Thinking of getting vaccinated?

[mashman]

Just a slow reaction time (30 year) huh!

Well I guess when you've got excess stock you can always lower the price and find a buyer who doesn't mind breaking a few eggs whilst making their omelette. Even better when you know which stock not to use yourself.

[Crasherfromwayback]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/heal...idemic-strikes

[Ocean1]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/di...study-confirms

While people who more or less liked taxidermy and crossword puzzles also liked the oven, the haters drenched their fake consumer surveys in haterade. They were also more likely to hate on recycling and vaccine shots.

To be fair, it's hard to be a ray of sunshine when you've got the measles.

[mashman]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/di...study-confirms

You just gotta let people make their own minds up... but great stereotype.

[Ocean1]

You just gotta let people make their own minds up... but great stereotype.

In what way is a peer reviewed scientific study a stereotype?

And without an answer to this:

So, exactly how many hundreds of thousands of lives have been saved for each life damaged?

And how many billions of lives would be saved by the extinction of parasitic transmissible diseases?

people don’t have enough information to make up their own minds, do they?

[mashman]

In what way is a peer reviewed scientific study a stereotype?

And without an answer to this:

people don’t have enough information to make up their own minds, do they?

I meant that haters just gonna hate. The decision not to immunise oneself, where immunisation isn't guaranteed, aren't considering the percentages, they're just running a different risk. Yes the odds may well be massively in your favour by inoculating, but again, odds, do not factor in the decision making process. Neither should they matter.

Yes I agree that there isn't enough shouting of GET IMMUNISED... but there will still be those who refuse to take that risk irrespective. Frustrating as it may well be for some, it just ain't gonna happen short of restraining those who say no.

[Crasherfromwayback]

Frustrating as it may well be for some, it just ain't gonna happen short of restraining those who say no.

No need to restrain them. Place 'em on an Island in the middle of nowhere yes. They can be as free as they like. Fucking leppers.

[badlieutenant]

Its an interesting perspective for those people who were born at the beginning of the last century.
Talking to my grandparents and their friends they considered it morally wrong not to immunize. Possibly because they grew up seeing what diseases like polio could do.
They seemed to have a better grasp of herd immunity as well.
some stats if we do stop immunizing

[Berries]

Who knew that the vaccine for Japanese Encephalitis was made from mouse brains? One of my favourite diseases after learning it was called broken back disease due to the convulsions just before you snuff it.

I get the same from Speights.

[mashman]

No need to restrain them. Place 'em on an Island in the middle of nowhere yes. They can be as free as they like. Fucking leppers.

yeah, but then you end up with the likes of Australia.

[Crasherfromwayback]

yeah, but then you end up with the likes of Australia.

Lol. I reckon!

[Ocean1]

Yes the odds may well be massively in your favour by inoculating, but again, odds, do not factor in the decision making process. Neither should they matter.

So a proper risk assessment of two courses of action shouldn't factor in a decision on which course is safest?

OK.


Very few people are more protective of individual liberty than me, but there's another factor, here. Someone deciding not to immunise 50 years ago would have been making a definite and seriously life-threatening mistake, there were still a lot of infectious individuals in the general population and their presence and plight would have been convincing enough. Someone making the same choice now is still choosing the more dangerous option, by several orders of magnitude, but it’s not as dangerous as once that option was, nor is the danger as obvious.

But it was a generation and more of people who took the very slight risk of an inoculation instead of the very real possibility or in fact likelihood of infection that made the world that much safer, not the ones that decided not to inoculate or simply weren’t afforded that choice. Not only do those not inoculated not contribute to that huge improvement in illness and death, getting what they possibly see as a “free ride” but as the contagions become less and less common they become increasingly dangerous to themselves and to everyone else.

As of 2009, herd immunity is compromised in some areas for some vaccine-preventable diseases, including pertussis and measles and mumps, in part because of parental refusal of vaccination.

My reaction when confronted by someone who refused to inoculate her kids years ago was that it was her choice, no matter how badly she’d failed her kids. Talking about it with SWMBO later, she asked: “Does she have an ethical right to deny the safety the modern world takes for granted to everyone else, now and forever more?”

So, who's ethics carry more juju?

[mashman]

So a proper risk assessment of two courses of action shouldn't factor in a decision on which course is safest?

OK.

Very few people are more protective of individual liberty than me, but there's another factor, here. Someone deciding not to immunise 50 years ago would have been making a definite and seriously life-threatening mistake, there were still a lot of infectious individuals in the general population and their presence and plight would have been convincing enough. Someone making the same choice now is still choosing the more dangerous option, by several orders of magnitude, but it’s not as dangerous as once that option was, nor is the danger as obvious.

But it was a generation and more of people who took the very slight risk of an inoculation instead of the very real possibility or in fact likelihood of infection that made the world that much safer, not the ones that decided not to inoculate or simply weren’t afforded that choice. Not only do those not inoculated not contribute to that huge improvement in illness and death, getting what they possibly see as a “free ride” but as the contagions become less and less common they become increasingly dangerous to themselves and to everyone else.

My reaction when confronted by someone who refused to inoculate her kids years ago was that it was her choice, no matter how badly she’d failed her kids. Talking about it with SWMBO later, she asked: “Does she have an ethical right to deny the safety the modern world takes for granted to everyone else, now and forever more?”

So, who's ethics carry more juju?

I smoke cigarettes.

I smoke cigarettes.

Then run a health campaign. Make it free. Tell people that really don't give a shit and who need informing of why they should inoculate. Would that be expensive to do But yes, she has the ethical right. It'd be fantastic if people could send their blood to a diagnostics database and receive a recommendation back i.e. take 2 and give blood in the morning, and those sorts of things go away. Better than mass inoculation? dunno, maybe, but alas, Dreams are free. Ideas cost.

The educated ones ethics

[Ocean1]

"With the world tantalizingly close to wiping out polio, conflict in Syria has allowed the crippling disease to take hold again, putting at risk the rest of the region as well as plans for global eradication". http://www.stuff.co.nz/science/93420...yria-confirmed


Way to go guys.

[Akzle]

"With the world tantalizingly close to wiping out polio, conflict in Syria has allowed the crippling disease to take hold again, putting at risk the rest of the region as well as plans for global eradication". http://www.stuff.co.nz/science/93420...yria-confirmed


Way to go guys.

the world needs more polio.

while they're sure finding other drugs to sell, they (jews) loose a lot of money when there's no customers.