More than 100 people have now been infected with measles as a result of a multi-state outbreak linked to Disneyland. Public officials have been eager to respond, and now it seems like everyone’s talking about compulsory vaccination, and it’s becoming a politicized issue.

On one hand, I think it is a good thing that most public officials are affirming the scientific consensus by saying that vaccines are good for kids, good for adults, and good for public health. And it may be a good thing to call out anti-vaxxers for recent outbreaks. On the other hand, I do worry about the fact that vaccination is the subject of a public debate, insofar as that lends any credence to arguments that link vaccines to autism. I also worry that the politicization of vaccine policy will only isolate and encourage vaccine deniers.

But despite my reservations, on balance I think it is good for people to actively encourage vaccination. And it’s also important to note that even libertarians should support public policies that promote vaccination, not because they would promote public health but because vaccine-refusal is morally wrong.

ptooey

ptooey Avatar

Location: right behind you. no, over there.
Gender: Male

Posted: Feb 9, 2015 - 12:07pm
ScottFromWyoming wrote: In its quest to find balance in news stories as well as depth, we may have given some voices, some quasi-experts the appearance of credibility and trustworthiness. The rough draft of history strikes again. Darrell Ehrlick used to be the editor down here, and I miss his stuff. Dude can write, and he has a good outlook.

ScottFromWyoming

ScottFromWyoming Avatar

Location: Powell
Gender: Male

Posted: Feb 9, 2015 - 11:25am
In its quest to find balance in news stories as well as depth, we may have given some voices, some quasi-experts the appearance of credibility and trustworthiness. The rough draft of history strikes again.

R_P

Gender:

Posted: Feb 6, 2015 - 9:51am
"When anybody listens to, or seeks medical guidance from, Jenny McCarthy, or any of her fellow neurosurgeons on the View, they have confessed to having the intellectual power of a dead tree stump. And may even be living in one."

sirdroseph

sirdroseph Avatar

Location: Not here, I tell you wat
Gender: Male

Posted: Feb 6, 2015 - 9:49am
RichardPrins wrote: It's the usual talk of the (more) affluent (begging the question with "we"), i.e. the small percentage (upper middle class) who got plenty of money and use up most of the resources, but we digress... You do have a point, with very simple life style changes we have reduced our carbon footprint substantially. Where there is a will, there is a way.

islander

islander Avatar

Location: West coast somewhere
Gender: Male

Posted: Feb 6, 2015 - 9:48am

Beaker wrote:

Really? Is that what you want to hold up and measure against the risk of vaccinations? ffs

By that standard, ALL professions and occupations are more risky than getting a vaccination.

C'mon now. Think about it.

I had thought you would be referencing how fracking may be dangerous to the environment, and/or the hazards of the inadvertent release of sour gas...

No, but that's all I need to support my analogy. Lots of stuff is dangerous or incurs some amount of risk. The benefit of avoiding the risk doesn't outweigh the benefit gained by taking the risk.

On the very specific claim of "far safer" I admittedly pulled that out of my butt. It was based on a very lose, non-mathematical observation of a couple of data points.

But this shows claims based on vaccine injury: http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/statisticsreports.html It shows compensable claims in the hundreds of year. And the other article mentioned Fracking being related to several thousand health care jobs. So yeah, "Far"* safer.

*- for values of 'far' applicable to internet arguments.

islander

islander Avatar

Location: West coast somewhere
Gender: Male

Posted: Feb 6, 2015 - 9:39am
Beaker wrote: Well, hey, in my own I way, I own a set of blinkers too! Gotta tune out the idiots on whatever side of the fence I may be on! Careful, if you find the side of the fence without idiots, it will be very crowded on the other side (and we'll both probably be there).

islander

islander Avatar

Location: West coast somewhere
Gender: Male

Posted: Feb 6, 2015 - 9:34am

Beaker wrote:

No existing evidence I am aware of supports such a claim.

Heck, we don't even have to get into the contentious part of the debate for this:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Fracking_and_worker_safety
The mining sector (a category that includes oil and gas) has the second highest fatal injury rate behind agriculture/forestry/fishing/hunting. Mining had a mortality rate of 15.8 deaths per 100,000 workers in 2011, and 19.8 per 100,000 workers in 2010. Deaths for the oil/gas industry typically account for roughly two-thirds of mining sector fatalities.^{<1>
With a rate of injury roughly 7 times the average, I think that we can say there is a substantial public health impact from fracking. On the plus side, the industry has contributed roughly 2000 jobs to the healthcare industry in Illinois.}

ScottFromWyoming

ScottFromWyoming Avatar

Location: Powell
Gender: Male

Posted: Feb 6, 2015 - 9:26am
Beaker wrote: certain liberals take a holier-than-thou, smarter-than-thou approach and tarnish with broad strokes ALL conservatives. Have you even seen the internet?

