[Closed] One for the anti-vaxxers...

I am cautious about ALL medical procedures having seen too many things go wrong and medical paradigms change on some issues radically over the years.

Trouble is people often fail to go get the multiple jabs (initial & booster) needed for that. So herd immunity is worsened.

I agree - I made that very point above.

@RicB Yes, vaccine hesitancy is a "thing", recognised by the WHO

https://www.who.int/immunization/programmes_systems/vaccine_hesitancy/en/

A single doctors view... which was not the point I made

So, about that evidence that does back up your point, then?

Get the shots but do it in what would seem to be the safest way

... to you? Evidence?

I should have known better than to try to have a nuanced debate over this.

This is at least the second time you've mentioned nuance. What nuances are we missing?

The reasons for the MMR is to increase uptake not that it is better

This may well be true, but does that implicitly mean that it's worse?

Sorry, missed a few bits.

I am cautious about ALL medical procedures having seen too many things go wrong and medical paradigms change on some issues radically over the years.

Absolutely a wise stance, as am I also.

as much searching as I could do found nowt to support my view that could be seen as in any way rigorous

So... can we draw a conclusion here?

Trouble is people often fail to go get the multiple jabs (initial & booster) needed for that. So herd immunity is worsened.

This point needs to be repeated.
I don't see what the nuance is. Either you believe the triple vaccine is the best way to deliver mass protection to the population, (because it means more people complete the course) or you don't.
If people start saying they prefer separate jabs as a "precaution", they are sowing the seeds of doubt for the "vaccine hesitant", because there must be something risky about it right? More people start getting separate jabs and not completing the course or avoiding vaccination altogether, and we're back where we started, with immunisation rates dropping.

So… can we draw a conclusion here?

Probably 😉

The nuance is the difference between what may be best for individuals compared to what is best for populations.

What's best for the individual is to be vaccinated.

What's best for populations is to be vaccinated.

Where's the nuance?

There are exceptions of course. Some people cannot be vaccinated for various reasons, allergies or pre-existing immune system disorders for instance (which is why it's important that everyone else has it, to protect those who can't). In some cases the single-shot vaccinations may be recommended over the combo MMR. But these are outlier cases, quite literally one in a million. To anyone going down this road as an argument against vaccination I would ask, "do you let your kid eat peanuts?"

@TJ - Using the term 'nuance' implies that you (believe you) understand the issues at a deeper level than others. It's perceived intellectual superiority which is precisely the method of the anti-vax exponents. It's also demonstrably wrong as evidenced by your responses in this thread.

People these days believe they are entitled to an opinion and are entitled to share that opinion - even if it's total nonsense and demonstrably so. I don't see how your replies are any different.

No that is not what nuance means nor what I said. The nuance is the difference between individuals and populations. the nuance is I am not sitting on one side or the other.

Still - its clear no one actually read what I posted including a nuanced mea culpa late on

I knew it was stupid to make a post on this - the reactions I got confirmed it. this seems to be another issue where people are very rigid in outlook and "if you are not with us you are against us"

Nuance definition, a subtle difference or distinction in expression, meaning, response, etc. See more.

TJ - I think you're right that this is an area where people are very rigid in outlook, and that doesn't sit well to someone with an enquiring mind who likes to examine the facts.

However I think there is a good reason for that and in this case it's the way it should be.

Anyone who asks the question "MMR vaccination - good or bad?" should immediately get the ovewhelming response "Good!".

If the response they get is something like "you should do some more reading into it, as there are nuanced areas of detail which indicate that it might not be optimal" then some people will interpret that as "the jury's still out" and therefore think that opting their children out of the vaccine is a valid position to take, which it is definitely not!

the difference between what may be best for individuals compared to what is best for populations.

I can understand that given a small risk of adverse effects from the vaccine, it can be argued that what’s best for the individual is to *not* be vaccinated.

That assumes that everyone else gets vaccinated despite the risk you weren’t willing to take so that the disease in question isn’t widespread and you’re unlikely to meet the actual downside as an individual of failing to get the vaccine.

It’s selfish. “You all take this risk. I’m alright jack. As long as you all do it”

Plus it assumes the downside to getting vaccinated as in some way serious. Most risks of a vaccine are a sore arm, or a sniffle, or running a temperature for a bit. A tiny handful of people get somewhat sick. There is no evidence of a causal link to autism. It just isn’t a thing.

So you’re ok, if it’s just you. But it isn’t.

There are folk who can’t have the vaccine. For actual reasons. Sometimes compromised immune systems (rare). Or kids who are too young to have had the jab yet. (Millions). They benefit from the vast majority of folk round them being immune. They don’t encounter the disease, stay healthy and then go on to do their bit and get vaccinated.

Please. Let this be how it actually is. Not this selfish “what’s best for me, screw you guys” future.

I knew it was stupid to make a post on this – the reactions I got confirmed it.

Au contraire. You made a post, had errors explained to you, and you (begrudgingly☺) changed your opinion. If someone learns something or even just stops to reconsider sometimes, that's a win all round. You should be glad you posted, I am. (Apologies if I was a bit abrupt yesterday BTW, I was very tired and a bit antsy.)

If I had children they would not be getting the combined vaccine but separate shots over a period of time

on behalf of humanity we thank you for not having children. separate shots aren't avaliable on the NHS anyway as they are not licenced in the UK. Plus the jags have to be given at different times increasing the risk of not getting one and catching the disease. There isn't a shred of evidence to suggest it is "safer".

Sorry if I appear blunt but this shit makes me ****ing angry.

Tbh, if he wasn’t my brother I’d agree 100% with you. But he loves his kids (and believe me living with a severely autistic child can be a living ****ing nightmare at times I really don’t know how they do it I know I couldn’t). He’s no doubt scared there was a link and just wasn’t going to risk it.

