Comment by TangoTrotFox | Hacker News Reader

Comment by TangoTrotFox | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Not against vaccines, but I think understanding the views of things you disagree with is important. And even more so on this issue because people believe things that even more absurd, but more socially acceptable - and so these ideas persist. The issue some have with vaccines is not generally an outright denial whether or not vaccines work. It's people weight the risk:reward of vaccines differently than others largely supplemented by a large number of correlations to all sorts of nasty things with vaccines.

The reason the opposition to vaccines is not a reasonable view is because these are correlations and correlation is not the same as causation. At the same time consider the innumerable number of social views that people hold, and that continue to be published about, that are based absolutely and completely on correlations relying on the absence of evidence against causality, as evidence of causality. But of course proving a negative is impossible -- the burden of proving causality is on the one suggesting such exists. Failing to recognize this is the exact logical fallacy that drives the opposition to vaccines.

If all correlations were held to the same standard as those that reflect negatively of vaccines, the world (and science itself) would be in much better shape.

> It's people weight the risk:reward of vaccines differently than others

And they are wildly misinformed about the risks.

And they neglect to consider that the reward of them vaccinating their kid is that MY KID is less likely to get those diseases. That's how herd immunity works.

If they were only risking their own kid's life, then it'd be a very different conversation.

> largely supplemented by a large number of correlations to all sorts of nasty things with vaccines.

Except those are almost all exaggerated or outright lies.

To be clear: if I were a selfish individual, I might not get vaccinated. Vaccines have actual risks. But the actual risks are minimal and rare.

But I recognize that herd immunity works, and that the risks are minimal and rare.

There's a funny thing about society. Do you know how you create wildly misinformed idiots? By assuming people who disagree with you on topics are wildly misinformed idiots. The National Academies put up a release in 2011 surveying all available information on the correlations between vaccines and a wide array of nasty stuff. It's available here [1]. It gives an extremely in depth overview of the evidence of the time, which has not radically changed since then. It's a 900 page report, but it's well organized. And you'll find that indeed there are quite a huge number of very real and very nasty correlations between vaccines and all sorts of things. By making the false statement (presumably based on the view that everybody who abides anti-vaccine views must be a wildly misinformed idiot) that 'almost all studies show correlations between nasty things and vaccines are exaggerated or outright lies', you do something really bad. You implicitly suggest that if the correlations were not 'exagerrated or outright lies', they would be meaningful. They are not.

Correlation does not equal causation.

There's an extremely strong correlation between US spending on science, space, and technology and suicides by hanging, strangulation, and suffocation. The correlation is a 99.8% fit. But this means absolutely nothing whatsoever. There are some 30,000 various correlations available here [2]. You'll find many, such as the one I mentioned, are incredibly strong fits. But that's really the danger of data. Just because something fits, doesn't mean anything. The entire process of science is about discovering causation. Correlations mean nothing without clear causation. Even correlations that make sense mean nothing without causation. For instance, I'm sure you'd agree that US spending on science has pretty much nothing to do with suicides by hanging. So it's easy to see it's spurious. What if instead that correlation was e.g. an increase in enrollment in STEM degrees being pursued? Again, you should assume this correlation is spurious until you have a very compelling reason, certainly beyond bias confirmation, to do otherwise.

[1] - http://www.nationalacademies.org/hmd/Reports/2011/Adverse-Ef...

[2] - http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations

You're absolutely right. Thank you.

Herd immunity is a desirable outcome, but not a right. IF you want someone else to get a vaccine for your sake, you should compensate them for their risk and inconvenience.

That'd work, if not for selfish bargaining.

As soon as people realize they can blackmail me for my daughter's health, what wouldn't I pay?

I propose we as a society set a fair price, instead:

I vaccinate myself and my kids, and you vaccinate yourself and your kids.

If you want a vaccine with lower risk and inconvenience, you are entitled to ask the government to spend more on research, or you can donate your time and money to that research.

> As soon as people realize they can blackmail me for my daughter's health, what wouldn't I pay?

