• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Vaccines and a culture of fear

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,576
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
“We seem to be more frightened than we’ve ever been”: Eula Biss on anti-vaxxers, white privilege and our strange new culture of fear

“We seem to be more frightened than we’ve ever been”: Eula Biss on anti-vaxxers, white privilege and our strange new culture of fear - Salon.com

This part stuck out to me...
From the article:
It means that all of the risks of vaccination are carried by the people who are participating. In the end, the perception for people who are forgoing vaccination is that they’re having the best of both worlds. The child is protected [because it’s surrounded by immunized children], but the child does not have to be exposed to any of the risks of vaccination. The problem with that thinking is that it’s only true as long as [community-wide] immunity holds. In some areas immunity has been eroded so much that the child who’s not vaccinated is now actually more vulnerable to the complications of infectious diseases.
 
I'm not one of those "OMG, vaccines give muh children autism" types, but I have noticed that the pro-vaxxers have become somewhat of a cult lately. You can't question any vaccine without having holy hell fury unleashed on you. You can't question dosage, application, or the overall necessity at all. And, in my experience, it's usually when we forgo the scientific process of questioning things that everything goes horribly wrong.
 
Let people choose or let the government pay for it.
 
I am torn by this situation. My 2 children are in their 30's, and both were completely vaccinated. There were no perceived reactions to the vaccine.

That said, for certain individuals there must be a reaction to the vaccine.

As the world becomes more populated, epidemics of one sort or the other seem likely. Do public health concerns override individual choice? I don't know.

I do not take the flu vaccine. Only took it once in my life, in the Army, and never again because it made me so sick.
 
I'm not one of those "OMG, vaccines give muh children autism" types, but I have noticed that the pro-vaxxers have become somewhat of a cult lately. You can't question any vaccine without having holy hell fury unleashed on you. You can't question dosage, application, or the overall necessity at all. And, in my experience, it's usually when we forgo the scientific process of questioning things that everything goes horribly wrong.

The scientific process long preceded the anti-vaxxers.
 
I'm not one of those "OMG, vaccines give muh children autism" types, but I have noticed that the pro-vaxxers have become somewhat of a cult lately. You can't question any vaccine without having holy hell fury unleashed on you. You can't question dosage, application, or the overall necessity at all. And, in my experience, it's usually when we forgo the scientific process of questioning things that everything goes horribly wrong.

Sure you can. Hell, the anti-vaccers have won some of those battles.

Unfortunately they chose the wrong battle.

What scientists eliminated, in the hopes for encouraging them to vaccinate, was actually totally harmless. The impact? Vaccines don't keep as well, which has caused the prices to skyrocket in the developing world. So now the poor don't have as much access to vaccines. Gee, thanks guys...

I question vaccines all the time. I'm picky about them for my cat, because cats are vulnerable to injection site sarcomas (not humans or dogs -- cats are very sensitive critters with very unique systems). Can I do a titer instead to check if she is still immune? No? Is there a nasal spray vaccine? No? Is there a non-adjuvanted version? Etc, etc, etc...

I have a whole seperate rant about the flu vaccine specifically (which is mostly questions -- I don't have the answers to how to make it more effective).

I might be considered one of the die-hards, because the fact is that people who don't vaccinate kill other people. Of course I have a bee in my bonnet about that.

But I'm always in favor of improving vaccines to be more effective with fewer doses, less risk of reaction, and only necessary ingrediants. But vaccines are extremely good now. Certainly much better and safer than when my parents were kids. And people who refuse to accept scientific fact are killing other people.
 
I'm not one of those "OMG, vaccines give muh children autism" types, but I have noticed that the pro-vaxxers have become somewhat of a cult lately. You can't question any vaccine without having holy hell fury unleashed on you. You can't question dosage, application, or the overall necessity at all. And, in my experience, it's usually when we forgo the scientific process of questioning things that everything goes horribly wrong.
Fair point. And I agree there should be adult discussion, not ranting or attempts to silence the other side. I am also cautious in the sense that just because something has generally worked out in the past doesn't mean that every new one that comes out will be equally as effective and/or safe.

