years ago (probably 7 years now since my last stomach flu).
You seriously think that vaccines are useless because you haven't had any major sickness?
Well, I have to thank for confirming my claim in practice. The human brain works in astonishingly stupid ways oftentimes.
Your hypothetical scenario is flawed and there's no chance that would never happen. ie, kills young instead of old, etc.
Please educate yourself before spouting nonsense you don't know anything about and make yourself sound stupid. It's called cytokine storm, it affects most strongly precisely healthy, young people with strong immune systems, and it was a major cause for the high death rate of the 1918 flu pandemic (also called "Spanish flu").
A significant portion of people will refuse to take the vaccine. They prefer taking the 1% chance of dying than the 0.1% chance of getting the disease.
People have a hard time trusting each other, government and history, because everything can be used for making profits, so there are always people who try to deceive others for profit or other agendas.
sonicpacker wrote:
I haven't had the flu or any major sickness (outside of mono in early 2011) since I was in grade school well over 5 years ago (probably 7 years now since my last stomach flu).
I've never taken any vaccine either, except once when I was about 5, which made me sick instantly. For me it's probably 15 years since my last stomach flu. I also have no allergies. I've read that vaccinations can sometimes cause allergies.
I haven't had the flu or any major sickness (outside of mono in early 2011) since I was in grade school well over 5 years ago (probably 7 years now since my last stomach flu).
I've never taken any vaccine either, except once when I was about 5, which made me sick instantly. For me it's probably 15 years since my last stomach flu. I also have no allergies. I've read that vaccinations can sometimes cause allergies.
You are not helping his case, but that's probably a good thing here, quite ironically...
(I really have to wonder. Both of you sound like you are proud or something that you have avoided the big evil that's vaccines, and have got scot free so far. It really sounds like those people who say things like "I have been smoking for 30 years. No lung cancer. Clearly it's all BS."
What exactly is it to be proud of about not having taken any vaccines? Are you trying to prove something, or what?)
Joined: 9/21/2009
Posts: 1047
Location: California
Warp wrote:
sonicpacker wrote:
I would know the thought-process since I refuse to take flu shots and other vaccines as well. And guess what...I haven't had the flu or any major sickness (outside of mono in early 2011) since I was in grade school well over 5 years ago (probably 7 years now since my last stomach flu).
You seriously think that vaccines are useless because you haven't had any major sickness?
When did I say that? Did you even read what I said, rofl:
sonicpacker wrote:
Of course I would never tell an at risk person (like the elderly) to turn down a vaccination. But not everyone has the same living circumstances and conditions. I'm not telling anyone not to take vaccines. I just personally feel like I'm not at risk for certain things that common vaccines cover.
Warp wrote:
Please educate yourself before spouting nonsense you don't know anything about and make yourself sound stupid.
Your hypothetical scenario is flawed and there's no chance that would never happen. ie, kills young instead of old, etc.
I said "etc." as in everything about your scenario combined not going to ever happen. Not one specific part out of it. I do think I worded that badly though.
Warp wrote:
Well, I have to thank for confirming my claim in practice. The human brain works in astonishingly stupid ways oftentimes.
I'd rather be considered stupid for not getting a vaccine that I don't feel I need than considered an asshole like yourself just because you disagree with someone.
And so begins another case of Warp taking things out of context and attacking people so he can boost his e-dick. I'll leave before it gets ugly. Peace.
FWIW I agree with Warp here. If you're not vaccinated then you're harming other people. A big reason why our society is largely free of devastating illnesses that were common as little as 50-100 years ago is because of herd immunity. And by not being inoculated you're subverting our collective immunity.
Even if you're young and healthy and don't get sick you could still carry a disease or be asymptomatic. Being young and healthy isn't an excuse for not getting vaccinated.
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.
That's a very good point. It is indeed so that even if you aren't in the risk group, by refusing to take a vaccine you are potentially spreading the disease to others who are.
There's a small percentage of people who cannot be given a vaccine because of medical reasons (eg. because of an allergy.) These people are often protected if everybody else around them is vaccinated, as the disease doesn't spread. However, if some people refuse to get vaccinated, these people will be at a higher risk.
You might not die from the disease, but you might infect someone who does. But of course you can rest easy because you will never know it was you. After all, it could have been someone else.