Because you don't need everyone vaccinated, you need most. Most already do it for their own interest. Bear in mind that this is what the state usually does by giving out free vaccines: they are effectively paying people that wouldnt pay for them. But some feel strongly against it.

> I propose we as a society set a fair price, instead.

There is no fair, certainly not in economics. There is only consented prices. You can propose whatever you want, but in the end you need to persuade those that have different ideas than you, or force them to do it. Forcefully vaccinating people is against the practice and principles of medicine, and against common decency, if not morality.

> Because you don't need everyone vaccinated, you need most

Have you researched different vaccines to find out how their effectiveness falls with the percent of the population that is not vaccinated?

Genuinely curious if you have.

I suspect you have not.

> Forcefully vaccinating people is against the practice and principles of medicine, and against common decency, if not morality.

You're right. People who refuse to get vaccinated should have to get insurance to pay for the damages of the illness and death they cause, right? Or place the money in escrow?

And if that insurance is prohibitively expensive, and someone won't pay it, then we can just send them to prison, right?

If you cause me harm through your behavior, that's against common decency, too, right? If not morality?

And if it's hard to determine who caused me harm directly, then the "pollution" is an externality, right? Tragedy of the commons?

You're literally polluting the environment with a virus.

Of all of the topics Libertarians have an interesting position on, I am by far least impressed with their efforts to describe how they think we should protect the environment. Shedding viruses everywhere you go falls pretty well into that discussion, don't you think?

Also I'm quite sure that medicine allows for quarantine, against your will.

> Have you researched different vaccines to find out how their effectiveness falls with the percent of the population that is not vaccinated?

I am very well aware of the basic concepts of epidemiology, why launch this gratuitous disqualification attack?

> You're right. People who refuse to get vaccinated should have to get insurance to pay for the damages of the illness and death they cause, right? > And if that insurance is prohibitively expensive, and someone won't pay it, then we can just send them to prison, right?

You make the ultimate escrow with your own body, since you risk infection as well. But now you mention again the application of force. I ask you, are you willing to go into peoples homes and forcefully inject them with vaccines? Because then I can use your same argument to you: you propose using force but you are demanding others to apply it. How about each time you propose to impose your view on other people you are also responsible to physically do it. You know, put your skin in the game.

Regarding your environment argument, I reiterate that herd immunity is a benefit, not having it is not a cost. Its too onerous a requirement to demand of people to do things to help someone else at their own expense. There would be no limit. You could ask for anything and always find a way to justify taking it.

You asserted, "you need most".

That says you know what percentage of the people I am in contact with need to be vaccinated for some level of what you think I would consider to be "acceptable risk."

So, do you know what that percentage would be, for various vaccines?

And how did you define what my acceptable risk would be?

Because I think you must have an opinion on both of those things, if you're willing to advise me that "I need most."

Since you're favoring an economic slant to this discussion, how, exactly, did you decide what I need?

> You make the ultimate escrow with your own body, since you risk infection as well.

People can be carriers of diseases, and not become ill from them. This nullifies your argument.

Also, that line of argument can be used as a defense of drunk driving.

Drunk driving is not victim-less, even if your own body is risked, as well.

That's insufficient escrow even for automobile insurance.

> But now you mention again the application of force.

Yes, I think people can enact a government. A government has an enforced monopoly on force, and hopefully has established a system of laws that give the people the opportunity to change those laws over time.

And frankly, we voted. We use force against ourselves. We're okay with that.

Feel free to vote that we shouldn't be okay with that. Also, feel free to move and renounce your citizenship.

Those legal options are available to you.

You can also attempt to resist the laws of your country, peacefully or otherwise. I wouldn't recommend it.

> I ask you, are you willing to go into peoples homes and forcefully inject them with vaccines?

If you want to discuss actual policy, I agree it's complicated.

1) Medical wavers. Some people cannot get vaccinated, for many different reasons.

2) If you want to live in a bubble with no human contact, and you can demonstrate that, then maybe that's fine.

