
Measles Cases Top Last Year’s Total - JumpCrisscross
https://www.wsj.com/articles/measles-cases-top-last-years-total-11554152226
======
mirimir
Opposition to compulsory vaccination is just one manifestation of mistrusting
the US government. Some say that the Soviets/Russians have engaged in
propaganda and social engineering. There's some evidence for that, but it's
hard to say how much it contributed.

But there's also the record of government deception. Lying about the health
impacts of atmospheric nuclear weapons testing. And the nuclear power
industry. The suspicious death of Karen Silkwood. Colluding with industry to
cover up health impacts of air and groundwater pollution. Suppression of the
EPA dioxin report during the Reagan era. Lying about health effects of Agent
Orange on US troops and innocent Vietnamese civilians. And so on.

So is it really surprising that many people don't trust the government?

Edit: It's unlikely that thiomersal (organic mercury compound) caused autism.
And it's worth noting that thiomersal levels in vaccines have generally been
reduced in the last decade or two.

~~~
fzeroracer
The issue was never about trusting the government though, that's the problem.
People who believe in anti-vaxx theories for example I bet would be more than
happy to trust any number of government agencies that align with their
beliefs. It's not that they don't trust the government, it's that they have an
irrational breakdown of logical examination.

For example, it's not a conspiracy at all to say that the government tracks
people. It would be a conspiracy to say that you, yourself are being gang
stalked without a rational basis for why the government would take immense
interest in someone that's done absolutely nothing to potentially earn their
ire.

In that sense, the anti-vaxx movement is rooted in a belief mindset much like
gang stalking rather than any sort of rational empirical observations. The
government had zero interest in using vaccines as a way of ensuring
conformity, much less using it to target or poison individuals. It's the same
cognitive dissonance that occurs when say, the NRA says that guns are for the
sake of stopping tyranny while also supporting the police which function as
the long arm of the government.

~~~
mirimir
The government does have an interest in promoting widespread vaccination, to
reduce the risk of epidemics. They also have an interest in protecting vaccine
manufacturers from lawsuits. That's why we have the National Vaccine Injury
Compensation Program.

So given all that, it's not entirely unreasonable to worry that the government
is lying. That it's publishing deceptive studies. Because they have before,
about other issues.

~~~
fzeroracer
I think it's unreasonable to assume the government is lying about vaccines
because you would have to establish a rational reason for the government to do
so.

Now the anti-vaxxer might say 'they are lying about vaccines not causing
Autism' in which case that would be an irrational reason for lying. It would
have to imply that governments around the world are solidly collaborating on
the dangers of vaccines. This would not hold up to any scrutiny and is why
anti-vaxx beliefs would be solidly irrational.

~~~
mirimir
I thought that I was being clear enough. But ...

Why did the government lie about the health impacts of fallout from above-
ground nuclear weapons testing? It's because they felt that above-ground tests
were necessary for weapons' development. Also because they cost less.

Why would the government lie about the risk of vaccine injury? Because they
want people to vaccinate themselves and their children. To protect the public
health.

As a wild-ass guess, the public-health benefits of universal vaccination are
likely great enough that appreciable injury risk is acceptable. But
individuals don't really see evidence for public-health benefits. All they
ever see are their kids being injured. So it's in the government's interest to
reassure people.

But what dominates social media are reports of injuries.

~~~
fzeroracer
You're falsely equating two scenarios and saying that since the government
lied in one heinous act, that means the government is lying about something
entirely different as well.

Your point about the government lying about vaccines for the sake of public
health is almost irrelevant, because that standard is applicable to everything
the government does. Are our roads actually paved using the bones of children?
No one knows, but the government would have a vested interest in lying about
it because roads are important for American society.

You could use that logic to question everything and anything, but it doesn't
say whether or not your base proposition is actually logically sound.

It doesn't help that the anti-vaxxer movement is a global one, not just an
American one. Which means you would again have to consider somehow there's a
global conspiracy surrounding vaccines in order to downplay the injuries they
do to people.

Now is this to say vaccines don't have potentially harmful side effects? Well
no, anyone that has read the research recognizes this fact. Including myself,
considering I had an adverse reaction to vaccines as a child that was almost
deadly. However the anti-vaxxer movement is not nor had it ever been about
discussing the rational and factual effects of vaccines both positive and
negative, it's been about perpetuating bunk science or conspiracies for the
sake of an illogical set of beliefs.

