Ah. It might not've been Hep B then. The point is, I do recall her having to get several extra vaccinations (of what was supposed to be a one stage treatment) because the first shot didn't take.
Thanks for correcting me though. I'll have to ask her which one it was.
My beliefs on this topic are much akin to society's general belief on drunk driving. Personally, I don't shed a tear when I hear that some drunken idiot drove his car into a tree and died because of it. But I do have a problem when the aforementioned drunk veers into the other lane of traffic, killing some poor sober sod driving his friends home because he was the d.d. You wanna kill yourself? Have fun. Your decisions cause other people to die? That's where I start to have a problem.
As for the 'herd' thing, I think you're twisting my words. I'm saying that I want more people to live. End of story. Having "weak" genes means nothing. You and I and about 75% of slashdot readers would be dead if it weren't for technology. Hell, we never would've been born. I take strong issue with people suggesting eugenics programs.
I know that evolution doesn't mean more advanced. It just means better suited for its environment. But you know what? I have no problem if we've reached a sort of evolutionary stability. On the other hand, I don't think we have. I think we're looking far too short term. In another hundred thousand years, things will be different. And I bet that, if there are creatures out there doing science, they'll be having this same conversation.
You know what? He does his best. He's aware of his health issues, and takes steps to ensure his own health. But here's the thing: my uncle? He isn't taking any personal risks. Even his kids aren't taking a huge number of risks themselves. They're quite healthy, and with herd immunity (and the fact that my uncle's a bit antisocial) they haven't been exposed to those diseases. The risks of taking the vaccine are so small as to be almost negligible. People need to start taking the long approach to this. Or just think in terms of game theory, for crying out loud. If I defect, yes, I get a tiny benefit. But if everyone defects, then we all suffer more than if we all cooperated.
I'm not going to force my uncle to immunize his kids. But I have no respect for the man. And I will never agree with his position.
It's allergy to the chick embryo, which is used to propogate the vaccine. I believe it was found during an allergy test when he was younger after getting a mild allergic reaction to something he ate.
Joke or not, I get sick of hearing that line. Natural selection just means slow statistical process of change caused by evolutionary pressures that ultimately lead to what we are now. I mean, we don't consider birds flying to be unnatural? They evolved to fly. We evolved to create vaccines.
Did you hear that drinking water might lead to cancer? No one's managed to disprove the link between water consumption and cancer! Therefore, I suggest that everyone stop drinking water, in order to prevent cancer. After all, what's the worst that can happen?
All sarcasm aside, that's what your argument looks like to me. Fine, there's no definitive proof that MMR and autism are completed unlinked. But there is a whole lot of evidence suggesting a lack of that link. And when you consider the consequences of not getting vaccinated (you know, dieing), I'd be willing to place my bet with science and the vaccines.
Fine, but I'll bet your calculation depended a lot on herd immunity. If enough people stopped getting the vaccination, the risk for dying from measles jumps right the hell up. Just like we're seeing here. I applaud you for doing the math, but consider the fact that when the immunization rate drops too low, measles could come back huge. And people will die in droves, just to remind us that vaccines are good. Please, consider getting your son vaccinated against measles anyways.
But the thing is, you're an outlier. Most parents who refuse the MMR vaccine refuse all forms of vaccines. Thus giving their children no immunity. I applaud you for taking the time to investigate the issue, and make an informed decision. This article isn't about people like you, it's about people who leave their kids with no immunity whatsoever. You, at least, made sure they were vaccinated against all three diseases, even if you didn't take the government standard MMR vaccine.
I'm really hoping that you're joking here. But since this is the Internet, Poe's law is in full force, so you could just as easily be a lunatic promoting complete garbage. But I'll be generous, and assume that you're parodying the kind of lunatics who believe that stuff.
I don't mean by another human. That would be terrible. I'm referring to the "sandpaper covered rake shoved sideways up their ass" kind of fucked. You know. The fun kind.;-)
You're an ass. If it weren't for science, none of us would be alive, because we wouldn't have made it out of the dark ages. We'd still be filthy and have no knowledge of diseases, and dieing when you were 50 would be a regular part of life. Get fucked you ignorant shit-eating asshole.
You don't understand the idea of natural selection, do you?