I just have this belief that inserting things inside my body that don't naturally belong there (like smoke and injections of diseases, for example) is generally bad, but I'm not saying that vaccines are always dangerous. There are several cases where vaccines are good for you.
The bacteria and viruses are not going to ask you if you want them inside your body or not. Your immune system exists to fight them off, if it can. It's better to teach your immune system the infecting pathogens before the real mccoy steps in than afterwards.
(There exist people who has this belief that getting immunity from the real disease is somehow "better" and "more natural" and therefore "safer" than getting it from a vaccine. This is pure superstition based on implied or explicit beliefs like "mother nature" who "protects" us as long as we don't mess up with her ways by doing things in an unnatural and artificial manner.)
It's better to teach your immune system the infecting pathogens before the real mccoy steps in than afterwards.
Better to not risk anything unnecessarily.
This is pure superstition based on implied or explicit beliefs like "mother nature" who "protects" us as long as we don't mess up with her ways by doing things in an unnatural and artificial manner.)
That's true in many cases, for example our pollution is unnatural, which metaphorically speaking makes mother earth pissed off, and she's going to destroy us with its natural laws. So this kind of superstitious thinking has a basis in reality. There are of course many ways of creating technology that is in harmony with nature, like solar and wind energy, instead of fossil fuels.
I also have to say that believing in something superstitious isn't necessarily wrong, because for example the belief in God is a superstitious belief. Just because something is supernatural doesn't mean it's not real. There's a possibility that a superstition will some day be pure science.
A significant portion of people will refuse to take the vaccine. They prefer taking the 1% chance of dying than the 0.1% chance of getting the disease.
Maybe they'd prefer to take the higher chance of a relatively quick death to the lower chance of years of living with
Warp wrote:
a severe chronic disease.
People with chronic diseases have higher rates of depression and suicide due to the limitations placed on them by the diseases. I've had patients who were understandably suicidal due to the impact of severe, chronic diseases on their lives, though I personally do not believe that suicide is ever justified.
I also have to say that believing in something superstitious isn't necessarily wrong, because for example the belief in God is a superstitious belief. Just because something is supernatural doesn't mean it's not real. There's a possibility that a superstition will some day be pure science.
Seriously? You're justifying superstition by invoking God? You're aware that this argument simply will not fly with people who aren't Christian, right?
Just because an idea is tenacious doesn't make it worthy. Breaking a mirror won't give you 7 years bad luck. Walking under a ladder or opening an umbrella in doors doesn't curse you with ill fortune. And a deity didn't stop the sun in the sky for several hours so that one Bronze Age tribe could have a little bit more time to kill another Bronze Age tribe (but could do nothing to assist them against an Iron Age tribe.)
Not to mention that even if there is a God, your argument simply makes no sense.
A is either true or false.
God, therefore possibly A.
Therefore (you should treat as if true) A.
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.
It's better to teach your immune system the infecting pathogens before the real mccoy steps in than afterwards.
Better to not risk anything unnecessarily.
Precisely, which is why it's better to get vaccinated.
(Yes, I know that's not what you meant, but that's what makes it more the ironic.)
Vaccines are a safe way to get immunity against a disease without actually contracting the disease. Diseases are always dangerous, and there's no such thing as a "safe" or "good" disease. Even if the disease itself might not be fatal or produce irreparable damage, it nevertheless weakens your immune system for the duration of the disease, making you more open to opportunistic infections.
(A very common case is someone getting a common cold, which in itself isn't very dangerous, but due to the weakened immune system the same person getting a bronchitis as an opportunistic infection, which in turn exposes your system to even more serious diseases...)
Does this mean that not a single case of someone getting a nasty side-effect from a vaccine has ever happened in the entire history of vaccination? Of course not. There have been cases. However, those cases have been extremely rare, and very often it has been caused by something else than the vaccine itself (iow. it's not the fact that you get vaccinated that causes the nasty side-effect, but something else; for example, you could be allergic to some component of that particular brand of vaccine, or you might have an undiagnosed disease that clashes with the effects of the vaccine, or whatever. Nevertheless, these are way, way rarer than people actually dying of the diseases for which vaccines exist.)
Vaccines have saved millions and millions of lives (and this is most certainly not an exaggeration) and eradicated some diseases completely. The direct correlation between stopping the vaccinations for a common disease and the subsequent spreading of such a disease like wildfire has been observed in practice several times.
