We lived near a large religious community in Ohio that does not practice vaccination while my children were too small to be fully vaccinated. Whenever measles or other outbreaks would occur, we had legitimate fears for our children's health.
I wonder if the benefits of non-compliance were offset with more certain negative impacts if more people would be vaccinated. Something like a tax levied for not being vaccinated set at compensating the ongoing care for people who can't (rather than choose to not) be vaccinated and get sick with things herd immunity would prevent.
Getting an immunization doesn't guarantee immunity. There is a fundamental trade-off at play: make the immunization shot too strong and more people get harmed; make it too weak and fewer people actually get immunity.
The funny thing about the anti-vax crowd is they have opted to turn the dial to the maximum, and most dangerous, setting: use a full strength virus in order to gain future immunity.
Yet the anti-vaxers are still out in force, against any move by the government requiring vaxination.
People with children too young to be vacinated are running scared.
its odd. I really wonder sometimes what is driving the anti vax movement. It seems like something that exists with nothing for anyone to gain. I'm all for questioning things, but it seems people aren't able to make the rational decisions and are endangering others.
Likely answer: The Russian government. It is yet another way to weaken their perceived rivals/adversaries by taking positions taken by fringe groups of insane people and amplifying their message thousandfold in order to sow social division.
At first it seems like a crazy issue to sow discord about, and one with serious health consequences.
But it worked, and the anti-vax movement which was probably pretty small and fringe now gets amplified.
I wonder if its was just a test for other dis information campaigns.
I think the promise of social media was you could get information from networks you trusted, but it seems it doesn’t work like that. The amplification by anonymous sources seems to work.
Thanks for the articles
What a lot of people seem to be missing is that the anti-vaxxers are actually pro-science. They are sacrificing to reproduce a result that the rest of us consider settled. The quicker they're able to draw a conclusion from their experiment, the better.
I suspect you didn't mean that, but I think we need to take this more seriously, again, per the grandparent, given the broader public health risk that this movement plays, particularly outside its adherents.
* Kids are getting sick in my state, from the measles, because parents refuse to vaccine kids that are perfectly capable of receiving the vaccination.
* Kids, across the country, in and near anti-vax communities, are contracting whooping cough. ITS A FACT. SORRY.
* Whooping cough is "violent". Maybe one of you can show me a video of a child with whooping chough that you wouldn't call "violent". How about one that you don't call "horrificly violent", even?
* That I could be misreading, though the parent commenter has indeed confirmed that my comment is an accurate read.
So? We just don't like having it pointed out, or what?
Also, big shoutout to HN for "rate-limiting" me from being able to reply to the undoubtedly good-faith commenter who is openly suggesting we let the children of anti-vaxxers just die; the one commenting in a subthread about herd immunity who clearly has no idea what herd immunity is. My comment remains positive, and there are no rule violation.
I engaged in good faith (I certainly didn't think they were going to openly call for the deaths of anti-vax kids or act like it was a serious position to hold).
But hey, it's HN, so I should know that being offended at implicitly violent attitudes or calling out people's bullshit here would automatically land me in trouble.
I've got to wonder if the sensationalist panic of our times isn't simply due to people not being able to accept mild sarcasm in written form. Humor is a coping mechanism - read some horrible less-mediated truth, shake your head, sigh, and build some consensus based around calming rather than outrage.
What I am plainly sure of is that getting more and more worked up ("take this more seriously") about the actions of people I can't control isn't going to solve the problem either.
Children get harmed with no recourse, while the adults responsible go free.
The CDC putting out notices isn't going to help. That just feeds into the rejection of authority at the heart of it. The only hope is to out-crazy them.
Yes, we'll recruit from the Flat Earth Society, Moon Landing Deniers, Church of Scientology, Climate Change deniers, the Pizza Gaters, the 9/11 Truthers, Fluoridation haters, Shooting Victims are Child Actors group, Chemtrail worriers, Black Helicopter spotters, Blame George Soros fans, Illuminati Be Playin' 4D Chess Club, and every f'ing halfwit in a tinfoil hat.
You’ll never crack the religious people as communities that push this crap isolate people.
Consider for instance practitioners of "psychic surgery." All practitioners of 'psychic surgery' know they are frauds because 'psychic surgery' is sleight of hand. With something like acupuncture or homeopathy, it's certainly plausible that some practitioners believe they are doing something real, but with 'psychic surgery' that form of self-delusion simply isn't a possibility. This demonstrates the existence of frauds who know they're frauds. There's no reason to believe similar personalities aren't operating in any other form of 'alternative medicine'.
Don't waste your time with nuts who've made careers out of being nuts.
Or just outlaw all exemptions except medically necessary and block unimmunized children from attending school.
Or use the scientific method to determine what methods of persuasion have the highest success rates for promoting behavioural changes, such as motivational interviewing?
Or require parents to consult with local public health departments to obtain a waiver, which has significantly reduced vaccine exemptions in some cases?
You have to have a genuine and open dialogue with them in the form of a socratic discussion. See examples of street epistemology to get them to lessen their confidence. The first step to lessening their confidence is to get them to recognize and understand that the methods they are using to recognize true things is unreliable. Often you can't get them to flip positions on it over one discussion, so you have to have multiple discussions taking their ideas seriously and being respectful with them before they can come around.
By presenting evidence, they'll be unconvinced and it will probably trigger the backfire effect and drive them deeper into their dogma. So I agree with what you're saying, street epistemology is like a form of motivational interviewing.
IIRC some places have tried to tie getting required vaccines to public school enrollment, but that is problematic because solu5ion is at state level and not national.
I'll bet that once there's a $50/year bill to remain unvaccinated, 95% of the problem will clear right up. For the remainder, great we've got the extra money to take care of it.