3) If you want to form a colony of leapers, who have no contact with the rest of us, then maybe that's fine, too.

> How about each time you propose to impose your view on other people you are also responsible to physically do it. You know, put your skin in the game.

Fine by me.

Counter-proposal, each time you increase the statistical chances of someone else suffering through an externality such as a pollutant, or increasing the risk of disease, how about you put your skin in the game:

Watch them die.

Here, this child recovered. It shouldn't be too emotionally difficult for you to imagine my daughter dying like this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3oZrMGDMMw

(The beeping sound is her oxygen level falling to dangerous levels, on the verge of causing brain damage.)

Watch her mother sit there, completely helpless. Imagine that's me and my wife, watching our daughter die.

> Regarding your environment argument, I reiterate that herd immunity is a benefit, not having it is not a cost.

Oxygen is a benefit. Not having it is not a cost.

Have I somehow used a slippery slope argument? Or is your line of argument fundamentally flawed? Genuinely curious what you think.

> Its too onerous a requirement to demand of people to do things to help someone else at their own expense. There is no limit.

Ah, there, you ARE engaging in a slippery slope argument!

It's NOT too onerous, actually. We have government to debate issues exactly like this. We compromise. There are limits, they're enforced by making changes to the law slowly, and by people voting.

> You can ask for anything and always find a way to justify it.

You can deny anything, and always find a way to justify it.

Together we vote. Hopefully we find a compromise.

In this case, our current compromise is that you're not forced to vaccinate yourself or your children. But your children may lose access to public schools. And you may be forced to continue paying taxes in to public schools. And there may be jobs you are disqualified from holding.

Feel free to advocate for changes to that.

Personally, I'm realizing I should be trying to get my employer to demand all of the employees be reasonably vaccinated, via their employment contracts. Flu, MMR, etc.

> That says you know what percentage of the people I am in contact with need to be vaccinated for some level of what you think I would consider to be "acceptable risk." So, do you know what that percentage would be, for various vaccines? And how did you define what my acceptable risk would be? Because I think you must have an opinion on both of those things, if you're willing to advise me that "I need most." Since you're favoring an economic slant to this discussion, how, exactly, did you decide what I need?

You need most to get herd immunity. It varies on the disease, but you dont need unanimity to get it. Herd immunity was the prize you mentioned that justified using forceful mechanisms, where I answered you dont need it. What you individually want most is your judgement, I'm just telling you that you dont need everyone to agree with you to get herd immunity effects.

> People can be carriers of diseases, and not become ill from them. This nullifies your argument. Also, that line of argument can be used as a defense of drunk driving. Drunk driving is not victim-less, even if your own body is risked, as well. That's insufficient escrow even for automobile insurance.

In drunk driving, you are harming someone. In not vaccinating, you are not protecting someone. The comparable analogy would be that as long as you have space in your house, you should be forced to home the homeless. Since you, by taking space, are directly harming them with your negligence and self-interest, which then also have cumulative effects on society.

> Yes, I think people can enact a government. A government has an enforced monopoly on force, and hopefully has established a system of laws that give the people the opportunity to change those laws over time. And frankly, we voted. We use force against ourselves. We're okay with that. Feel free to vote that we shouldn't be okay with that. Also, feel free to move and renounce your citizenship. Those legal options are available to you. You can also attempt to resist the laws of your country, peacefully or otherwise. I wouldn't recommend it.

It is illegal to force vaccinations in the U.S. If you live in the use, you should move to a country that enforces your vaccination ideals.

> (of physically forcing people) Fine by me.

When you do it successfully, please send me proof and Ill gladly share your story with the world. I'd like to see you try doing this. Until then, talk is talk.

> Oxygen is a benefit. Not having it is not a cost.

Oxygen is nature, herd immunity is a societal benefit. Humans dont own oxygen, but they do, in a way, own the capacity to build herd immunity. This kind of logic is trying to reverse the burden of proof: that whatever you dont have is yours because it could be. Herd immunity is not a right, its not a natural right, not a legal right, etc. It's merely an effect of vaccines.