R_P

Gender:

Posted: Feb 6, 2015 - 9:20am

sirdroseph wrote:

Why is that? I am not being a smart ass, that is a legitimate question because I don't see that. Are you trying to tell me that civilization as we know it, if not for the discovery of the frakking process would not be able to exists?? I doubt that.

It's the usual talk of the (more) affluent (begging the question with "we"), i.e. the small percentage (upper middle class) who got plenty of money and use up most of the resources, but we digress...

sirdroseph

sirdroseph Avatar

Location: Not here, I tell you wat
Gender: Male

Posted: Feb 6, 2015 - 9:16am

islander wrote:

Fracking or nuclear, more atmospheric carbon or spent uranium. Or we can all stop using electricity.

There are places that have figure it out:

"Electricity production in France". Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons.

The only thing that explains is the need for energy given consumption at present, does nothing to measure the cost - benefit analysis due to environmental concerns be it the chemical used to assist frakking, the disaster of a nuclear meltdown caused by unpreventable natural disasters and of course global warming caused by carbon emissions. As for stop using electricity, there is another option, one that I am actually undergoing. Converting each families home to primarily having solar, wind and water sources for creating our own energy. May not be doable by everyone, but along with weening lifestyle to reduce energy consumption should be enough to severly reduce our need for imo dangerous energy sources.

islander

islander Avatar

Location: West coast somewhere
Gender: Male

Posted: Feb 6, 2015 - 9:11am

sirdroseph wrote:

See the post I just made following this. We humans use a lot of energy. It has to come from somewhere. Either we get on board with conservation, we go nuclear, or we keep doing everything we can to extract the carbon based stuff. There just isn't enough energy available from another source to make a meaningful dent in the supply. We will make a shift eventually, when we run out of something, make nuclear safer/better, or improve renewables to the point that they can carry the base load. Until then we will take what we can get our hands on by any means to keep the cars moving and the lights on.

Edit: we could do without fracking, but oil would be back to $100 a barrel and gasoline would be $4/gallon. Good, fast, cheap, which two do you want?

Redirect Edit: We can also do without vaccinations. But society will be the worse for it. How many people do we want to see sick/dead to avoid an admitted few who will suffer from the cure?

islander

islander Avatar

Location: West coast somewhere
Gender: Male

Posted: Feb 6, 2015 - 9:07am

sirdroseph wrote:

You may think that is working out for ya, but folks in Russia and Japan (and soon to be the West coast of US) would probably disagree. You can have all of the scientific safety assurances you want, but when you build Nuclear power plants in the path of tsunamis, near or on top of fault lines or volcanoes kinda renders all science and safety assurances moot. {#Rolleyes}

Fracking or nuclear, more atmospheric carbon or spent uranium. Or we can all stop using electricity.

There are places that have figure it out:

"Electricity production in France". Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons.

sirdroseph

sirdroseph Avatar

Location: Not here, I tell you wat
Gender: Male

Posted: Feb 6, 2015 - 9:04am

islander wrote:

Interesting analogy to be had here: Fracking is definitely not 100% safe, but given the current state of things it is absolutely necessary. Vaccinations are also not 100% safe, but also absolutely necessary. Vaccines are far safer than Fracking, and the impact is human life, so the scales are a bit off. But they are both things we need to be doing to maintain our standard of living.

sirdroseph

sirdroseph Avatar

Location: Not here, I tell you wat
Gender: Male

Posted: Feb 6, 2015 - 9:01am

aflanigan wrote:

Here's a more nuanced look at the issue of the disparity between public opinion and scientific knowledge, based on both political persuasion and scientific literacy.

One of the fascinating findings is that, while progressive ("Egalitarian communitarian") folks tend to adjust their views to better conform to scientific understanding when they become better informed (as with nuclear power safety opinions), conservative ("Heirarchical individualist") folks tend to cling even more tenaciously to misguided notions when they become better informed.

islander

islander Avatar

Location: West coast somewhere
Gender: Male

Posted: Feb 6, 2015 - 8:59am

ScottFromWyoming wrote:

My hunch is that actual science is ignored by a politically diverse array of people, who make their judgements based on arbitrary factors like peer pressure, religion, and the all-powerful "just want it to be true (or not true)" plus a natural resistance to change in belief that we're all subject to.