~~~
mirimir
I do agree with you about risk vs benefit for vaccines. It's totally obvious
that widespread vaccination has vastly improved human health. No question
about it.

However, as you say, there are occasional adverse reactions to vaccination.
And how that's perceived is very different for individuals vs public-health
systems. Public-health systems focus on reductions in epidemic risk. And they
address adverse reactions by compensating those affected.

But individuals see only the adverse reactions. In themselves or their kids,
if they're unlucky. Or in news from family and friends, or in news reports.
Statistics about effects of mass vaccination on public health are just too
abstract.

And on top of all that, as I've argued, governments have often lied. And do
lie. For many reasons. The EPA is lying on a huge scale, now, in rolling back
various protective rules.

------
RcouF1uZ4gsC
I am wondering more and more, if Facebook and Twitter were to disappear
tomorrow, would that be a net negative or a net positive for society?

Before, I would have said net negative, but in the last couple of years, I am
not so sure.

~~~
shereadsthenews
Not sure how eradicating Twitter is going to keep Jenny McCarthy off Oprah,
Dr. Phil, and Larry King. Idiots had way bigger megaphones long before
Twitter.

~~~
creato
Oprah is likely ground zero for the entire mommy knows best movement, which
contains a hell of a lot of pseudo-intellectual bullshit beyond just anti-
vaccine stuff.

------
bjt2n3904
I don't seem to remember there ever being a resistance to vaccinations growing
up, beyond me being six and hating the doctors office. It makes me wonder how
this started.

I've yet to actually meet someone who is against vaccines. (Or thinks the
earth is flat, for that matter.) But judging by the posts on Facebook,
Twitter, Reddit, et al, it makes it seem like every other person on the street
is believing this stuff.

People naturally want to combat bad ideas with facts and such, and outrage
culture loves having a scarecrow to pillory. Anti-vax and Flat Earthers are
natural targets, but I can't help but wonder if all the soapboxing is just
spreading their message far and wide--when without attention, it simply would
have died out.

~~~
save_ferris
One of the more common explanations I see online about the adoption of antivax
ideas is that its a way for people who can't afford healthcare to justify why
they don't need it.

As healthcare becomes more and more of a financial liability for Americans,
people look for alternatives, and antivax has a large, established community
that has already conjured up answers to most of the basic objections to the
idea.

~~~
b_tterc_p
Most antivaxers are relatively wealthy, and believe that the “improbable”
likelihood of measles can be dealt with via their wealth while the idea of
getting autism is incurable.

Many vaccines are available for free even without insurance. If there is a
wave of poor people now tagging along it’s because they’re falling to fear
campaigns led by the original movement.

------
yingw787
It will be interesting to see whether limits on our collective intelligence
relative to our collective health will be our Great Filter:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Filter](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Filter)

~~~
colordrops
I'm firmly pro-vaccine and also find the anti-vaxxers problematic but hysteria
like this is overboard. We are not facing the end of humanity over this,
sorry.

~~~
yingw787
I was thinking less end of humanity and more a general expansion/growth
threshold.

~~~
rootusrootus
If we start seeing actually large outbreaks (much bigger than just breaking
through the very low numbers we've grown accustomed to in recent years) I
think we would suddenly find everyone on board with vaccinations. Being anti-
vax is a luxury position that wouldn't last in a time of need.

~~~
yingw787
Hopefully, but I'm not sure I share your confidence. These are irrational
actors, and irrationality is difficult to model. It's also difficult to reason
your way out of a position you did not reason into. There's definitely
numerous documented cases where children are very much suffering and the
parents will not give them emergency treatment. I'd go so far as to say in
that irrational world, not vaccinating your kids may be a necessity and not a
luxury.

I very much hope I am wrong, but I don't think these parents will change their
position regardless of the facts, and the only short-term solution may be
external intervention. Again, I will be very glad if proven incorrect.

------
patrickxb
If someone doesn't want to vaccinate their kids they are risking the lives of
many other people in their community with this choice, not just the kids they
decide not to vaccinate.

The problem is that infants can't be vaccinated for things like measles until
they are 6 months old.