It’s easy to judge.

When I say at times I mean like 23 & 3/4 hours a day (and that’s a good day... )

that’s exactly how the anti-vax movement gains traction

I don’t doubt it. However i suggest you live with a severely autistic child for a 15-20 years and come back tell me what you think. What they’ve gone through would’ve broken me so that’s why I don’t judge him. And I mean him, specifically...

This made me do a nerd-lol

https://newsthump.com/2019/06/05/leading-anti-vaxxer-becomes-daemon-prince-of-nurgle/

Need more of these...

[url= https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48020741162_5a018f7f84_z.jp g" target="_blank">https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48020741162_5a018f7f84_z.jp g"/> [/img][/url][url= https://flic.kr/p/2gaqRk9 ]Vaccinate![/url] by [url= https://www.flickr.com/photos/brf/ ]Ben Freeman[/url], on Flickr

However i suggest you live with a severely autistic child for a 15-20 years and come back tell me what you think.

I'd think that Autism has got **** all to do with vaccinations no matter how severe it is. He might as well argue that he's nervous of driving because he once had a chip pan fire.

I should probably check what vaccines I've had, I honestly can't remember. Had all the usual normal childhood ones ones I think including the multi prick one on the shoulder that leaves a faint scar on the upper shoulder .. but I'm 40.

Pretty sure I had chicken pox as a kid (at a time when parents would deliberately let you get it so as not to get it when you're older and it can be much more serious) but I'm not sure that means I'm immune to measles.

I’d think that Autism has got **** all to do with vaccinations no matter how severe it is.

I think you’re missing my point. He obviously thought that there was a risk (remember this is over 10 years ago, the ‘theory’ wasn’t completely debunked at that point). I’m talking about how the experience has effected one single specific person. His decision I can understand (not that I necessarily agree with it, but I’ve thankfully not had to make those choices myself).

We, the clever people who understand the science and maths, have utterly failed to maintain the flow of information in a usable and persuasive manner. Whereas some, many, bad actors are excellent at pressing the right buttons in the vast majority of people who are susceptible to being duped.

The problem stems from the people who do the research not being allowed to talk about it. It's distilled to a very short summary which the press then sub-edit and put their own spin on. Proper science reading is hard and requires a degree of application on the part of the reader. The ever pressing need for speedy conclusions leads to the gaps that charlatans like Wakefield exploit.

So… can we draw a conclusion here?

Another bug bear as sometimes this isn't possible with current knowledge on some subjects but pointing out that further work needs to be done is not sexy and does not feed the need for a solid answer. We need to teach that sometimes difficult questions can't be answered quickly or succinctly. Everything needs to have an 'Eureka!' moment for the press but 'that's interesting' is probably more exciting to a scientific mind.

There's a problem with our perception of risk, especially when a figure such as 1 in 1000, is applied to it. The immediate thought is that "I don't want to be that *one*" but without knowing the baseline risk due to purely random factors you can't tell if it's genuinely riskier. Even then risk factors down at the 1 in 10,000 are all but meaningless to the individual - the average risk of dying in any given year in the UK is roughly 1 in 120. Obviously the risk at any given age changes but that's the average figure.

@mattyfez - that's the BCG vaccination. I was allergic to mine and I had a huge blister over the site for about six months. The scar is still visible 50 years later.

The problem stems from the people who do the research not being allowed to talk about it. It’s distilled to a very short summary which the press then sub-edit and put their own spin on. Proper science reading is hard and requires a degree of application on the part of the reader. The ever pressing need for speedy conclusions leads to the gaps that charlatans like Wakefield exploit.

add to this

1/ anyone with an opinion and an internet connection can post something that will get picked up, reposted, and spread without ever being reviewed and criticised in the way a scientific paper is. Yet it seems to have the same validity as the proper equivalent.

2/ If someone does try to review or criticise, it's too easy to play the 'you would say that, you're part of the industry that benefits' defence.

3/ "we don't need experts"  When politicians can say stuff like that and get away with it it just proves how much we do need them. Ideally in positions of influence and power, instead of pricks like Gove</span>

I think you’re missing my point. He obviously thought that there was a risk (remember this is over 10 years ago, the ‘theory’ wasn’t completely debunked at that point).

Sure, and at the height of the media furore I can understand it too. Plus as we've seen with brexit, emotion often trumps reason. But ten years ago was, well, ten years ago. What's stopping him today?

@mattyfez – that’s the BCG vaccination. I was allergic to mine and I had a huge blister over the site for about six months. The scar is still visible 50 years later.

Yeah, AKA the TB jab. I still have a scar, I expect most folk my age do.

Child2 is now 17, old enough to make their own decision.

We’ve never really talked about, just that my brother mentioned the ‘connection’ in passing a fair while ago and I saw something child2 posted on their Facebook page (and joined the dots).

To be honest I’m more concerned about their smoking and chronic pepsimax consumption. Can’t say anything I’ve said about either of those has made a blind bit of difference.

@whitestone Yes, exactly what you said about understanding risk. I would really love to see some easy to understand visual that puts things like risk of catching measles vs risk of complications from measles if un/vaccinated vs risk of dying from measles vs risk of serious vaccine injury, maybe add in a "daily" risk like, risk of being in traffic accident.

There was a quote from Roald Dahl (whose eldest daughter died of a complication from measles) I read here, where he said "In a district of around 300,000 people there will be only one child every 250 years who will develop serious side effects from measles immunisation" OK, it's obviously from a while back but I'd love to know his source, what the current risk of serious vaccine injury is. Put it in an easy to understand format and I'm sure "vaccine hesitant" people would have to think twice. Ben Goldacre also had a good chapter about the Wakefield scandal in his bad science book.