Slashdot Mirror
Study Finds Vaccine Science Outreach Only Reinforced Myths (arstechnica.com)
Ars Technica reports on a study suggesting that "Striking at a myth with facts may only shore it up." Applehu Akbar writes:
Researchers at the University of Edinburgh studied public attitudes toward vaccination in a group whose opinions on the subject were polled before and after being shown three different kinds of explanatory material that used settled scientific facts about vaccines to explain the pro-vaccination side of the debate. Not only was the anti-vax cohort not convinced by any of the three campaigns, but their attitudes hardened when another poll was taken a week later.
What seems to have happened was that the pro-vax campaign was taken by anti-vaxers as just another attempt to lie to them, and as reinforcement for their already made-up minds on the subject. A previous study at Dartmouth College in 2014 used similar methodology and except for the 'hardening' effect elicited similar results. What's really scary about this is that while the Dartmouth subjects were taken from a large general population, the Edinburgh subjects were college students.
"The researchers speculate that the mere repetition of a myth during the process of debunking may be enough to entrench the myth in a believer's mind," writes Ars Technica, with one of the study's authors attributing this to the "illusory truth" effect.
"People tend to mistake repetition for truth."
What seems to have happened was that the pro-vax campaign was taken by anti-vaxers as just another attempt to lie to them, and as reinforcement for their already made-up minds on the subject. A previous study at Dartmouth College in 2014 used similar methodology and except for the 'hardening' effect elicited similar results. What's really scary about this is that while the Dartmouth subjects were taken from a large general population, the Edinburgh subjects were college students.
"The researchers speculate that the mere repetition of a myth during the process of debunking may be enough to entrench the myth in a believer's mind," writes Ars Technica, with one of the study's authors attributing this to the "illusory truth" effect.
"People tend to mistake repetition for truth."
Sad
Repetition does play a key-role, obviously, in enforcing lies. Just look at the mechanism of "prayer". This has been known for a very long time to work.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Nice lie you got there. The science has been settled about a century ago. Unfortunately, the vaccine against stupidity still eludes us.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
It's always important to ask, "What evidence would change your mind?"
If the answer is, "Nothing." Then there is a big problem with the ideology.
...repeated often enough becomes the truth - Joseph Goebbels. I could have saved them a bunch of time.
Yes, it's annoying when your kids question you all the time, and I feel for teachers who have to deal with everyone else's kids... but maybe we ought to stop with the Santa and Tooth Fairy and all the other 'cute and harmless' lies we tell kids.
Instead, we ought to be asking them what they think, and why, and then show them where they've made errors... so when they come up against something new, they have a fighting chance of figuring it out without someone holding their hand the whole time.
The best experience I ever had in school was a teacher mocking me for being afraid to be wrong, which is really the fork in the road where you either try to figure something out or just shut down and stick with your initial belief. We need more of that for our kids.
The modern anti-vaccination movement is one manifestation of public loss of trust in institutions and credentialed "professionals". The thing is.. most anti-vaccination types do not doubt the existence of infectious diseases or that some vaccines are very useful and effective. It comes down to other issues such as their inability to trust obviously greedy "professionals" who recommend vaccines against 15-20 diseases (some of which are uncommon). At that stage, more than a few people start wondering if it is more about profit and domination of others than helping people. Also, a lot of the popular ideas pushed by medical profession for decades such as "fat makes you fat", "jogging is good exercise- regardless of age" etc plus promising to treat diseases with newer and expensive drugs which have little to no effect on most disease endpoints (mild to moderate Depression, Type 2 Diabetes etc) do not help their cause- to put it mildly. https://dissention.wordpress.c...
We techie folks spend much of our lives hanging out with our peers. This tends to give us a rather warped sense of the average intelligence and rationality of the general population. The fact is that most folks just feel overwhelmed by facts and data and really don't want the responsibility of choosing their own path through life. They would rather have someone they trust tell them what to do and think. Hence the popularity of religion and autocrats. It is counterproductive to try engaging these folks in some sort of rational fact based argument. That just makes them fearful. Try to remember that they are not acting stupid in order to annoy us; they're just in over their heads.
Anti-vac trend can also be considered a form of critical thinking. Not everyone have time or inclination to properly research everything so there is always a need in some sort of trust chains in research of such information. The issue here is that official trust chain associated with government and mainstream science is no longer widely accepted in the populace. People just turned to new trust chains due to official ones too often pushing poorly researched and self serving information. If you're spreading too much nonsense and misinformation then even truth you share along the way can get tarnished.
