Vaccination and Religious Beliefs

[Madhuri]

You know what? **** it. I have an idea. How about everyone who chooses to not vaccinate (and I'm not talking about flu vaccines even) go all live together on an island for a year. See how much you guys like it when you don't have a layer of herd immunity to slow down preventable illnesses. Or failing that visit a country where people line up for days for even the chance to get a vaccine. Go on. Put your amazing immune system to the test. I dare you!

I'm not saying you're wrong because the evidence is clear that people are easily susceptible to the mentioned diseases. But my mother never immunised me and I lived in India on and off as a kid until I was 6. I never got sick from any disease while plenty of other kids I knew, including ones I was around at school when they got sick, were immunised (here I'm specifically referring to measles and whooping cough). The only thing I've ever had was chicken pox at the age of 7 and it really wasn't that bad. Growing up in a hippy area, I know quite a few families that didn't immunise their kids and being 'Hindus' most of us traveled to and lived in India without any health issues. On the other hand, I know a few people who've gone over there and to Indonesia having been immunised against malaria and they still got malaria.

But I do consider myself lucky more than anything, and grateful to have a mum that kept me healthy and strong even if she was anti-vax.

 

[SomeRandom]

I'm not saying you're wrong because the evidence is clear that people are easily susceptible to the mentioned diseases. But my mother never immunised me and I lived in India on and off as a kid until I was 6. I never got sick from any disease while plenty of other kids I knew, including ones I was around at school when they got sick, were immunised. The only thing I've ever had was chicken pox at the age of 7 and it really wasn't that bad. Growing up in a hippy area, I know quite a few families that didn't immunise their kids and being 'Hindus' most of us traveled to and lived in India without any health issues. On the other hand, I know a few people who've gone over there and to Indonesia having been immunised against malaria and they still got malaria.

But I do consider myself lucky more than anything, and grateful to have a mum that kept me healthy and strong even if she was anti-vax.

Problem with anecdotal evidence is that it's by it's very nature biased. You cannot base everything off your own experiences, least of all public health and safety.

I recently served a customer who told me she frequently eats partially uncooked chicken and has never gotten food poisoning in her life. I even encountered a gentleman who admitted the same thing, though he did it rather infrequently. If I were to apply this "evidence" then should I follow basic food safety laws regarding chicken (I sometimes work in the Delicatessen)? I mean if this lady and this other bloke don't get salmonella poisoning from eating partially cooked chicken, surely that disproves the link between salmonella and one getting sick right? I shouldn't have to worry about changing gloves when I handle raw chicken and then I have to handle ham. I shouldn't have to ensure that cooked chickens are above a certain temperature before putting them out for sale. I shouldn't have to worry about wrapping up raw chicken in it's own separate Deli paper. I mean, I can chuck in everything they order in the one bag, ham, chicken, fish, beef etc and then just give them all the required barcodes. I mean, surely those two specific people I encountered even disproves the idea of food poisoning to begin with! So cross contamination when handling raw meat should be a non issue. I shouldn't even use the special form of bleach (we call it Break Up) to clean scales, benches or the slicer. Hell why even bother putting the meat away over night? I should just leave it out in the open. Because that man and lady didn't get sick from something we know causes sickness, then it should be a total non issue. No one else can possibly get food poisoning, right?

See it doesn't work like that, mate.

 

[Madhuri]

Problem with anecdotal evidence is that it's by it's very nature biased. You cannot base everything off your own experiences, least of all public health and safety.