I'm going to take some liberties with the science here (I'm a physicist, not a biologist), but the gist of it is simple. Humans have been "selected" for large brains. Basically, various evolutionary pressures favoured larger and larger brains in certain situations, which led to the human brain. These brains are capable of a great number of things, including the sciences that lead to vaccination.
Natural selection doesn't mean what nature does in absence of humanity, it means those that survive to reproduce get their genes passed along. It's a long term statistical process, that doesn't care what the pressures or responses are, only that you survive long enough to reproduce and keep your kids alive.
Besides, where did we get this idea that there's any difference between "natural" and "artificial" life? This comic sums it up quite well, in my opinion.
I'm sick of hearing this shit. People die because of this. And not just the anti-vaxxers' kids, but people who, for one reason or another, don't or can't develop the immunity, despite getting the vaccination. Or people who can't get the vaccination.
Agreed. Get fucked, anti-vaxxers. Enjoy knowing that your decisions have been indirectly responsible for the deaths of hundreds, all so you could have absolutely no effect on your child getting autism.
If it was just the anti-vaxxers and their offspring, then maybe I'd agree with you. It's a callous attitude, but we can't protect people from themselves. But the anti-vaxxer crowd weakens herd immunity, which causes people who can't, not won't, but can't get the vaccine, to get ill. And since those who can't get the vaccine often have weakened immune systems, this leads them to be in a worse situation than if you or I got it.
Because vaccination does not guarantee immunity. Sometimes the vaccinations don't take hold immediately. For example, my fiancee had to get at least 3 Hep B vaccinations because her body didn't react properly the first few times. Or some people have a weakened immune system, and can't produce the antigens. Or what about people who would love to get vaccinated, but can't, because of an allergy to the vaccine? All of those people, and many others, rely heavily on what's called herd immunity.
Herd immunity relies on a sufficent percentage of the population being vaccinated. That way, there are no vectors to people without the immunity. You can't get sick if you don't encounter the bacteria, and if everyone you meet is vaccinated, then you'll never get sick.
However, if someone isn't vaccinated, but is strong enough to fight it off, they could pass it to you. And if you have a weak immune system, that can lead to severe short and long term consequences.
What about people who were vaccinated, but the vaccination didn't take? What about people with allergies to key ingredients in the vaccinations? What about people with compromised immune systems, where the vaccination simply can't take hold?
I wouldn't have a problem with people refusing to be vaccinated if it meant that they and their offspring died. Is that a bit cruel? Yeah, but people die for worse reasons every day, so I'm not going to complain about some idiot letting his kids die because he refused to listen to logic and reason.
But when people die because someone else didn't vaccinate their kids? Because the local vaccination ratio dropped too low for herd immunity to take place? That's when I get pissed off.
Yeah. My friend's brother has an allergy to the vaccine, and his health relies on herd immunity. When idiots like these (and my one uncle; I don't really talk to him anymore) refuse to vaccinate their kids, my friend's brother is the one most likely to get hurt by this.
I work with Monte Carlo code and statistical analysis software. I use CERN's ROOT package for the stats analysis, CERN's GEANT4 for the MC code, and *nix scripting when I need to handle multiple files. Every single piece of code I write is written for a purpose. That purpose is generally to generate data and then analyze it. The only other people who are going to see it? Maybe my supervisor, and, if I'm just in on a contract, maybe the guy who has to work on my code later. But to be blunt, that doesn't matter. All that matters is that I know what's going on.
That being said, sometimes I write software for my own personal use. There, I tend to write more robust code, trying to follow various programming standards. Because I figure, if I write something for myself that turns out to be fairly useful, someone might want to use it, or adapt it. But professionally, all my code needs to do is get out that table or prepare that figure. Is it sloppy? Yes. Does it get the job done? Also yes. Fortunately, not only is my field esoteric, it's also government work, so it's practically a guarantee that my code will never have commercial release.
The GP was clearly being facetious. It's called rhetoric, and it's usually a pretty good way of both making your point and, in this case, mocking how people tend to overlook the simpler options.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah. It might not've been Hep B then. The point is, I do recall her having to get several extra vaccinations (of what was supposed to be a one stage treatment) because the first shot didn't take.