Consider the long and body-strewn history of companies whose products have done enormous damage to large numbers of people.
The cigarette companies were denying that their cute little puff-sticks could cause cancer after a decade in which the causality was as firmly established as 1+1=2. The company that brought out thalidomide was still denying their product maimed unborn babies quite some time after the evidence was rolling in like a tsunami. Monsanto is even now busy suppressing evidence that their roundup product causes cancer.
I could cite a bunch of other instances, but it all comes down to the proven fact that corporations lie about the disasters they cause. They have every reason to: Cleaning up their mess or making amends to the victims will cost them money!
"...once a man gets a reputation as a liar, he might as well be struck dumb, for people do not listen to the wind." -- Robert A. Heinlein Citizen of the Galaxy
while the Dartmouth subjects were taken from a large general population, the Edinburgh subjects were college students.
Half the population of school-leavers now go to university in the UK. That is despite the fact that there are only sufficient "graduate level" jobs for a small fraction of them.
While the smartest graduates will get those jobs, the rest will be left with a crushingly large bill for their 3 more years of "education". You have to question just how clever those remaining graduates actually are.
So it comes as no surprise to learn that in this topic, university students can act just as dim as "ordinary" people - since most of them are exactly that.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
No, most of us rely on professional scientists to do studies and perform experiments. That's why we have more confidence in the results, rather than listening to theory and speculation from amateurs. It's no different than how we rely on professional engineers to build our bridges and skyscrapers, rather than try to build them ourselves.
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
Not only was the anti-vax cohort not convinced by any of the three campaigns, but their attitudes hardened when another poll was taken a week later.
I'm sure they'll perk up when they get their Darwin Awards.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Yes. And they work as advertised, which is: not perfectly on every individual, so the whole society needs the herd immunity. Which anti-vaccers are endangering, in fact they outright destroyed it in some areas of Europe (for measles, at least). So, we have to thank the anti-vaccers in Europe for killing children and endangering everyone to prove a point that did not need any more proof in the first place.
Heck, you don't even need to be a scientist, you only need to go into areas where people who did not get vaccinated from endemic diseases are getting ill all the time, and you and your family, who did get vaccinated (and got bitten by the !@#$!@#$ mosquitoes just the same), don't get ill.
Jeez, even the optional H1N1 vaccines, which are in the very end of "low effectiveness" -- you often end up getting slightly ill, instead of seriously/dangerously ill -- can be easily seen working when you have a major outbreak, like we had in Brazil two years ago. More than 8000 people *DEAD* among the non-vaccinated, less than 100 among the vaccinated, plus a very sharp decline on hospitalizations (and deaths) two weeks after the massive vaccination campaigns *AND* no outbreak on the next year (the government started vaccinating people two months in advance, there was some spillover from the previous year, and much much more people got vaccinated).
IF a child - who is NOT inoculated spreads a disease throughout his/her peer group, then it's high time to start prosecuting their parents for criminal mischief, at the very least, for allowing their child to be a carrier and disease vector simply because they refused to get that child vaccinated. Prosecution levels should even be allowed to go as high as "involuntary manslaughter", although, to me, it's NOT involuntary, it's premeditated, and should be criminalized to the full extent of those statutes.
Granted, this doesn't solve the problem resulting from that incident, but it WILL send a message to all the other parents that refuse to get their children vaccinated. Basically, if you allow your child to be a disease carrier, then YOU are responsible for all the harm caused to the other children who are harmed, disabled, crippled, or even killed - ALL THROUGH YOUR OWN NEGLIGENCE, or your BELIEF SYSTEM.
It makes no difference whether the issue is religious, personal, or just plain obstinate hard-headedness - YOU are the reason another child (or children) contracted a disease that could have been prevented with current vaccination regimes.
OK, so it's a sad and sometimes horrific (in case of permanent disability or death) situation, and there are many who would say that the parents (and child) have suffered enough - - - BUT the situation is SOLELY the responsibility of the child's parents / guardians to see that they are given the best medical care available - and that INCLUDES THE VACCINATIONS !
There is a serious line of demarcation between religion and scientific medical processes - and if the 'BELIEF' faction is allowed to put the health and lives of the other children at risk, then I BELIEVE they should be removed from the general population - - - as in ISOLATION WARDS / CAMPS.