> We have government to debate issues exactly like this.

Governments have decided against forceful vaccination. Albeit some arguments about kids, babies and dogs, but to adults its generally in most cases, illegal to force it.

Also, I find the line of argumentation about government kind of off-the-mark. Government is not supposed to be the way you force other people to do your will. That is a tyranny. If 51% vote to enslave the other 49%, a disservice to mankind was made. Thats why the modern governments are democracies with severe limitations on individual rights.

> Personally, I'm realizing I should be trying to get my employer to demand all of the employees be reasonably vaccinated, via their employment contracts

I hope your employer has the right to do that. He might not have it, due to some other person believing the opposite to your point, and willing to break into the employers home and physicially forcing them to do it.

> I'm just telling you that you dont need everyone to agree with you to get herd immunity effects.

Agreed.

And you've suggested I track down and pay some of the people I come in contact with, who have not vaccinated, to convince them to vaccinate, if I think the percentage of them is too high?

> In drunk driving, you are harming someone. In not vaccinating, you are not protecting someone.

Walking around, spreading a disease, is analogous to getting in a car's driver seat when you're drunk. If you want to avoid driving drunk, don't get drunk, or don't drive.

If you want to avoid spreading a disease, get a vaccine.

Also, drunk driving is NOT harming someone. It has increased the risk you will harm someone, to a level our government has deemed unacceptable.

The analogy seems very appropriate.

Do you want me to go around finding people with a certain blood alcohol level, and pay them to not drive?

Our laws bar drunks from driving. That can actually be a life-or-death situation for them, or cause severe financial harm. "I need to get where I'm going for my job, and I don't have any money, but I'm inebriated."

We use force against people who are drunk, because they increase the risk of harm. We detain them in jails, we put them in prisons, we rescind their privilege to drive.

That's a lot of force being used against someone who didn't even cause any harm!

> When you do it successfully, please send me proof and Ill gladly share your story with the world. I'd like to see you try doing this. Until then, talk is talk.

If it's the law, and they need people to help enforce it, I may do my service. As my father was a veteran, my uncle is a veteran, my grandfather was a veteran, etc, serving your country and doing things that are not universally beloved is something my family has done.

> It's merely an effect of vaccines.

...and arguably the most important thing humanity has done. It's a shame to watch people abandon it pointlessly, endangering those around them.

> Albeit some arguments about kids, babies and dogs, but to adults its generally in most cases, illegal to force it.

We're not debating whether is IS legal, we're discussing whether it should be. It's not like I'm unaware of the law.

You seem to question the basis of a government using force. Governments do use force, that's all I'm saying.

> Government is not supposed to be the way you force other people to do your will.

It's how we compromise to live together. Intelligent creatures change their environment to suit them. We will all attempt to force other people to do our will.

I think governments should enforce Intellectual Property rights. That means the government will use force to take property away from you, if it is found to be infringing someone else's government-granted monopoly.

That is me using the government to force other people to do my will.

> That is a tyranny.

Tyranny is when you don't have a vote, don't have representation, can't speak your view, and can't move.

It's entirely possible for you to lose faith in the government. Any government. And then you could reasonably see the laws of that government as tyranny. There's nothing illogical about that. But literally anyone can declare that at any time.

> If 51% vote to enslave the other 49%, a disservice to mankind was made.

Which is why it's great that our government protects us from exactly that kind of vote. We can debate whether it protects us well enough.

NB: Our Constitution permitted slavery. It took a bloody Civil War to change that. People fought the righteous fight to end slavery. To a degree, we have to count on our government and our fellow man to protect us from being enslaved.

> Thats why the modern governments are democracies with severe limitations on individual rights.

I'm not sure where you're going with this. I presume you think that's a bad thing.

> willing to break into the employers home

Why would you go there?

Don't you believe in Free Association?