Thanks for correcting me though. I'll have to ask her which one it was.
And stay offa mah lawn!
My beliefs on this topic are much akin to society's general belief on drunk driving. Personally, I don't shed a tear when I hear that some drunken idiot drove his car into a tree and died because of it. But I do have a problem when the aforementioned drunk veers into the other lane of traffic, killing some poor sober sod driving his friends home because he was the d.d. You wanna kill yourself? Have fun. Your decisions cause other people to die? That's where I start to have a problem.
As for the 'herd' thing, I think you're twisting my words. I'm saying that I want more people to live. End of story. Having "weak" genes means nothing. You and I and about 75% of slashdot readers would be dead if it weren't for technology. Hell, we never would've been born. I take strong issue with people suggesting eugenics programs.
Sorry. This topic just gets me so ticked off that my sense of humour gets thrown off a touch. Chock it up to Poe's law, I guess.
That's probably because you were exposed to it, but never showed the symptoms. In your case, you got lucky.
I know that evolution doesn't mean more advanced. It just means better suited for its environment. But you know what? I have no problem if we've reached a sort of evolutionary stability. On the other hand, I don't think we have. I think we're looking far too short term. In another hundred thousand years, things will be different. And I bet that, if there are creatures out there doing science, they'll be having this same conversation.
You know what? He does his best. He's aware of his health issues, and takes steps to ensure his own health. But here's the thing: my uncle? He isn't taking any personal risks. Even his kids aren't taking a huge number of risks themselves. They're quite healthy, and with herd immunity (and the fact that my uncle's a bit antisocial) they haven't been exposed to those diseases. The risks of taking the vaccine are so small as to be almost negligible. People need to start taking the long approach to this. Or just think in terms of game theory, for crying out loud. If I defect, yes, I get a tiny benefit. But if everyone defects, then we all suffer more than if we all cooperated.
I'm not going to force my uncle to immunize his kids. But I have no respect for the man. And I will never agree with his position.
It's allergy to the chick embryo, which is used to propogate the vaccine. I believe it was found during an allergy test when he was younger after getting a mild allergic reaction to something he ate.
Joke or not, I get sick of hearing that line. Natural selection just means slow statistical process of change caused by evolutionary pressures that ultimately lead to what we are now. I mean, we don't consider birds flying to be unnatural? They evolved to fly. We evolved to create vaccines.
Did you hear that drinking water might lead to cancer? No one's managed to disprove the link between water consumption and cancer! Therefore, I suggest that everyone stop drinking water, in order to prevent cancer. After all, what's the worst that can happen?
All sarcasm aside, that's what your argument looks like to me. Fine, there's no definitive proof that MMR and autism are completed unlinked. But there is a whole lot of evidence suggesting a lack of that link. And when you consider the consequences of not getting vaccinated (you know, dieing), I'd be willing to place my bet with science and the vaccines.
Fine, but I'll bet your calculation depended a lot on herd immunity. If enough people stopped getting the vaccination, the risk for dying from measles jumps right the hell up. Just like we're seeing here. I applaud you for doing the math, but consider the fact that when the immunization rate drops too low, measles could come back huge. And people will die in droves, just to remind us that vaccines are good. Please, consider getting your son vaccinated against measles anyways.
But the thing is, you're an outlier. Most parents who refuse the MMR vaccine refuse all forms of vaccines. Thus giving their children no immunity. I applaud you for taking the time to investigate the issue, and make an informed decision. This article isn't about people like you, it's about people who leave their kids with no immunity whatsoever. You, at least, made sure they were vaccinated against all three diseases, even if you didn't take the government standard MMR vaccine.
Thank you for getting your children vaccinated.
I'm really hoping that you're joking here. But since this is the Internet, Poe's law is in full force, so you could just as easily be a lunatic promoting complete garbage. But I'll be generous, and assume that you're parodying the kind of lunatics who believe that stuff.
But what if the immunity didn't take?
I don't mean by another human. That would be terrible. I'm referring to the "sandpaper covered rake shoved sideways up their ass" kind of fucked. You know. The fun kind. ;-)
You're an ass. If it weren't for science, none of us would be alive, because we wouldn't have made it out of the dark ages. We'd still be filthy and have no knowledge of diseases, and dieing when you were 50 would be a regular part of life. Get fucked you ignorant shit-eating asshole.