Sorry if this sounds a bit fascist, or absolute socialistic, but there is just too much at stake to allow this type of behavior to endanger the health and well-being of the majority of the population - - - simply because someone says "My FAITH says I should NOT do this".
Take your FAITH and use it to cure the harm caused to the other children endangered by your actions (or INactions).
GET YOUR VACCINATIONS - REGULARLY and ON TIME - - - to protect the whole world.
cheers . . .
redneck geek
Yes, we got the problem with the dust tackled. And the threat of a Global Cooling has diminished. And yes, climate scientist were right then.
Yes, it's annoying when your kids question you all the time, and I feel for teachers who have to deal with everyone else's kids... but maybe we ought to stop with the Santa and Tooth Fairy and all the other 'cute and harmless' lies we tell kids.
Instead, we ought to be asking them what they think, and why, and then show them where they've made errors... so when they come up against something new, they have a fighting chance of figuring it out without someone holding their hand the whole time.
The best experience I ever had in school was a teacher mocking me for being afraid to be wrong, which is really the fork in the road where you either try to figure something out or just shut down and stick with your initial belief. We need more of that for our kids.
Damore's essay was a fascinating peek into the sociology of lies.
The vast, vast majority of discussion about this(*) fell into two categories:
1) He said *that* shocking thing! (Countered with "He didn't say that")
2) He wrote prejudiced opinions not based in fact (Countered with "He cited references for each position he took")
Note the pattern here: the vast majority of discussion can be described as "make something up, then complain about it".
It's a complete surprise to me how *much* dishonesty arose over this incident. I suppose it's partly due to MSM wanting to drive clicks to their sites: Gizmodo published the essay with the references removed, bolstering item #2, and CNN headlined that Damore argues women aren't suited for tech jobs for "biological" reasons, which ginned up a lot of outrage on item #1.
There were a handful of lessor discussions in the same mould(**).
It's fascinating because this is one example where anyone can drill down to the exact truth in moments - the published news reports are available, the words he used are available for comparison, everything everyone said is now part of the written record.
Despite all this - despite the truth being so easy to determine - the vast majority of discussion of every aspect of this incident has been based on lies and attempts to correct them.
We can find the truth quite easily. How, in the face of Gizmodo and CNN, can the average person do that?
Maybe it's time we stopped worrying about what people think, and examine how they *come* to the beliefs they have.
Having a higher quality stream of truth would be a good first step.
(*) You can verify this for yourself: check the commentary for any of Slashdot's recent articles about Damore's essay (such as this one). The rule holds true for other social media channels.
(**) Including: the citations he used were from institutions with clear bias, the citations he used didn't confirm his point, he claims to be a PhD but isn't (an ad-hominem attack unrelated to his point), he's not allowed to cite scientific studies because he's not himself a scientist (wtf?), he can't sue Google because CA is an "at will" state (difference between "fired for no reason" and "fired for the *wrong* reason).
1st thing people learn in clinical psychology is that you cannot reach the patient if you don't accept their world view. You can only navigate in their world view because any attempts to challenge it will sound very similar to what they have already heard multiple times when they were challenged on their world view. And by reminding them of how they reacted to it last time, the memory is reinforced. Anyone creating a marketing campaign should have known this.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Second, "flu like symptoms" is far FAR from having the flu itself. People tend to forget just how horribly having a bad flu can affect them. You can still go to work, take care of the kids and so on with "flu like symptoms", but it is quite common for the actual flu to leave you bedridden for days. Even with routine flu infections, there is a risk of death. And the nature of the flu virus is such that we can never wholly predict when the next pandemic killer flu will appear. Remember that H1N1 has been fingered as the killer behind the "Spanish Flu", a disease that, in two years killed more people world wide than the entirety of WW1. Something close to 20% of people who contracted the disease DIED. With the vaccines we have now, mortality rate is something like 0.01% We've gone to entire families dying, to a percentage smaller than a rounding error. I'd say that very VERY effectively demonstrates the effectiveness of flu vaccines don't you?
And while I'm at it, let me say that "flu like symptoms" are not contagious, but the flu certainly is. You can contract and pass along the flu for a day or so before you even have a hint that you're sick, and you can remain contagious for up to 10 days after first noticing symptoms. Being vaccinated reduces that window of contagion a great deal, making everyone else safer as well. (that is the bigger part of the herd immunity effect. The other part is that, with far fewer hosts to replicate in, the opportunities for the virus to mutate into something more virulent are drastically reduced.)
