Vaccinations Should Be Mandatory - Ben Carson

[LeafByNiggle]

The evaluation of a vaccine has to be done against the situational risks from the vaccine and the disease. If the risk of harm from the vaccine are significant it still may be wise to take the vaccine if the disease is very deadly. If the risk from the vaccine is high, but you live in a country where the disease is not very deadly, it may not be worth taking the risk.

Right. And it takes a trained epidemiologist to accurately make that decision. It cannot be made accurately by armchair observers. Also the individual does not have the exclusive right to make that decision since the outcome affects the common good.

These decisions should be left to the individual because of the many factors.

See above.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

No, I wasn’t sure what the point was. That was a very long article. What was your point you were backing up with the article?

The point was that measles is a very serious disease. This was in response to “measles is not very deadly”. This citation shows that there are many serious complications in addition to the possibility of death.

Whoa. This is exactly the kind of claim that makes me think vaccines are a complete hoax. The claim of vaccination is that introduction of a virus causes the vaccinated’s immune system to produce antibodies which make that person resistant to that disease. If that is the case then anyone who wants to not get the disease can simply take the vaccine. If it is the case that a person who doesn’t want to get the disease in some way relies on others taking the vaccine then it seems to me the theory of vaccination is wrong.

What is wrong is your understanding of epidemiology. Vaccines are not 100% effective, so if one person gets a vaccine and lives in a community where no one else is vaccinated, that one person is going to be exposed to a lot more possibilities for infection, which raises his chances of contracting the disease, even though he is vaccinated. But when a sufficient number of people are vaccinated, the overall circulation of the virus is vastly reduced, benefiting everyone. In addition there are people (like infants) who are too young to get the vaccine. The only way they can be protected is to remove them from society, or to have society be mostly vaccinated.

It is absolutely relevant when considering how much we compel people. If we can compel people to get vaccinations to protect others from a disease (because vaccines don’t work the way they say they do) then why can’t we compel all people to have those alcohol detecting ignition systems for their cars or devices that prevent them from texting while driving. Your risk of being killed by a careless driver is far greater than dying from a disease someone wasn’t vaccinated for. The relevance is in regards to the principle of compulsion.

All right, if you insist on this deflection of the debate I will follow up (but it is a side-track). The decision to implement a vaccination program or a program to require alcohol detection systems or any other measure like that is made on the basis of a cost/benefit ratio. In the case of a vaccination program, the cost for each person is the cost of one dose of a vaccine. For things like the MMR vaccine, this is cost is about $2 per dose. And the human cost is the very occasional bad reaction to the vaccine. For a alcohol detection system, the cost is several hundred dollars to have the system installed. Then there is the cost of false positives. Thousands of sober drivers will suffer the inconvenience of being locked out from driving. Then there is the potential for black market disabling of the system, which reduces its effectiveness at stopping drunk driving. There are about 10,000 deaths attributed to drunk driving every year. Before the measles vaccine, there were about 500 deaths every year due to measles. So the alcohol detection system, if 100% effective, could cost 20 times as much as a measles dose, or $40, to be just as cost effective. But as I showed, the cost is many times higher. So it is not a surprise that alcohol detection systems have not been mandated as much as measles vaccines. Now I haven’t taken everything into account for simplicity, but you get the picture. It is not a slam dunk to say that if we mandate a measles vaccine we would also mandate alcohol detection systems. Now I am done following that particular side track.

 

[exnihilo]

Right. And it takes a trained epidemiologist to accurately make that decision. It cannot be made accurately by armchair observers. Also the individual does not have the exclusive right to make that decision since the outcome affects the common good.

Why should someone else have the right to make decisions about my health? A trained epidemiologist may or may not be competent at his job. He may or may not be corrupt. He may not be short sighted. But one thing is for certain. An individual has far greater concern for their own health than some stranger.

The point was that measles is a very serious disease. This was in response to “measles is not very deadly”. This citation shows that there are many serious complications in addition to the possibility of death.

The deadliness of a disease can vary for many factors. I wonder about the accuracy of health data from countries that don’t have the medical infrastructure we have. If they can’t cure basic disease what makes us think they accurately measure them? That can even happen in the US. Is every diagnosed flu verified? I know every bacterial infection is not because they sent that African man with Ebola home with antibiotics.

What is wrong is your understanding of epidemiology. Vaccines are not 100% effective, so if one person gets a vaccine and lives in a community where no one else is vaccinated, that one person is going to be exposed to a lot more possibilities for infection, which raises his chances of contracting the disease, even though he is vaccinated. But when a sufficient number of people are vaccinated, the overall circulation of the virus is vastly reduced, benefiting everyone. In addition there are people (like infants) who are too young to get the vaccine. The only way they can be protected is to remove them from society, or to have society be mostly vaccinated.

I don’t think my understanding is wrong. Are you saying the idea behind vaccines is not that they produce an immune system response in the individual which makes them unsusceptible to a disease?

The efficacy of a vaccine is a different matter. If vaccines are not one hundred percent effective then that suggests they may not be the best way to build immunity. For instance, I believe once you have chicken pox you don’t get it again, other than shingles. But plenty of people who have had the vaccine do in fact get chicken pox. That being the case natural immunity is a better form or even possibly a perfect form for some disease.