I also have to say that believing in something superstitious isn't necessarily wrong, because for example the belief in God is a superstitious belief.
You probably don't even understand what's wrong with that logic.
A significant portion of people will refuse to take the vaccine. They prefer taking the 1% chance of dying than the 0.1% chance of getting the disease.
Maybe they'd prefer to take the higher chance of a relatively quick death to the lower chance of years of living with
Warp wrote:
a severe chronic disease.
But that's not, in fact, how the human mind thinks. You might try to rationalize it like that, but it's not actually what goes on.
The difference in thinking comes from the notion of getting a bad outcome because of what you actively did, vs. getting the bad outcome passively, ie. not as a direct consequence of what you did to yourself. The human mind prefers intuitively to take a higher chance of a danger caused by something that's not "their fault" (in that they didn't actively do something in order to cause it to themselves) than a smaller chance of harming themselves by actively doing something.
The intuition is that when it's something external, something you didn't do to yourself on purpose, you are less at fault (ie. you don't have to blame yourself) than if you did something and that caused the harm (in which case you can blame yourself.)
In other words: A flu virus infected me and I died = not my fault.
I deliberately got myself a vaccine and got the disease = my fault.
=> Therefore the former is preferable, especially if the difference in odds are something that the human mind cannot easily grasp. (After all, we don't really grasp very well the difference between 1% and 0.1% probability in an intuitive manner.)
That's the underlying psychology behind the choice, and often no amount of explanations about probability is going to help overcome that.
(Technically speaking, someone preferring the 1% chance of death is technically suicidal: They don't care if they die or not. Logically it would be better to take the 0.1% chance of getting the disease and only then commit suicide if you get it. The chances of not dying are much better. However, the same psychological phenomenon is fully active here: It's the concept of making "passive" suicide by inaction ("not my fault") vs. an active suicide ("it's my fault") and therefore the former is preferable.)
Not according to what I've experienced and heard from others. I've also read a lot of things that are stated as fact but are still wrong, so it's hard to know what to trust.
The direct correlation between stopping the vaccinations for a common disease and the subsequent spreading of such a disease like wildfire has been observed in practice several times.
Even if you're right about the 0.1% vs 1% risk, it's not the same for all people. For example, someone who doesn't come into contact with many other people might have a variable risk of something like 0-0.01% getting the disease when not getting vaccinated, so he would risk more if he gets vaccinated (0.1%).
You probably don't even understand what's wrong with that logic.
There's nothing wrong with it, you just have a different kind of logic. From your point of view it's wrong, but everyone doesn't agree with you, because people experience life differently, so we think differently.
Not according to what I've experienced and heard from others.
Yeah, because the plural of "anecdote" is "evidence" right? And people that used vaccines and experienced mild or no side-effects really go around telling everyone about that right?
Not.
Unless you have made a concerted effort to seek out people that (a) have been vaccinated and experienced no side effects, (b) have been vaccinated and experienced mild side-effects, (c) have been vaccinated and experienced severe side effects, then you cross-checked this collected data against personal biases against vaccines to try to account for psychological effects, all you have is a few anecdotes and confirmation bias leading you to reach a conclusion without real data.
People that have done all of the above have come to the conclusion that severe side effects are very rare.
Also consider that literally millions of people are vaccinated every year (the total amount of people having been vaccinated during the entire history of vaccines being probably impossible to estimate with any kind of accuracy, but I would bet it's in the hundreds of millions). If there were any significant risks to vaccines, then we would have thousands and thousands of people every year getting those problems. It would be like a pandemic. Do we?
No.
You are probably much more likely to be hit by lightning than getting anything nasty from a vaccine, yet you don't hide in your house your entire life for the fear of being hit by lightning. Yet vaccines are somehow different to many people.
(Again, it's the exact psychological effect here: Suffering an accident, such as being hit by lightning or run over by a car "is not my fault", while deliberately taking a vaccine "is my fault". So even if there's a one in a million chance of getting something from a vaccine, that's intolerable. People just can't grasp probabilities.)
Besides, what kind of side-effects are we talking here? Pain at the place where they gave you the vaccine that lasts a few days? Perhaps some nausea caused by that? What? Of course you may get something like that. It's normal and not very dangerous. Of course if you can't tolerate pain then you might over-react.
The direct correlation between stopping the vaccinations for a common disease and the subsequent spreading of such a disease like wildfire has been observed in practice several times.
