Great show, it finally enticed me into creating an account here.
I think the public policy argument is similar to smoking: the negative effects can harm others, not just yourself. The problem is that you can’t permanently exclude non-vaccinated from contact, like you can stop smoking and come back into the pub.
If very few people vaccinated and disease were rampant, I guess the selfish choice would change?
(You can probably guess I am on Stuart’s side of the argument, although I would stop short of frog marching people to the vaccination centre!)
Side note: I’m fine with non-tech segments. So long as it continues to be like a well produced pub discussion, I’ll be subscribed.
To be clear here, I think vaccination should be compulsory like education and feeding your kids and not smacking them are compulsory. I’m not going to have armies of black-clad visored troops dragging children by the hair down the high street and into the Vaccines Lubyanka. If you avoid education, someone comes around and has a word with you; if you continue to do it, they talk to you sensibly about how it can be resolved; eventually the hard stuff comes in, but not, like, as the first response.
Actually I find it weird that things being pissed on should be mentioned. In the ubuntu repositories there is a package called toilet. I tried searching with zypper for this package in opensuse and it was not there. Although since elementary uses ubuntu binaries you might be able to install toilet in elementary although posting a screenshot of this on google+ on elementary would be mean.
I’m for the same enforcement methods for this that are used for parents who refuse to educate or feed their children. I’ve rarely seen that be police battering down the doors, but I imagine that in extremis it happens.
To ask the question back with the same sort of subtext: you’d allow parents to starve their children if they decide it’s a good idea and prevent the authorities from doing anything about it?
You’re right. I am incredibly partial – my bias simply doesn’t have anything to do with vaccines themselves. I’m partial to whatever I understand – at any given point – will be in the best interests of my daughter. Everything else is secondary (if that).
I have zero stake – monetary, emotional or otherwise – in the general concept of vaccinations. No… wait. That’s not really true. If anything I am pro vaccines as a concept. They are a great tool in the right circumstances. And having them be gone entirely would make me a very sad panda.
The topic is “should the government be able to mandate that you do things you don’t want to, if they think it’s best?” Vaccinations are merely an example of the topic. If your view on vaccination is wildly different from your view on any other sort of government mandated childcare, then I think it’d be worth exploring why; if your view on all other government-mandated things to do with children is the same as this, then I think stopping parents from doing wrong things to their children is exactly within the government’s remit.
To answer your later question, I would assume that I was wrong or misinformed about the vaccine being harmful, because I’m not a doctor. Sure, I’d then go and look it up, and hopefully I’d be able to find the truth out there. But I am exceptionally sceptical that people posting Facebook images about the horrors of some medical treatment are more trustworthy than NICE (or the US equivalent of NICE), and that occasionally they’ve been right in the past does not change that. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
One problem with Bryan’s decision to “question” vaccinations is that he cannot assess the relative benefits of having vaccinations versus not having them. There are two reasons for that, not mentioning the public safety problem.
The first reason is that it’s a matter of his health and that’s always a problem. For the same reason doctors don’t treat themselves, they can’t be impartial.
The second reason is that assessing the relative benefits of vaccinations is an inherently complicated mathematical endeavor that requires intimate knowledge of the field. It’s the same as reading scientific articles about something and then making conclusions just based on those articles. Scientific research and in particular conclusions aren’t done on the basis of reading papers, but on the basis of long and sometimes very complicated scientific discussions between two or more parties. You can find many cases of this in science.
Basically, he is right that not all vaccines are absolutely necessary, but I have serious doubts that he can properly assess their benefits. I do agree that public officials should be more open with their analysis as to why this and that vaccine is necessary. Sometimes, they just expect you to trust them and not question their decisions.
I will say that after decades of observing governments, I am very cynical as to the motives behind actions. Much policy in the health field, as made by government agencies, has been obviously influenced by pharmaceuticals. An example, in the US is ephedra. It was banned because a very few people had faced bad results of over dosing. But, the question is, why did they do that and not to other products that have very bad results of over dosing such as aspirin, acetaminophen, ibuprofen, etc.? The difference is that ephedra was available as an herb, whereas the other products are pharmaceuticals.
So, when it comes to making vaccinations compulsory, my immediate thoughts go to… why? Oh, the logic is inescapable. So, that viruses do not spread. But, my cynical mind can’t help to wonder, if there was little profit in them (vaccinations) for the pharmaceuticals, would there even be a discussion about the matter? Yes, I do believe that the connection between corporations and government is quite strong and has resulted in much corruption. This can be seen in the way the FDA has approved many substances with little effort and has quickly stated that ‘hey, GMO’s are just food!’ So, while I have no idea as to whether the ‘statistics’ cited of the effectiveness of vaccinations are valid, and there for have no basis for me to question them, it would not surprise me to find that they have been manipulated for the sake of profit. I say that for I have little trust in the AMA, FDA, or CDC. They have done much to cause this distrust that I have. So, basically, this idea of compulsory vaccinations brings up the phrase in my mind: “shut up slave - do as your told.”
I’m not against vaccinations at all. But, I have seen evidence that if a person focuses intently on building their health, and especially the state of their immune system, that the worry over viruses is lessened very much. One book I read, Wild Fermentation, was quite fascinating. The author contracted HIV in the late 90’s. He has not taken any of the drugs prescribed for his situation. Rather, he has eaten lots and lots of fermented foods. The bacteria and enzymes in fermented food has a very positive effect on the gut, and therefore makes for a very strong immune system. Therefore, his condition has not advanced to the point of him having AIDS yet.
You claim not to be influenced by your previous experiences you mentioned on the show but not one single vaccine has passed the “Bryan test”.
