Childhood Vaccinations – Necessary or Overkill?

It seems to me if we are restricted to the confines of pure cost/benefit analysis, using only modern western liberal calculus then its hard to argue that vaccinations are not a person's preferred option. But since this appears to be the limit of the discussion, I'll give defending PD's position a whirl, if just for the benefits of exercise...It is hard to argue against the efficacy of vaccination as a method. I think nwr was dead on noting that homeopathy supporters ought to be at least sympathetic to the methods of vaccination. Essentially the difference between the two is what they use to spur the immune response, or grant resistance.Statistically it has proven itself, if only because it has been the most studied.The larger problem, and I think this is where vaccination became an "issue", is forced vaccination programs. That is to say prophylactic programs when there is no current factual risk of exposure to a contagion.By being vaccinated one voluntarily enters a realm of risk. Though the risks may be small, some are there. Without vaccination one does not automatically face the statistical risks posed for example on that chart at PDs link. One would first have to be exposed to the actual contagion which itself is a statistical risk, which may be alleviated using OTHER methods.Tetanus for example certainly can be avoided throughout a lifetime with proper care and hygiene. Careful planning and quarantine could also prevent issues like mumps, and measles, and chicken pox.Its not like most of these are just floating around waiting to attach to someone. They normally involve a vector which means they can be avoided, lessening risk of contact, before we even get to risk after contraction.It might make more sense to not use vaccines until a rise in incidents threatens to become a more serious outbreak. At that time, exposing onesself to the risk from the vaccine becomes more plausible as a comparable tradeoff.As nwr suggests, for some actual exposure using direct contact with the contagion, may make more sense anyway. Though whether kids will respond in kind ala South Park is open to question.Is there a reason why preventative measures (outside prophylactic pre-emptive exposure), as well as better treatment of infections, could not be an equally viable solution? What is the exact trade off in statistical numbers which would make one better than another?Edited by holmes, : current

---

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

I understand what you are saying, but that is not quite accurate. It is not like if everyone was not vaccinated suddenly a factual risk would be there. The point would be that if no one was vaccinated the possibility for factual risk emerging would be greater because it could travel faster and farther.However that also assumes containment/hygiene procedures are not improved. Do we have any specific data suggesting what actual risk of contraction would exist without vaccinations? This is a value issue which PD did not want discussed. But I might raise the question, why would it matter to people who HAVE been vaccinated what I do? Presumably they are not likely to be effected by any illness my children might get. Essentially it will only be those that do not get vaccinations that would share the increased risk together. That they might enjoy a benefit from those that do get vaccinated is not a cost to the latter and so not a debt for the former.This argument would likely only work if those that vaccinated did so ONLY to protect others and not to protect themselves. Why would improved testing and containment methods not reduce risk? Or maybe I should ask to what degree could it impact these infectious diseases?Just because something is highly infectious does not mean it is not containable. Only that the initial spread may be greater than otherwise would have been.

---

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

That's a valid point, but I'm not sure if it refutes the position I was taking on nonvaccination itself.It certainly means if most people decided not to vaccinate, we shouldn't continue doing things as we do now, which are based on assumptions of common vaccination.

---

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

I meant testing for its presence in potential carriers. It doesn't have to be every day or every week. If someone comes down with something broad testing could be put in place. Clearly this will mean that some people will have been missed and potentially contract it, but that wouldn't be as much as just letting it travel at will. As much as I like vaccination (myself, outside the da role I'm playing), I do not consider it true containment. It is a prophylactic which has moderate containment activity.(back to d.a.) By containment I mean quarantine. Regardless of vaccination for many diseases I believe new diseases (spreading on global scales as they are now) mandate improvements in quarantine procedures. Right now people seem to feel it is a hindrance on rights, and so try to avoid that option. I believe that is backwards thinking. We should be trying to improve the conditions of those within quarantine, rather than avoid the option.If we had fast testing and aggressive quarantine procedures, why wouldn't diseases such as measles be contained and risk of CONTACT, and so CONTRACTION, and so dire consequnces be reduced?Since people are arguing that vaccination actually acts as a containment to reduce risk, I guess I should be asking for some evidence for that claim. All I have seen so far is comparisons between risk once contracted vs vaccinated. What is the risk of actually contracting vs risk in vaccination, particularly in areas where some improved medial systems are in place?If you don't have such a thing, isn't that a hole in your overall claim?Edited by holmes, : d.a.

---

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Now now now, let's not get silly. I meant reasonably potentially a current carrier, not theoretically could be simply because they haven't been vaccinated. The comment above seems much like looking at homosexuals as potential HIV carriers. Yep. I am freely admitting that without vaccination outbreaks can happen more frequently and they will spread to a number of people before being "rounded up" via quarantine as well as vaccination for those in the "path" of the disease at that time (rather than the theoretical prophylactic method we use today). Okay, I actually understood that. Combined with tests of such "likely" contacts quarantine does not have to be as long term for the nonexposed as for those who are found to have been exposed.What is the problem with this method?Still outstanding is a request for rates of contraction v effects of vaccination from "your" side. And perhaps some evidence that would suggest improved medical systems (such as I have suggested) would not lower contraction rates even more.

---

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Well I'm for better quarantine procedures and I am for vaccination, so I'm not sure that quarantine itself will lead to what you suggest. Also, my guess is people against vaccination are willing to go for other options as long as it means no vaccination.But I do agree that many will start falling out of the nonvaccination camp when they realize they do not have too great a personal reason NOT to do it, and that there will be consequences for not doing so.

---

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)