I need a wheelchair van for my son. Help me get the word out. https://www.gofundme.com/wheelchair-van-for-jj
'd rather air (sic) on the side of caution. When my children are adults they can decide for themselves if they want to take that poison.
Please do so. Hopefully they will die from one of the childhood diseases that vaccines can prevent, and end the spread of your genes.
Now as for the article stating:
What seems to have happened was that the pro-vax campaign was taken by anti-vaxers as just another attempt to lie to them.
Paranoid personality disorder is almost impossible to treat, because (1) paranoid people take anything, even coincidences, as evidence that someone is out to get them in one way or another, and (2) they believe their paranoid delusions are validation of their inner self, and any attempt to point out the contrary is just more proof that their paranoia is justified.
It doesn't have to make sense, because we're dealing with people showing signs that in any other situation would be seen as a break with reality, but because of "we must give equal weight to all opinions, even the totally batshit crazy ones," you're evil if you try to do so in this case, again reinforcing their delusions.
Can anyone who isn't an anti-vaxxer deny these people are showing signs of mental illness?
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
The problem with any complex science is that understanding the mechanism behind it is complex and requires a significant amount of time and learning. It's easier to dismiss the science in these cases, particularly where someone is protected by herd immunity or the global changes in climate are just beginning to be noticeable at a broad level.
So the vaccine and climate science deniers take the easy path. Until the 10 years of record temperatures (each year sets the record for highest temperature) or a Measles outbreak kills someone they love.
The problem becomes when that person's denial directly threatens the lives of others. Unlike climate science, Vaccines and herd immunity provide protection for that 3-4% of people who cannot be vaccinated due to severe allergies. When that parent doesn't get their kid vaccinated and their kid is part of a pandemic that takes lives they should be prosecuted for negligent homicide. And yes I absolutely mean it, the people who's family members died in the Disneyland outbreak should be suing every single person that got the virus and wasn't vaccinated. They should take them for every dime they've got. Only when there are real penalties for those who choose to risk everyone else's lives by failing to get vaccines will people take vaccines seriously as a public health initiative.
You don't want to vaccinate? Go live somewhere where vaccines aren't given. Discover the panacea of living where you can die any time from completely preventable disease.
You most certainly can do experiments yourself to prove that vaccinations work (the current topic). The same primitive techniques that Louis Pasteur used didn't die with him.
Given your ignorance of stuff you should have learned in high school but didn't, perhaps it's a good thing that you're in the minority.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Still no. People still have a difficult time finding all those studies that claimed global cooling.
Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
If 100 of the vaccinated died because of an outbreak of something they were supposed to be vaccinated against -- does this really support your argument that vaccination protects?
Sure: not providing 100% protection doesn't mean not providing protection at all. Claiming the opposite would be ridiculous and we all don't apply such a standard in other cases, so why applying it to vaccines?
As example, using seat belts definitely do *not* save 100% of those who have a car accident, but we consider them an effective protection still.
No, the DNC and Hillary Clinton are responsible for the election of Donald Trump.
Sounds like a typical Trump and Trump supporter response - blame someone else. :-)
Actually, OP is right. DNC and Hillary Clinton did not marshal an effective campaign. Just like with Bush-Gore, another example where the electoral college overcame the popular vote, the DNC simply didn't do their job. W. should have taught them that simple-talk to simple people can win.
Trump supporters do indeed do that thing you say... "blame someone else," but in this case it's true. Against a guy like Trump, it was the DNC's race to lose, and they lost, not just to Trump but also a lot of House and Senate seats. They need to completely re-think their game - blaming the Russians, flat-earthers, crusty white males, or whomever is not going to get them out of this hole.
The way to fight ignorance is by making truth available. Not by telling people "you're brainwashed".
The study shows otherwise. It's almost impossible to overcome paranoia, especially with facts.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Trusting a medical opinion because the person giving it is a celebrity is not critical thinking. Trusting someone because they're a celebrity is how you got Trump as president. And people continue to trust celebrities even after they've been caught in lie after lie after lie. Why? Because even if we did invent a vaccine against stupidity, they would be against it because they're stupid.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
You may most certainly launch a satellite. It just requires a lot more knowledge than building a bridge in your yard.
Keep in mind that the Engineers (launching a Satellite is not an experiment, so it is not Science) at NASA are not born there, NASA hires them. That means they have to be qualified, and to be qualified, they'll have to have learned enough to launch a satellite before applying.
