

The risk psychology of the anti-vaccine movement - cwan
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/21/no-vaccine-a-different-risk/

======
kevindication
People who don't vaccinate their children do so as a luxury provided by the
vast majority who do vaccinate.

~~~
Alex3917
How are you supposed to make an educated decision about the safety of these
vaccines, when there's a good chance that the CDC is lying to you about the
data?

Just read RFK's article on the vaccine autism link:

[http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/7395411/deadly_im...](http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/7395411/deadly_immunity/)

I've seen a ton of evidence since this article saying that the vaccine-autism
link is false. However I've seen zero evidence that the alleged CDC cover up
of the safety information didn't actually occur. How are you supposed to make
an educated decision about the safety of these products when the head of the
CDC vaccine division goes on record saying they are hiding information about
their safety.

~~~
DannoHung
Well, honestly, even if you broke it down in terms of one disease versus
another, I think vaccines still take the cake:

Don't vaccinate: Might get polio, whooping cough, meningitis, measles, mumps,
rubella, tetanus or superflu. All of which are either deadly or crippling
diseases, in some cases even when treated.

Vaccinate: Might become autistic. Which is a serious behavioral disorder.

~~~
ars
There is no such thing as superflu and you will not get polio.

And you won't become autistic if you do vaccinate.

~~~
blueben
Stop vaccinating on a massive scale, and polio will be back. It's not gone yet
and can still be found in Africa, India, and the Middle East.

------
dschobel
and the very first post in response to the NYT blog:

 _I will never get another vaccine, just another way for the goverment to
poison us off. Vaccines are the biggest scam ever created._

sigh.

~~~
pcestrada
It's a self-correcting problem. Those who don't vaccinate will eventually
dwindle in numbers and their offspring won't reach reproductive maturity.

~~~
anigbrowl
I wish. Aside from the ethical problem that adults are compromising the
survivability of their children, who are not in a position to make the
decision for themselves, this view depends on the idea that illogical thinking
and paranoia are heritable traits.

To be sure, growing up in an ignorant family may well offset the benefits of
education, but many otherwise intelligent people can fall into error. Consider
deniers of evolution or moon landings, who often know enough science to put up
superficially persuasive arguments for their conspiracy theories (a favorite
being 'van Allen belt radiation would have killed the astronauts') but seem
unable to deal with questions of probability.

These beliefs are more common in the US than in Europe; I wonder if this is
due to some basic weakness in the design of US school curriculum. Maybe if
basic programming were included as part of the math curriculum people would b
better equipped to deal with these issues.

~~~
dschobel
Precisely. This is an education issue which we should try to address, not just
say "well, they'll all be dead soon enough anyway"

------
protomyth
The other problem with all this foolishness is that the resistance provided by
these groups changes the research direction of the big drug companies. It is
unwise to walk into a never-ending set of lawsuits. So, they make stuff that
is less essential, but still makes them money (e.g. 'enhancers').

Even if you spent all the money and the FDA approves the drug for a specific
use, the company will still get sued and it could be devastating. Look at the
actual stats for asbestos and how many companies are out of business and how
many NEW ones are being sued.

Hysteria and foolish courts are going to wrack up a heck of a death toll.

~~~
blueben
This is exactly why Congress has given the flu vaccine manufacturers a pass on
lawsuits. Without such immunity, who would take on the risk of manufacturing a
low profit item like swine flu vaccine?

But to the conspiracy theorists, this is just "proof" that the vaccines are
dangerous and that "big pharma" and the government are conspiring together.

------
johnohara
As a teacher, I've been fortunate over the years not to get most of the stuff
students 'graciously' share. I don't know why, lucky I guess.

I've taken every precaution in the computer lab to slow the spread --
sanitizers, keyboard/screen cleanings, constant reminders how to cough, etc.
Some years, we've gone through 2 large pump bottles of sanitizer.

One year I decided to get a flu shot just 'to be sure." Within 45 days I came
down with one of the worst bouts of flu I had ever experienced and got into
serious dehydration problems (almost hospitalized) before turning the corner.
The strain I had actually induced 'projectile vomit.' I remember thinking
"wow, I didn't know my body could do that." It was horrible, scary, and
impressive all at the same time.