Some of the article is nevertheless written *as* red meat, designed to get the audience to cheer and mock, but overall, it's right. I think it stumbles (for example) when it says fracking is safe, no question. If the author wants to accept preliminary data as settled science, that's his business, but I think a wiser person would be a bit hesitant to throw in 100% with either side right now.

We always like the side of the argument that agrees with our pre-conceptions.

islander

islander Avatar

Location: West coast somewhere
Gender: Male

Posted: Feb 6, 2015 - 8:58am

sirdroseph wrote:

I will immediately close my mind and my ears to anyone who suggests that frakking is safe. This is nothing but proof and verification of being an energy company or partisan right wing shill. {#Snooty}

Interesting analogy to be had here: Fracking is definitely not 100% safe, but given the current state of things it is absolutely necessary. Vaccinations are also not 100% safe, but also absolutely necessary. Vaccines are far safer than Fracking, and the impact is human life, so the scales are a bit off. But they are both things we need to be doing to maintain our standard of living.

aflanigan

aflanigan Avatar

Location: At Sea
Gender: Male

Posted: Feb 6, 2015 - 8:55am

ScottFromWyoming wrote:

Overall this is correct. I'm not sure when exactly the vaccination issue became associated with left/right polarization, because my feeling has always been that it's driven by hippies. Although my co-worker who is rabid right is also hyper nuts over vaccines and voodoo herbal crap too. To quote something I literally just now heard, "I cancelled her shots appointment this weekend," talking about her 8-month old girl. When the flu started going around, she gave everyone in the family "silver biotics." (Note that it says they claim that their product is non-toxic, even when taken at doses 100-200 times the recommended adult dose... which means it's just water).

My hunch is that actual science is ignored by a politically diverse array of people, who make their judgements based on arbitrary factors like peer pressure, religion, and the all-powerful "just want it to be true (or not true)" plus a natural resistance to change in belief that we're all subject to.

Some of the article is nevertheless written *as* red meat, designed to get the audience to cheer and mock, but overall, it's right. I think it stumbles (for example) when it says fracking is safe, no question. If the author wants to accept preliminary data as settled science, that's his business, but I think a wiser person would be a bit hesitant to throw in 100% with either side right now.

Here's a more nuanced look at the issue of the disparity between public opinion and scientific knowledge, based on both political persuasion and scientific literacy.

One of the fascinating findings is that, while progressive ("Egalitarian communitarian") folks tend to adjust their views to better conform to scientific understanding when they become better informed (as with nuclear power safety opinions), conservative ("Heirarchical individualist") folks tend to cling even more tenaciously to misguided notions when they become better informed.

The Tragedy of the Risk-Perception Commons: Culture Conflict,
Rationality Conflict, and Climate Change

sirdroseph

sirdroseph Avatar

Location: Not here, I tell you wat
Gender: Male

Posted: Feb 6, 2015 - 8:45am

ScottFromWyoming wrote:

Overall this is correct. I'm not sure when exactly the vaccination issue became associated with left/right polarization, because my feeling has always been that it's driven by hippies. Although my co-worker who is rabid right is also hyper nuts over vaccines and voodoo herbal crap too. To quote something I literally just now heard, "I cancelled her shots appointment this weekend," talking about her 8-month old girl. When the flu started going around, she gave everyone in the family "silver biotics." (Note that it says they claim that their product is non-toxic, even when taken at doses 100-200 times the recommended adult dose... which means it's just water).

My hunch is that actual science is ignored by a politically diverse array of people, who make their judgements based on arbitrary factors like peer pressure, religion, and the all-powerful "just want it to be true (or not true)" plus a natural resistance to change in belief that we're all subject to.

Some of the article is nevertheless written *as* red meat, designed to get the audience to cheer and mock, but overall, it's right. I think it stumbles (for example) when it says fracking is safe, no question. If the author wants to accept preliminary data as settled science, that's his business, but I think a wiser person would be a bit hesitant to throw in 100% with either side right now.

sirdroseph

sirdroseph Avatar

Location: Not here, I tell you wat
Gender: Male

Posted: Feb 6, 2015 - 8:39am

Proclivities wrote:

I know what you mean, and before the NIH existed all of the research had to come from the military or private entities and scientists (e.g. Jonas Salk). What troubles me is prospective candidates using the vaccination issues as political fodder. It seems there are a number of people out there who desire polarity among the masses, I guess they have their reasons.

Heck, read a lot of the submissions on this very thread and you will see this troublesome trend displayed in spades.

And I assure you both "sides" assume equal blame for the further clouding of real issues.

Page: Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 9, 10, 11 Next