I’m sure you can appreciate why this makes me incredulous. As I mentioned previously I don’t actually disagree with your argument but I can’t wrap my head around this.
Wait. That’s the topic? I thought the topic was “vaccines”.
Vaccines are not “government mandated childcare” where I live. Or most places that I’d consider living. Vaccines are a tool, in the broader “health care” bag-o-tools, to be used when appropriate. (Which may mean “a lot” or “not at all” or, more likely, somewhere in between.)
I think this may be where you and I differ the most strongly.
I am astoundingly confident that I know better than my government. I’ve seen the decisions my government makes. It makes bad ones. Lots of them. Often and constantly. It sounds like you trust the judgement of your government over yourself.
Which, again, makes this more of a religious topic than a scientific one. I am a skeptic. You are a devout believer.
I trust my government over myself on things I don’t know about. On, for example, digital rights policy I am confident that I am well-informed, because I’ve spent thirty years getting that way. I have not spent thirty years learning about medicine. Sure, there are arguments that because the government are wrong sometimes they should not be trusted ever, but I do not follow those arguments. I think where I disagree with you may also be that I am sceptical to the point of outraged disbelief that you think it’s even possible for you to be better informed on this topic than people whose job and career it is to be experts in it. I feel the same way if Luddites lecture me about technology, an area where I am expert.
You think it’s sensible self-education, I think it’s hubris. I’m also more a big-state sort than you, as you note. I think we represent opposite ends of the sensibleish end of this debate
Just to be clear (in case I wasn’t during the show… which is very possible)…
I am of the opinion that many vaccines are astoundingly effective and valuable. I can envision many scenarios in which I would opt to utilize specific vaccines for myself and my child. The fact is… none of those scenarios apply currently. So, as yet, no vaccines have been administered to my daughter.
I think vaccines, as a concept, are good. I think many vaccines have done tremendous good in the world. I think continued investment in improving existing vaccines and developing new vaccines is extremely valuable and important. But that doesn’t mean I’m going to go out and get, say, a Chickenpox vaccine for my daughter just because the general category of tool is one I agree with.
I, at present, do not own any sunscreen. I like sunscreen. It’s useful. But I’ve been living in the rainforest. Having sunscreen would be… dumb. But that doesn’t mean the notion itself is dumb. Later this summer we’ll be traveling a bit. Will I buy sunscreen then? Probably. Or maybe really big hats.
So, you’re Aunt Barbara doesn’t know anything about digital rights policies. And your government just came out with a new bill that is, clearly, wrong. Horribly wrong. Should Barbara look into it more? Talk to you? Just blindly believe what Cameron says and go with it?
You are right. In fact, I am astoundingly confident that I am better informed on this topic than the vast majority of individuals who earn a living creating government (and corporate) policies around it. And that is truly sad. Because I am borderline retarded.
I think that really is it, isn’t it? You and I (clearly) have different notions of what sort of power governments should have. I think that may account for the majority of our disagreements here.
Side note: I like that we can have these discussions. I think they’re valuable and interesting. And I’m glad that I’m having them with people who are pretty damned smart – even if you do trust every decision to an old lady ordained by the God of a church that her family created because they found the Pope to be annoying.
To echo others, Bryan is an anti-vaxxer, having a 4 year old without a single vaccination makes that clear. His position is the same as a truther’s “I am not saying it was an inside job, but I looked at the facts and I made some surprising discoveries” or a tax protester’s protestations that they are just following the letter of the law (as they understand it).
Giving an anti-vaxxer an uncontested platform to spread misinformation is foolish (I consider it uncontested as Bryan was allowed to shout down Stuart’s objections, at least until I turned off the podcast), and as a result I am taking LV off my playlist.
Come on @Burzmali! Do you believe in freedom of speech, specially freedom of wrong speech? Nobody here has any (legislative?) power to force/convince people to do this or that. Nobody is even claiming that he is an expert in the topic. What is wrong with a discussion about vaccination? How could it be a discussion if all parties had the same opinion?
Whoah! For reals? You’re going to stop listening to the show because you think I have a position – that I don’t actually have – that you disagree with?
Instead, how about this: Shout at me. Pick apart my statements. Argue that both my assertions and actions are wrong. I won’t stop you. Nobody else here will either. The only rule is that we all need to be cool to each other. Differing opinions are actually pretty awesome… they not only help to improve each others understandings of topics but they also can provide for some damned entertaining discussions.
I am just back from gym , and I must say, I really enjoyed both the exercise and this episode! The only downside I think was that the number of topics covered was less than most (all?) of the other shows. So, less diverse, but more deep. Maybe that’s what brought me to the forum again .
About the vaccination, I generally agree with Bryan that it is a very good idea to examine the vaccination on a case-by-case basis. My problem is (apart from the fact that one could be wrong in each of the cases under examination, which applies to everybody on any topic) that I don’t think Bryan’s approach is suggestible to others. Not having your child vaccinated is good as long as most other people are still doing the vaccination. And this non-suggestibility, by itself, is a bad thing in my moral system. It is like you are benefiting from other people’s ignorance.
That being said (and assuming that Bryan is scientifically correct about the near-zero probability of his daughter getting affected by any of the diseases), I don’t have an idea what is best to do. It just doesn’t feel good to me, just like the opposite option of do vaccinating your child while you know that it is harmful.
But out of curiosity @bryanlunduke, if you are in a position to design and dictate a health system over the entire planet, what would you suggest to the rest of people?
, and I must say, I really enjoyed both the exercise and this episode! The only downside I think was that the number of topics covered was less than most (all?) of the other shows. So, less diverse, but more deep. Maybe that’s what brought me to the forum again