Having said that, I have little patience for most of the anti-vaxxer crowd. IMO, it's selfish, ignorant, and dangerous to not vaccinate for at least the proven and common stuff. You're not only putting your own kids at risk, you're putting other people at risk.

"I have never known anybody with whooping cough in my life. It's just not a concern anymore." I have heard this type of statement many times and this attitude pisses me off. Think about it. Whooping cough <and other illnesses> used to be common, and are now almost non-existent, and became almost non-existent BECAUSE people got vaccinated. Whooping cough didn't go away, just less people now get it. The person who makes a statement like that is only looking at the result, not the *how* it came to be. Connect the dots.

I keep thinking thinking about this...
From the originally linked article:
It means that all of the risks of vaccination are carried by the people who are participating. In the end, the perception for people who are forgoing vaccination is that they’re having the best of both worlds. The child is protected [because it’s surrounded by immunized children], but the child does not have to be exposed to any of the risks of vaccination. The problem with that thinking is that it’s only true as long as [community-wide] immunity holds. In some areas immunity has been eroded so much that the child who’s not vaccinated is now actually more vulnerable to the complications of infectious diseases.
If that is true, and that is how people who don't vaccinate their kids think, then IMO they are criminally negligent by putting other people at risk unnecessarily.


I am torn by this situation. My 2 children are in their 30's, and both were completely vaccinated. There were no perceived reactions to the vaccine.

That said, for certain individuals there must be a reaction to the vaccine.

As the world becomes more populated, epidemics of one sort or the other seem likely. Do public health concerns override individual choice? I don't know.

I do not take the flu vaccine. Only took it once in my life, in the Army, and never again because it made me so sick.
Some people do have adverse reaction to vaccine, yes. It's unfortunate, but it is. It's a fool's errand, though, to think anything can be absolutely perfect. I think it's a testament to how good (soft?) we have it in today's world that some think 'perfect' is even possible. There is a very small chance percentage-wise that someone will have an adverse reaction, BUT if they don't vaccinate the chances of getting whooping cough or measles or mumps or whatever is many times higher. It's a gamble, yes, and with no crystal to help make a decision, but the odds are greatly in favor of getting the vaccine. It should be noted also that, for at least the older vaccines, science has been pretty much proven regarding the safety and benefit.

As far as world population and potential for epidemics, does individual choice have the right to endanger others?

I was fully vaccinated as a kid, per the requirements at the time. My kids were fully vaccinated, per the requirements of the era of their childhood. No adverse effects. I have never received a flu shot (that I recall).
 
Last edited:
Agreed Radcen.

I think I heard on the TV news regarding the measles outbreak that some of the current victims were vaccinated. If true, was it a bad batch? Or should we consider a booster type vaccine for measles?

My dad was a doctor, so we were vaccinated for everything, and I can remember receiving the occasional tetanus 'booster' shot, as we were raised on a river, frequently going barefoot and getting cut on shells and such.
 
WHITE PRIVILEGE?

I am so totally sick of that damned term popping up EVERYWHERE. What does that have to do with vaccines! Nothing - apparently absolutely nothing. I read that article just to hope to understand why it was in the [oh, that's right, put that term in the article title gets people look at the article even if the term is entirely an wholly irrelevant].

Oddly - what htey don't address in the article is that people who avoid vaccinations are just lazy. They don't care, they don't want to be bothered with it. That's what I've seen a lot of. I think the 'I'm afraid' element comes out in their defense when they're questioned - because they think that fear and mistrust is understandable. And really, the government establishes that fear and mistrust is a good reason not to . . . but if you just don't want to because you don't care, then you're not able to make that decision.

There's also these 'I'm a bad parent by poking my kid with needles' crowd that would rather cocoon and coddle than raise and support.

So sources matter - I think Bliss' research netted the appropriate responses for her station. If she went to school parents and looked up all those reasons it would all be 'religious' - 'it's against my religious beliefs' runs amuk because that's the only option to 'opt out'.