There is nothing beyond a lot of learning and work that separates these other people from you. If you don't know how to do it, you just need to spend some more time in a quality library (big University, not public reading library) where they have books that push the boundaries of learning. My Alma Mater's library is open to the public, come on over.
Of course, if you had someone who could explain a little of it to you at a time, you might pick it up faster; but, in theory you could learn it all independently. That's how the original rocket makers did it.
And no, you are not a minority on this site. You are in the majority. Over half of the population comes up with ideas that are below average, and even the average person would know that if NASA held all the secrets of rocket flight, SpaceX wouldn't exist, nor would the first rockets; because, the first rockets were launched by Germany.
The mechanics behind immunization are equally as clear, but continue to think you're being persecuted while you are actually persecuting your children. Have you seen a polio child? Go google it and do an image search. Measles? Go google it and do an image search. Mumps, Rubella, Diptheria, Pertussis, Tetnus, Hepatitus B, HPV, Rotovirus? Go google them. These are diseases that you can easily avoid by vaccination.
If you think vaccination is bunk, keep in mind it was created by the same man that Pastuerized your milk, which used to spoil each day beforehand. He reduced the mortality of Peripural Fever (an infection at childbirth), he was one of the 3 people responsible for discovering microorganisims, proved germ theory to be correct, found the relatinship between molecular chemistry and crystal assemetry, as well as discovering and describing the chemical basis for racemic structures. He disproved the concept of spontaneous generation of life, and our debt to him is huge.
But hey, if you're not going to vaccinate, then don't be a bigot! Stop washing those hands, stop buying milk from the store (and the things made from it), get a doctor that doesn't wash his hands to deliver your child, and avoid most forms of medicine. Be true to your ideas, or we will laugh at you for being "true" to anti-vaccination but then crying foul when your get a doctor who doesn't prescribe to the basics of germ theory.
A big mistake was making Al Gore the spokesman for climate change. That unnecessarily politicized the issue. Back in 2007, most Republican presidential candidates agreed that climate change was a serious issue that need to be addressed. That would never happen today. They don't want to be accused of "agreeing with Al Gore". For Republican politicians, it is a toxic issue, and has become an ideological litmus test, so facts and evidence no longer matter.
I call that BS. Way before Al Gore became the spokesman for climate change republicans were already steering away from it because... lobbying. This is an article from the Guardian from 1997, called "Who Killed Kyoto?": https://www.uow.edu.au/~sharonb/Guardian.html
So way before Al Gore ran for president, or he did his movie/documentary, or whatever...
No, it wasn't. Stop parroting memes based on FUD & bullshit.
For the record, I hate the phrase "the science is settled", because it's utter nonsense. Science is never settled - that refutes the nature of the scientific method itself, in which everything is subject to questioning. History is replete with "common scientific knowledge" being not just modified, but occasionally completely overturned. Cosmology is filled with such examples, many of which are in the past century. The discovery of plate tectonics is another example. To think modern science is beyond such reproach is the height of arrogance.
That being said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. To date, as far as I'm aware, the common research cited as evidence for the link between vaccinations and autism have been rather thoroughly debunked in the wider scientific and medical communities. In some cases, there were even some very damning conflicts of interest found with the original researchers and the topics of study. The typical defense? "Conspiracy theories", which of course are impossible to disprove.
Childhood diseases and widespread outbreaks were a very real, very tragic part of life not so many generations ago. I think part of the modern anti-vax movement works simply because the past few generations haven't had to deal with the result of NO vaccinations. Moreover, it taps into a common need of people to find something to blame for life's tragedies. No one wants to be told that sometimes, unfortunate things sometimes happen because of factors we simply don't yet understand. So, a convenient boogieman is invented. Powerlines cause cancer. Vaccinations cause autism. And so on...
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
...more evidence of evolution doesn't change the opinion of people who don't believe in evolution. More evidence of Holocaust doesn't change the opinion of Holocaust deniers. Some people refuse the axioms of the scientific method, they've decided what the truth is and will ignore or alter the facts to preserve their belief. To the paranoid, everybody is out to get you and only pretending otherwise. To the conspiracy theorists, if it contradicts the theory it's part of the conspiracy. Also if it's not working, you're not doing it right or it's not a proper implementation of your ideology or religion. And if nothing else works call it fake news and muddy the waters as best you can, if the signal doesn't support your case bury it in noise.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
If that's true, it's just more evidence that the right is a plague on this country, and planet. Seriously, pride over planet? Grow some fucken balls.