If certain diseases have been reduced by better sanitation, isolation of the sick, and treatment then the incidence of disease would decrease. The supposed evidence for vaccines is reduced disease but as soon as vaccinated people get the disease we are told there is ‘herd immunity’. This is of course no immunity at all but just a statement of the obvious fact that the less disease people are infected with the less it is spread. But again, this same effect is achieved by technical improvements other than vaccines.

All right, if you insist on this deflection of the debate I will follow up (but it is a side-track). The decision to implement a vaccination program or a program to require alcohol detection systems or any other measure like that is made on the basis of a cost/benefit ratio.

There are all sorts of car regulations that defy what I consider good analysis of the cost compared to the benefits. I believe back up cameras are going to be required for all cars and the number of annual deaths may be only around 200. Personally I think the cameras are great. But when you have government dictating what you must do there are lots of factors and emotional impact is usually one of the greatest.

Goodness, can’t you use Google?

Heavens no. I use DuckDuckGo since they commoditize me. Also I’m skeptical of things I just come across on the internet.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Why should someone else have the right to make decisions about my health?

Because it is not only about your health. It is about the common good.

A trained epidemiologist may or may not be competent at his job. He may or may not be corrupt. He may not be short sighted. But one thing is for certain. An individual has far greater concern for their own health than some stranger.

Concern does not imply competence. And the epidemiologist is considering the health of the whole community, where you might be considering only your own personal benefit. This personal decision is likely to be influenced by the fact that others have already done their part in getting vaccinated, so you may feel you have no need to because of herd immunity. But then you would be freeloading on the sacrifice of others. You wouldn’t want to do that, would you?

The deadliness of a disease can vary for many factors. I wonder about the accuracy of health data from countries that don’t have the medical infrastructure we have.

The CDC citation was mostly about the US.

I don’t think my understanding is wrong. Are you saying the idea behind vaccines is not that they produce an immune system response in the individual which makes them unsusceptible to a disease?

No, I agree it makes them unsusceptible to a large degree.

The efficacy of a vaccine is a different matter. If vaccines are not one hundred percent effective then that suggests they may not be the best way to build immunity. For instance, I believe once you have chicken pox you don’t get it again, other than shingles. But plenty of people who have had the vaccine do in fact get chicken pox. That being the case natural immunity is a better form or even possibly a perfect form for some disease.

That is true. And getting measles is a natural protection against getting measles again (if you survive). That doesn’t mean getting measles is the **preferred **way to be protected because getting measles is much more serious than getting a measles vaccination.

If certain diseases have been reduced by better sanitation, isolation of the sick, and treatment then the incidence of disease would decrease. The supposed evidence for vaccines is reduced disease but as soon as vaccinated people get the disease we are told there is ‘herd immunity’. This is of course no immunity at all but just a statement of the obvious fact that the less disease people are infected with the less it is spread. But again, this same effect is achieved by technical improvements other than vaccines.

You are making an armchair epidemiological calculation without quantitative justification. Herd immunity is just what you say it is, and yes, it is obvious, as you say. But it is still immunity. If the effect could be achieved by improved sanitation, then you might have a point. But you have no evidence that improved sanitation alone could ever have brought measles down to today’s levels, and there is every reason to think that it could not.

There are all sorts of car regulations…

I told you I was done going there.

 

[epan]

Washington (CNN)—Republican Ben Carson said on Tuesday vaccinations should be mandatory, with no religious or philosophical exemptions, and schools should check to make sure children have received them.

cnn.com/2015/02/03/politics/measles-vaccines-ben-carson-immunization/index.html

So far, the US has been lucky. The public health experience in some European countries has been rather different. Experts in the UK are predicting that we will be seeing some large epidemics in the US, based on their own experiences with unvaccinated populations.

As a parent, I would vaccinate my children. I also believe that schools, in particular, but also scout troops, athletic organizations… any organizations which bring groups of children together to socialize, should also consider vaccination as a requirement for participation.

 

[Darryl1958]

I tend to agree that vaccinations should be mandatory. We can liken communicable diseases to air pollution, and we all have a responsibility to those with whom we share air and share space to ensure that we are not polluting the air that we share.

And as has been noted, it is a Republican candidate that is taking the strong stand for vaccinations. The anti-vaccination movement is inspired by the alternative health craze, which is if anything more of a phenomena of the left. Either way, the anti-vaccination is oblivious to science and common sense.

 

[TerrySong]

*The broader central Ohio mumps outbreak, which has not been declared over, reached 484 cases as of yesterday. The United States as a whole had 438 reported cases last year.

This is the largest mumps outbreak in Columbus in 35 years.

Mumps symptoms include swollen, painful salivary glands; fever; headache; weakness; fatigue; loss of appetite; and pain while chewing or swallowing.

Complications include inflamed testicles or ovaries and deafness.*

The above article was from The Columbus Dispatch, Sept 8,2014 relative to recent student
outbreaks of mumps at Ohio State University.
This is because parents quit vaccinating their kids, people, or the kids didn’t get the recommended
MMR booster in middle school,I believe.