People - flat out - just don't see the reason and thus they just don't WANT to. Oh, but they'll be heartbroken if their kids contracts one of those preventable diseases.
 
Agreed Radcen.

I think I heard on the TV news regarding the measles outbreak that some of the current victims were vaccinated. If true, was it a bad batch? Or should we consider a booster type vaccine for measles?

My dad was a doctor, so we were vaccinated for everything, and I can remember receiving the occasional tetanus 'booster' shot, as we were raised on a river, frequently going barefoot and getting cut on shells and such.
I have not heard that, but I haven't been following the Disney thing super close, only peripherally.

I heard many years ago that there are many different strains of measles, so maybe that plays a factor. Just thinking out loud on that one.
 
WHITE PRIVILEGE?

I am so totally sick of that damned term popping up EVERYWHERE. What does that have to do with vaccines! Nothing - apparently absolutely nothing. I read that article just to hope to understand why it was in the [oh, that's right, put that term in the article title gets people look at the article even if the term is entirely an wholly irrelevant].

Oddly - what htey don't address in the article is that people who avoid vaccinations are just lazy. They don't care, they don't want to be bothered with it. That's what I've seen a lot of. I think the 'I'm afraid' element comes out in their defense when they're questioned - because they think that fear and mistrust is understandable. And really, the government establishes that fear and mistrust is a good reason not to . . . but if you just don't want to because you don't care, then you're not able to make that decision.

There's also these 'I'm a bad parent by poking my kid with needles' crowd that would rather cocoon and coddle than raise and support.

So sources matter - I think Bliss' research netted the appropriate responses for her station. If she went to school parents and looked up all those reasons it would all be 'religious' - 'it's against my religious beliefs' runs amuk because that's the only option to 'opt out'.

People - flat out - just don't see the reason and thus they just don't WANT to. Oh, but they'll be heartbroken if their kids contracts one of those preventable diseases.
I didn't get the "white privilege" angle, either, and almost didn't read the article at all because of that. But there's some worthy discussion buried inside regarding people's motivations to not vaccinate that I found interesting.
 
On the other hand, science shows why there is concern.

B7911nsCIAAbbur.jpg:large
 
I didn't get the "white privilege" angle, either, and almost didn't read the article at all because of that. But there's some worthy discussion buried inside regarding people's motivations to not vaccinate that I found interesting.

Yes - other than this dumbfounding and unsupported "connection" the article was filled with a lot of interesting things.

I just - don't get it. Maybe she wanted to make a point and failed to arrive there?
 
Agreed Radcen.

I think I heard on the TV news regarding the measles outbreak that some of the current victims were vaccinated. If true, was it a bad batch? Or should we consider a booster type vaccine for measles?

My dad was a doctor, so we were vaccinated for everything, and I can remember receiving the occasional tetanus 'booster' shot, as we were raised on a river, frequently going barefoot and getting cut on shells and such.

No. The issue with vaccinated kids getting infected is that herd immunity is beginning to fail.

This can come from a couple different places.

1. The disease can mutate. When almost everyone is vaccinated, the rate of mutation is imperceptibly small, because the disease can't find enough hosts to provide it with the opportunity to alter itself. However, when the number of potential hosts (unvaccinated people) begins to climb, the rate of mutation speeds up. This can render a vaccine ineffective, because now the disease has branched off and is not the same as the strain they were vaccinated for.

2. Some immune protection weakens with time as our system forgets to stay vigilant if there is not persistent exposure -- whether natural and induced with vaccines. Boosters may be deamed unneccessary if practically no one has the disease anyway (thus limiting the amount of injections a person requires -- supposedly something anti-vaccers are very concerned with). But if a person with infrequent exposure suddenly contacts the disease 20 years later, they are more liable to become infected, or in some cases have a reactivation of a disease that always stays in the system. This is why it's possible to get shingles, and even get it more than once (yes, really). Your body may forget to stay vigiliant if it's been a long time since you were around the disease (say, older people with grown or no kids -- but also younger ones who were growing up and got chicken pox right before the vaccine came out).