Throw in the word "homoeopathic" somewhere to grab some more holdouts.
As someone who grew up in the 1970s, I can assure you the climatology talk which filtered out to the general public back then was about whether or not we'd enter another ice age.
The explanation given in your link (that the mass media was hyping global cooling, but climate scientists were publishing papers about global warming) doesn't really help. It just confirms the belief that the mass media will hype whatever they want rather than report accurately.
Instead of trying to teach these people a new way to think, reach these people via the way they already think. They're into the anti-vaxx stuff because:
Back before GPS navigation became ubiquitous, I read that men tend to navigate using road names, women tend to navigate using landmarks. So I started giving directions with both road names and landmarks. I got a lot of comments from people that they really liked my directions. There's no reason to limit ourselves to just one method of teaching people.
If that's true, it's just more evidence that the right is a plague on this country, and planet.
So? Politics is a fact of life. Are you ok with destroying the planet as long as it is someone else's fault? Advocates of climate action knew (or should have known) that using a partisan politician as their champion would have a strong negative effect on building consensus and actually getting anything done.
No, it wasn't. Stop parroting memes based on FUD & bullshit.
It may not have been a threat but it was certainly reported as being a threat (source: my memory of reading articles in serious papers and magazines - albeit I was doing that reading in the 80's).
However, it was not 'considered' a threat in the same way, or to the same degree, that AGW is 'considered' today.
This is exactly right.
You could lay some of the blame at people's credulity and some kind of willful desire to believe alternative opinions because they're alternatives, but the bottom line is that the volume of manipulation and misinformation aimed at the public is relentless. Advertisements, sales and marketing, public relations, politicians -- the list of people with agendas and no regard for anything like the truth is endless.
And unfortunately this list includes traditional authority figures generally associated with agenda-neutral factual truth.
Go for emotion:
This year, X children died from [preventable disease] (picture of a child in hospital, picture of people carrying a small coffin). If only they were vaccinated, they would still run round and play instead of laying dead. (interview with a crying parent who says he has killed his child by not vaccinating him). (interview with another crying parent who says that his child was unable to be vaccinated, contracted the disease from some intenionally-unvaccinated child and died).
Another way you could do this would be to compare anti-vaxxers with Nazis. Interview some anti-vaxxer who says that if his child is not immune to diseases, then he should die. Or someone who says that he would rather his child died than became autistic. And if his child is ever diagnosed with autism, then the parent will kill him to preserve the intellectual and racial purity.
People respond to emotion better than facts. Just like infrequent-but-big tragic events like plane crashes may make people consider aircraft to be less safe than cars, even though, if you reported every fatal car crash in every country (like they do with airplane crashes), you would need multiple channels to be doing that 24/7, just to keep up.
Just as 1 in every 10,000 Toyotas, Mercedes Benzes or Teslas is going to be a lemon, 1 in 10,000 vaccinations can "go wrong". This is just the nature of such things.
That said, it really sucks if YOU buy that specific Toyota, Mercedes Benz or Tesla. And more so if YOUR kid is that ONE in 10,000. You can dump the car lemon, you have the child until they die. I personally know of one such extremely tragic case, so the pro-vaxxers should just shut up and admit to the reality of the stats.
Yes, the reality is every once in a while a child has a really bad reaction from a vaccine but the reality of the flip side is A LOT worse. I don't know how accurate your 1 in 10000 number is but that sounds like REALLY good odds to me. Before vaccines, 1 in 3 kids didn't make it to adulthood. Which odds would you rather have for your kid? A 1 in 10000 chance of dying from a vaccine or a 1 in 3 chance of dying from not getting a vaccine? Sure, because most people are vaccinated today, your odds are a little better than 1 in 3 even if you don't get a vaccine but it's still not as good as with getting the vaccine. When the odds of complications exceed the odds of catching the disease, that's when we discontinue the vaccine. That's why no one gets vaccinated for smallpox anymore except for a few soldiers going to a few high risk areas.
As a data person, the one thing I wish that the pro-vaccine people would start doing is listing the odds of complications of the vaccine right next to the estimated odds of catching the disease. I think some antivaxers might respond to that if you said "odds of bad reaction 1/10000, current odds of catching disease 1/1000, historical odds of catching the disease 1/100, odds of dying if you catch the disease 1/3"