If my employer wants to limit employment only to people who have been vaccinated, are you going to argue they don't have that freedom?

Regardless, I'm betting you use vaccines, and you just enjoy moral / legal debates. That's fine.

Or are you really personally against using vaccines?

> You seem to question the basis of a government using force. Governments do use force, that's all I'm saying.

Im questioning the value of a solution with the application of force. A dangerous tool, that requires all sorts of limitations to make sure it is not used abusively. And injecting things into people against their will is pretty high up there.

It is not the intention of the act alone that decides if its moral or not: the act itself is. I think we have had enough experiences to know that if the government decided what to do with your own body, great tragedies follow. If you can force people onto their bodies, can you forbid them to each unhealthy foods? can you ban drugs and alcohol? Can you decide on forcefully aborting, or forbidding abortion? How people are dressed? Its not the act of using a hammer on a nail that is in question: its the hammer itself, and the act of nails voting who gets hit next.

Why would government enacted violence be any more dignified than individual violence? What change does it make to the morality of a violent act if it was voted on?

> Im questioning the value of a solution with the application of force.

Governments use force. By definition. That means you question the value of governments.

I don't. The alternative is warlords, who also use force.

The benefit of a Government, specifically of a mostly democratic one, is I have some say in when and how that force gets used, without myself having to be a warlord.

> A dangerous tool, that requires all sorts of limitations to make sure it is not used abusively.

Absolutely. A Constitution enacting checks and balances, and guaranteeing free speech and a free press, are the best ways I know to limit that power.

> And injecting things into people against their will is pretty high up there.

Sure?

Allowing nuclear testing where it can impact people is also bad. (We did that.)

Allowing the for-profit sale of known carcinogens is also bad. (We do that. See: asbestos, tobacco.)

We've also committed absolute atrocities. [1]

Clearly we need more checks and balances, and a more powerful press.

> It is not the intention of the act alone that decides if its moral or not: the act itself is.

Is the act of murder moral?

I'm pretty sure you would say, "no."

What about when the US sees Germany invading neighboring countries, and killing Jews and gypsies? Is it moral for the US to start murdering German soldiers, in open war?

I'm pretty sure you have to concede, "yes."

Therefore, it is not the act alone. The intention also plays a part.

> I think we have had enough experiences to know that if the government decided what to do with your own body, great tragedies follow.

I'm pretty sure great tragedies will happen regardless, and unfortunately, governments have to make decisions. King Solomon's wisdom over deciding to cut a baby in half comes to mind.

> can you ban drugs and alcohol

I think a far better parallel track of conversation is antibiotics.

If you don't follow the prescribed course of antibiotics, you can breed drug-resistant bacteria. That's a very good argument in favor of limiting access to antibiotics, to people who have consulted with a doctor.

There are countries (India) where antibiotics are much more freely available, and people don't use them properly. They take them for a few days, until they feel better. Breeding dangerous strains.

The argument can be made that governments should stop you from improperly using antibiotics, because it increases the risk to all of us.

> Can you decide on forcefully aborting, or forbidding abortion?

We do decide that. We have to make decisions about how our laws work.

> How people are dressed?

We decide that, too, yes.

> Its not the act of using a hammer on a nail that is in question: its the hammer itself, and the act of nails voting who gets hit next.

Hitler 2.0 comes up. Should we murder his soldiers?

I vote yes. How vote you?

> Why would government enacted violence be any more dignified than individual violence?

"Dignified" is an interesting word choice.

"having or showing a composed or serious manner that is worthy of respect."

The simple answer is that the government composed a law in a respectful manner, and hopefully the officers of the government carried out the law in a respectful manner.

When they don't, we're supposed to hold them to account.

> What change does it make to the morality of a violent act if it was voted on?

Catholics say a phrase, "in what I have done, and in what I have failed to do."

It can be immoral to NOT act.

It would be immoral to not intervene in WW3 with Hitler 2.0.

The way we decide if it's time to intervene is that we vote on how our representative government is run.

[1] : http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/cover_story...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com