You don't understand the idea of natural selection, do you?
I'm going to take some liberties with the science here (I'm a physicist, not a biologist), but the gist of it is simple. Humans have been "selected" for large brains. Basically, various evolutionary pressures favoured larger and larger brains in certain situations, which led to the human brain. These brains are capable of a great number of things, including the sciences that lead to vaccination.
Natural selection doesn't mean what nature does in absence of humanity, it means those that survive to reproduce get their genes passed along. It's a long term statistical process, that doesn't care what the pressures or responses are, only that you survive long enough to reproduce and keep your kids alive.
Besides, where did we get this idea that there's any difference between "natural" and "artificial" life? This comic sums it up quite well, in my opinion.
I'm sick of hearing this shit. People die because of this. And not just the anti-vaxxers' kids, but people who, for one reason or another, don't or can't develop the immunity, despite getting the vaccination. Or people who can't get the vaccination.
Agreed. Get fucked, anti-vaxxers. Enjoy knowing that your decisions have been indirectly responsible for the deaths of hundreds, all so you could have absolutely no effect on your child getting autism.
If it was just the anti-vaxxers and their offspring, then maybe I'd agree with you. It's a callous attitude, but we can't protect people from themselves. But the anti-vaxxer crowd weakens herd immunity, which causes people who can't, not won't, but can't get the vaccine, to get ill. And since those who can't get the vaccine often have weakened immune systems, this leads them to be in a worse situation than if you or I got it.
Because vaccination does not guarantee immunity. Sometimes the vaccinations don't take hold immediately. For example, my fiancee had to get at least 3 Hep B vaccinations because her body didn't react properly the first few times. Or some people have a weakened immune system, and can't produce the antigens. Or what about people who would love to get vaccinated, but can't, because of an allergy to the vaccine? All of those people, and many others, rely heavily on what's called herd immunity.
Herd immunity relies on a sufficent percentage of the population being vaccinated. That way, there are no vectors to people without the immunity. You can't get sick if you don't encounter the bacteria, and if everyone you meet is vaccinated, then you'll never get sick.
However, if someone isn't vaccinated, but is strong enough to fight it off, they could pass it to you. And if you have a weak immune system, that can lead to severe short and long term consequences.
You ignorant asshole.
What about people who were vaccinated, but the vaccination didn't take? What about people with allergies to key ingredients in the vaccinations? What about people with compromised immune systems, where the vaccination simply can't take hold?
I wouldn't have a problem with people refusing to be vaccinated if it meant that they and their offspring died. Is that a bit cruel? Yeah, but people die for worse reasons every day, so I'm not going to complain about some idiot letting his kids die because he refused to listen to logic and reason.
But when people die because someone else didn't vaccinate their kids? Because the local vaccination ratio dropped too low for herd immunity to take place? That's when I get pissed off.
Yeah. My friend's brother has an allergy to the vaccine, and his health relies on herd immunity. When idiots like these (and my one uncle; I don't really talk to him anymore) refuse to vaccinate their kids, my friend's brother is the one most likely to get hurt by this.
I work with Monte Carlo code and statistical analysis software. I use CERN's ROOT package for the stats analysis, CERN's GEANT4 for the MC code, and *nix scripting when I need to handle multiple files. Every single piece of code I write is written for a purpose. That purpose is generally to generate data and then analyze it. The only other people who are going to see it? Maybe my supervisor, and, if I'm just in on a contract, maybe the guy who has to work on my code later. But to be blunt, that doesn't matter. All that matters is that I know what's going on.
That being said, sometimes I write software for my own personal use. There, I tend to write more robust code, trying to follow various programming standards. Because I figure, if I write something for myself that turns out to be fairly useful, someone might want to use it, or adapt it. But professionally, all my code needs to do is get out that table or prepare that figure. Is it sloppy? Yes. Does it get the job done? Also yes. Fortunately, not only is my field esoteric, it's also government work, so it's practically a guarantee that my code will never have commercial release.
The GP was clearly being facetious. It's called rhetoric, and it's usually a pretty good way of both making your point and, in this case, mocking how people tend to overlook the simpler options.