Funny thing on the side:
Since a vaccination is rarely 100% effective but most people in the western world are vaccinated, more vaccinated people get sick than not vaccinated people. :-)
It's possible to get through to these people if you're willing to argue in terms they understand, which means dropping "scientific framework". You might be unwilling to do that, but if you can stomach it, it works. Constructing persuasive irrational arguments for positions that are correct takes some practice, but it's not exactly difficult.
"It's possible to get through to these people if you're willing to argue in terms they understand"
No, because they would lose their feeling of superiority. On what kind of basis do you want to discuss with them? If you present a fact they will just say: "We don't believe this!"
If you present scientific evidence they will say: "We don't accept this! This is not proof! We want proof".
"Proof" is something that is not not inherent in the scientific method, requiring it shows a total lack of understanding of science.
Perhaps you've never gotten the hang of it, but it's possible to persuade people in ways that lead them to believe your idea was theirs. Learning this skill will improve your life, because most people you will encounter on your journey through life are not Spock impersonators.
Seems a bit over-dramatic. "Thank God" for the good luck would make more sense if he wants to say something along these lines; it's not like he defied astronomical odds. Millions of people in poor countries are still surviving without vaccination. Living in Ohio, he also benefits from sanitation and the majority of the community being vaccinated. That last bit is part of the problem -- people see "nobody" is sick anymore and think vaccines aren't needed.
Does anyone know if this is true? It resonated with me because when we were vaccinating our baby, we asked if we could slow down the vaccination schedule and spread out the shots a little. The doctor was very strongly against any spacing, even though she couldn’t articulate why. If she’s being measured/compensated based on having patients vaccinated on-schedule as my friend claims is the case, this would explain her reaction.
Note: we fully vaccinated our child, despite her having an adverse reaction to the chicken pox vaccine (which we never had as kids, since at that time everyone just got the chicken pox).
As far as payers are concerned, your insurance may incentivize certain physicians based on overall (covered) patient immunization rates; this isn’t anything new, going back at least a few decades. From the insurance perspective, immunizations are a financial firewall — vaccinated kids means fewer seriously ill (read: expensive) kids. However, there’s no evidence that financial incentives materially change vaccination rates, just the quality of documentation (less of an issue with EMRs these days).
Insurance companies would in effect be saying with their wallet that vaccinations are safe and effective. Effective enough that paying doctors ten's of thousands is cheaper than paying for the increased costs of care resulting from a significant number of patients not being vaccinated. Since insurance companies would also bear a significant part of the cost of care for patients that were negatively affected by vaccines, this also implies that the rate of and impact of negative effects from vaccination are low.
Google provides this explanation about a Blue Cross incentive program similar to what you describe that sounds modest, benign, and completely justified: https://vaxopedia.org/2017/09/24/that-3-million-vaccine-bonu...
My insurance program gives incentives for people to achieve a healthy weight, quit smoking, and get regular checkups.
I understand the financial incentives, but presumably a couple people in the firm think they might be helping people too.
Even insurers can't be sinister all the time.
Insurance companies may indeed pay more or less for 'well designed' vaccinations programs, and may incentivize vaccination in general in some locales as a long-term cost reduction program .
There is nothing inherently bad about these incentive models (they are trying to address a number of issues with the current fee-for-service model). If anything, they are proof of the efficacy of these actions. The "evil" insurance company's primary goal is spending less money on care, so if they're willing to pay doctors to vaccinate at the recommended rate, then clearly it's in their financial interest to do so (i.e. vaccinated patients cost the insurance company less money, which is a pretty good proxy for "vaccinated patients have fewer health issues").
Can you articulate why you would want to "slow down" the vaccination schedule? The current guidelines are based on a significant body of research. What evidence are you basing your decision on?
You aren't wrong to question, because most professionals seem to just apply a rubric deductively rather than spending thought analyzing every situation. But if you would seriously like to understand / check her advice, then you need to do research on this specific subject and come up with your own informed opinion. Likely there is some debate in the medical community on timing, and the doctor either made that decision and doesn't seem the need to revisit it or is simply following a colleague.
What you can't do is take her lack of explanation as if she's hiding something, and then backpropagate and conclude that she must be doing it for nefarious reasons. That is essentially equating laziness with malice.
Note that I didn't do that. I asked a question, which is whether anyone has information on whether such payments are made.
Any financial incentives that exist are because insurance companies are incentivised to have everyone vaccinated for very obvious reasons.
If you don't understand what the obvious reasons are, think about how much it costs to take care of someone hospitalized, versus the cost of a shot.
If you get chicken pox, your chances of getting shingles later in life is much higher. It is not pleasant. Also, chicken pox can be deadly. That's why we have a vaccine now.
All they have to do is throw handwavey bullshit out there until enough people doubt and do stupid made-up stuff like spacing out the vaccines for some unknown, unmeasurable benefit.
There are people in my state, in the "best country on Earth", dying from preventable diseases because of OTHER PEOPLES' pseudo-scientific crap and "beliefs". I just can't take it. When are we going to drop what we're doing and pour the billions we need into public education? - funding, reform, curriculum, emphasis on personal finance and logical reasoning skills. Pick a topic - climate change, flat earth, vaccines/autism, all of this irrationality starts with education.
Also, insurance companies go out of their way to incentivize and encourage proactive health measures, especially for younger groups; given all credible scientific research and data, and barring some other weird conspiracy, it seems reasonable to think they're encouraging vaccines because they keep people from getting preventable diseases and suffering miserable deaths.
Anecdotal, but most of the anti-vaxxers I know are relatively highly educated.
I also frequently give blood in Australia and there are also more and more warnings about measles and stuff (interestingly regarding neighbourhoods that tend to vote very progressive).
Anecdotal evidence, however!