So people who aren't vaccinating their kids and have their kids running around
spreading the measles virus in public places are risking the lives of any
infants under 6 months of age who haven't even had a chance to be vaccinated.

~~~
Xylakant
> The problem is that infants can't be vaccinated for things like measles
> until they are 6 months old.

It’s not limited to infants btw. People with immune deficiencies can’t be
vaccinated either and for some people the vaccine doesn’t work. They’re all
protected by herd immunity and if the vaccination rate falls below the
critical threshold they’re all at risk.

------
yehosef
I'm curious if anyone here done any data analysis on the VAERS dataset from
[https://vaers.hhs.gov/data.html](https://vaers.hhs.gov/data.html). I did some
visualizations (ELK) and looked at some of the case descriptions. It was
interesting to see which vaccinations had what risk factors or how the number
of vaccinations given at a time affected the outcome.

"VAERS is a passive reporting system, meaning it relies on individuals to send
in reports of their experiences to CDC and FDA." It's known for not being a
completely reliable dataset in the quantity and quality of reports. The
numbers are generally assumed to be higher (worse) than presented - just not
clear by how much.

For example, MMR has a typical reaction time of around 8-15 days - many people
may have forgotten they gave a shot or if something happens, doctors are not
likely to implicate the vaccines.

I'm not arguing that people shouldn't give vaccines - but that there is a risk
(check out the data) and you should understand the risk and what factors
increase the chances of a bad outcome (which vaccines, which combinations,
which ages, etc.)

------
minikites
I think our collective lack of media and information literacy is undersold as
a threat to civilization. More people believe the Earth is flat than in the
past, vaccine efficacy and safety is in doubt, and anthropogenic climate
change is regarded as a conspiracy of the left. Putting your faith in "the
truth" winning out just because it's the truth is a losing strategy, as
demonstrated in the present and throughout history (this isn't a new
phenomenon, but the internet and social media give this problem a much greater
reach with more dire consequences).

------
ixtli
I hate to borrow a phrase from the white nationalism, being a pretty vocal
socialist, but when will enough be enough? When will people realize that
theoretical notions about "freedom" aren't, in practice, justification for
letting children die? To be clear what I'm saying is that the state has an
obligation to protect children by having them vaccinated and as such the
parents contrary desire shouldn't matter one bit.

~~~
aristophenes
The state in the United States often represents the will of most people. Some
governments represent whoever is most able to get and keep power. So if you
support the idea that "the state has an obligation to protect children by
<insert value> and as such the parents contrary desire shouldn't matter one
bit" could be replaced with the following values: \- ensure meat is a regular
part of their diet \- ensuring they are not fed meat \- teaching them about
God \- teaching them that there is no God \- raising them in military training
facilities away from immediate family \- sterilizing them

When you give power to the state, are you going to ensure that no one you
don't like will ever come into power? What if we had given the previous
president this power, how would the current one use it? Or the next one?

~~~
rootusrootus
An important difference between vaccination and your examples is that
vaccination definitely impacts more than just the person being vaccinated, it
can have life or death implications for other people. That makes involving the
state a lot more plausible.

~~~
ixtli
As technology advances the easy problems are solved. As time passes we're left
with just problems that have highly complex solutions that require collective
effort to solve. The remaining problems aren't ones that you can avoid by
opting out.

------
vkou
There is no 'solution' for these kinds of public health hazards, that is not
draconian, impinges on speech, or kills thousands of people.

We either need to quarantine people who refuse vaccinations out of society,
censor anti-vax propaganda, or sit on our hands, as thousands of people, who
were formerly protected by herd immunity fall sick and die.

Anti-vax memes are much like a virus - in the original, Dawkins, definition of
'meme'. Unfortunately, unlike measles, it is a virus that an absolutely free
society cannot inoculate itself against.

Please do your part. Get yourself, and your children vaccinated. If you aren't
sure if you got vaccinated, or if you got vaccinated only once, please talk to
your doctor, and get an MMR booster shot.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
Maybe more than MMR. I got whooping cough (pertussis) in my 40s, even though I
had been vaccinated. Turns out that's another one that needs boosters.

~~~
ghaff
I've definitely gotten boosters for all the standard stuff as an adult at
various times especially when I've been going traveling to remote Asian or
South American locations. Plus some others like typhoid and yellow fever as
required.

Whooping cough is part of the Tdap booster.