This is why having a fully vaccinated population is so essential. Herd immunity prevents the disease from learning how to defeat our vaccines, and allows us to vaccinate less often while still having a highly protective affect.
 
Last edited:
I'm not one of those "OMG, vaccines give muh children autism" types, but I have noticed that the pro-vaxxers have become somewhat of a cult lately. You can't question any vaccine without having holy hell fury unleashed on you. You can't question dosage, application, or the overall necessity at all. And, in my experience, it's usually when we forgo the scientific process of questioning things that everything goes horribly wrong.

Right. Scientific process. That describes anti-vaccers.
 
I didn't get the "white privilege" angle, either, and almost didn't read the article at all because of that. But there's some worthy discussion buried inside regarding people's motivations to not vaccinate that I found interesting.

In a wealthy, safe environment for so long, some people forget the dangers that once plagued society. People think vaccinations aren't necessary because they've never seen the diseases they prevent.
 
Agreed Radcen.

I think I heard on the TV news regarding the measles outbreak that some of the current victims were vaccinated. If true, was it a bad batch? Or should we consider a booster type vaccine for measles?

My dad was a doctor, so we were vaccinated for everything, and I can remember receiving the occasional tetanus 'booster' shot, as we were raised on a river, frequently going barefoot and getting cut on shells and such.

no vaccine is 100% effective. some people who get vaccinated can still get sick.

that's why anti-vaxers are so dangerous, because they lower the herd immunity for those who have been vaccinated, but may still be susceptible to diseases.
 
In a wealthy, safe environment for so long, some people forget the dangers that once plagued society. People think vaccinations aren't necessary because they've never seen the diseases they prevent.
Kind of fits in with the saying: "Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it."
 
I'm not one of those "OMG, vaccines give muh children autism" types, but I have noticed that the pro-vaxxers have become somewhat of a cult lately. You can't question any vaccine without having holy hell fury unleashed on you. You can't question dosage, application, or the overall necessity at all. And, in my experience, it's usually when we forgo the scientific process of questioning things that everything goes horribly wrong.

While it is true that pro-vaxxers come down hard on the anti-vaxxers, it's precisely because the anti-vaxxers completely ignore scientific method when they come up with their B.S. And when folks like Dr. Tenpenny spout their nonsense, they not only make a profit off of pseudoscience, but they endanger people's lives while doing so. So I think it is completely understandable.

I am torn by this situation. My 2 children are in their 30's, and both were completely vaccinated. There were no perceived reactions to the vaccine.

That said, for certain individuals there must be a reaction to the vaccine.

As the world becomes more populated, epidemics of one sort or the other seem likely. Do public health concerns override individual choice? I don't know.

I do not take the flu vaccine. Only took it once in my life, in the Army, and never again because it made me so sick.

Remember, the flu vaccine you take today isn't the same as the one you took in the Army. While it might affect you just as bad, it also might not affect you at all.
 
While it is true that pro-vaxxers come down hard on the anti-vaxxers, it's precisely because the anti-vaxxers completely ignore scientific method when they come up with their B.S. And when folks like Dr. Tenpenny spout their nonsense, they not only make a profit off of pseudoscience, but they endanger people's lives while doing so. So I think it is completely understandable.


Remember, the flu vaccine you take today isn't the same as the one you took in the Army. While it might affect you just as bad, it also might not affect you at all.

I know several friends who take the flu shot every year, and several of them still manage to get the flu. I'll pass on it. :)
 
I'm not one of those "OMG, vaccines give muh children autism" types, but I have noticed that the pro-vaxxers have become somewhat of a cult lately. You can't question any vaccine without having holy hell fury unleashed on you. You can't question dosage, application, or the overall necessity at all. And, in my experience, it's usually when we forgo the scientific process of questioning things that everything goes horribly wrong.

its called group think and it's the most dangerous force in human history
 
I know several friends who take the flu shot every year, and several of them still manage to get the flu. I'll pass on it. :)

Do you understand how flu shots work, what they target each year and that there are many strains of flu?
 
Back
Top Bottom