I'm keeping a very close eye on this H1N1 business and like the other posters
here, will read all I can to know more. But there's no way I'm marching down
to get a flu shot just because the CDC says so. I've done that already. I'm
not a conspiracy guy, nor am I herd-stupid. I'm just cautious by direct
experience.

~~~
sketerpot
You got a flu shot, got another strain of flu a whole 45 days later, and you
think that there's a connection? I'm sorry, but this isn't evidence; it's the
exact same cognitive failure mode that convinced people that dances and
sacrifices could control the weather. You were in a high-risk environment,
with lots of flu strains circulating around, and you probably just got unlucky
that year.

------
xexers
While I do think it's important to get the tried, tested, and true vaccines, I
am not sure about some of the newer ones. There have been many stories in the
past of people getting worse off from brand new vaccines. For new vaccines I
use at my own discretion.

~~~
nollidge
Perhaps instead of reading stories, you should look for evidence. Then you
would see that such stories are incredibly rare among the population at large.

~~~
xexers
Just so we stay on point here, I am only talking about NEW vaccines here. I
support ones that have been established.

Well, evidence to one particular story comes to mind:

"Still, as observed by a participant in the immunization program, the vaccine
killed more Americans than the disease did."

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swine_flu#1976_U.S._outbreak>

~~~
nollidge
Yes, in the 1976 outbreak, out of the 48 million people who were vaccinated,
500 got Guillane-Barré Syndrome (0.00001%) and 25 died (0.00000052%). In that
case, the virus miraculously did not spread beyond Fort Dix. Today, however,
the virus is quite clearly everywhere, and 4700 people have already died of
it.

------
fnid
I've only had the flu one time in my entire life and it was the same as the
only year I got vaccinated. I haven't had a flu vaccine since and I haven't
gotten the flu since.

Edit: Not saying I don't believe in vaccines in general. But I'm not sure I
believe in the flu vaccine. I can't explain my flu infection, nor can others
who experienced the same circumstance: getting the flu the only year they were
vaccinated.

I have been vaccinated against other diseases since then though.

~~~
eru
I tried to re-upmod your post back to 1 point.

You state an observation. And while that anecdote flys in the face of what
many here (including myself) believe about vaccination, there's nothing wrong
with your comment.

For what its worth, I had have lots of flus, but was never vaccinated against
influenza (as far as I can remember).

~~~
sketerpot
The observation isn't inconsistent with the facts about vaccination. Flu
vaccines can't protect against every strain you might encounter, and it's a
simple matter of probability that there are going to be a lot of people who
get vaccinated for the first time, get a flu that year, and stop getting
vaccinated from then on.

This is why anecdotal evidence on this issue is worthless. Worse than
worthless, actually, since it distracts from the proper statistical approach
to thinking about vaccines.

~~~
eru
Perhaps. And a proper comment like this is a good reply. Downvoting doesn't
seem right to me in this case.

------
blakeGideon
I hadn't had a flu shot in years. But with the added risk swine flu has
brought, I plan on getting on this season.

~~~
ars
What added risk?

The swine flu is not worse than regular flu, it's simply that more people than
usual will get it. That's troubling to governments, but should not matter to
you.

~~~
blueben
Not worse now. But the probability of the virus mutating goes up with the size
of the population it has to play around in. We all have a vested interest in
making sure that doesn't happen.

------
_ck_
Some key quotes in there to think about:

    
    
      RotaTeq costs a little under $4 a dose to make.
      Merck has sold a total of more than 24 million doses
      in the US, most for $69.59 a pop (a 17-fold markup)
    
      In 19th-century England, Jenner’s smallpox vaccine was
      known to be effective. But despite the Compulsory  
      Vaccination Act of 1853, many people still refused 
      to take it, and thousands died unnecessarily.
    
      All you have to do to get the measles is to inhabit 
      the airspace of a contagious person within two hours 
      of them being there.
    

There are going to be parts of this country in several years that are going to
be darn dangerous to travel to as herd-immunity will be gone for several major
diseases. I personally think the anti-vaccine people are way overboard.

~~~
rimantas
Does that take into account R&D?

~~~
dschobel
It's really frustrating that we can't get honest numbers on how much it takes
to bring a drug to market.

In the anti-pharma camp you see people quote the manufacturing price, and then
you get the pharma companies quoting their entire operating budgets.

~~~
protomyth
I used to work in clinical trials, and while I cannot comment on exact
figures, the drug companies pay a lot of money over a very long period to
release a drug. The big problem is that they only have 3 to 5 years to make
all the money back and get enough of a profit to develop more drugs. Not every
clinical trial actually works out, and the courts will be a constant problem
for every drug.

Do some research on the financial documents of the companies that do the
clinical trials.