I recently served a customer who told me she frequently eats partially uncooked chicken and has never gotten food poisoning in her life. I even encountered a gentleman who admitted the same thing, though he did it rather infrequently. If I were to apply this "evidence" then should I follow basic food safety laws regarding chicken (I sometimes work in the Delicatessen)? I mean if this lady and this other bloke don't get salmonella poisoning from eating partially cooked chicken, surely that disproves the link between salmonella and one getting sick right? I shouldn't have to worry about changing gloves when I handle raw chicken and then I have to handle ham. I shouldn't have to ensure that cooked chickens are above a certain temperature before putting them out for sale. I shouldn't have to worry about wrapping up raw chicken in it's own separate Deli paper. I mean, I can chuck in everything they order in the one bag, ham, chicken, fish, beef etc and then just give them all the required barcodes. I mean, surely that even disproves the idea of food poisoning to begin with! So cross contamination when handling raw meat should be a non issue. I shouldn't even use a special form of bleach (we call it Break Up) to clean scales, benches or the slicer. Hell why even bother putting the meat away over night? I should just leave it out in the open. Because that man and lady didn't get sick from something we know causes sickness, then it should be a total non issue. No one else can possibly get food poisoning, right?

See it doesn't work like that, mate.

I definitely understand what you're saying and agree.

My next question is (and I think I have a vague idea of the answer but not 100% sure), why are some kids who get vaccinated, and some adults who get vaccinated, still susceptible to diseases they are apparently immunised against? I think that was part of my motivation is telling my story. Not so much that I was fine around diseased kids, but that the kids (and adults) who actually got sick from measles, whooping cough and malaria had had their vaccines. Do vaccinations only reduce your risk rather than eliminate it?

 

[SomeRandom]

I definitely understand what you're saying and agree.

My next question is (and I think I have a vague idea of the answer but not 100% sure), why are some kids who get vaccinated, and some adults who get vaccinated, still susceptible to diseases they are apparently immunised against? I think that was part of my motivation is telling my story. Not so much that I was fine around diseased kids, but that the kids (and adults) who actually got sick from measles, whooping cough and malaria had had their vaccines. Do vaccinations only reduce your risk rather than eliminate it?

Yes, they reduce the risk, they don't eliminate it altogether (remember the Herd Immunity thing?) Also there are a number of factors to take into consideration.
You can still get sick after your vaccine, but usually you only get a really mild form of the disease to begin with. This is because a Vaccine is sort of like a practice run, rather than giving you a force field, which some people think it does..
So if you are unlucky enough to catch something you've been vaccinated against, your body will know what to do. Therefore it will react much stronger and better against whatever disease it is, than if you were to be unvaccinated. For example, your Measles might last for only half the time if you are vaccinated against it.
Also, some types of diseases (particularly things like the Flu) don't show up straight away and the vaccine for it may take up to two weeks to properly take affect. Meaning you might already be infected when you get the jab and just not know it yet (hey there stories of kids getting the flu after the needle!!)
Then of course there is the nature of illnesses to begin with. So illnesses have this annoying habit of being able to mutate. This means we potentially could have different strains that are immune to our vaccines or even medication! (Having more people who don't vaccinate generally speeds up this process or in many cases create the circumstances for such things to occur in the first place.) We try to cover our bases, but random mutations can occur and are often hard to predict because.........well they're random mutations. This means that if you vaccinate against a particular strain of a disease but for whatever reason another much more rare strain makes it's way into your community, you will probably get the rare strain. Because you are not immunized for that particular strain.
Does that make sense?

 

[Madhuri]

Does that make sense?

Yes it does and I really appreciate you (and others) taking the time to provide these explanations.

 

[SomeRandom]

Yes it does and I really appreciate you (and others) taking the time to provide these explanations.

Well I'm afraid my explanations will be very very basic, as I'm not really a boffin of any type. But one should answer another's questions, if one is able to.

 

[Madhuri]

Well I'm afraid my explanations will be very very basic, as I'm not really a boffin of any type. But one should answer another's questions, if one is able to.

Basic answers are probably better for people who are just learning this stuff (like me).

 

[SomeRandom]

Basic answers are probably better for people who are just learning this stuff (like me).

Yes, well I too am a layman. But I suppose something can sometimes be harder to understand when an actual qualified person tries to explain it to you. The jargon, the differing definitions and connotations are often hard for us simple folk to wrap our heads around.

 

[YmirGF]

Personally speaking, I think that this is an arrogant claim that does not take into account why people are anti-vax. It's just so easy to point a finger and say "you're an idiot" than it is to try to understand why people think what they do.

Aside from those who have had a reaction to a given vaccine, as already stated, which is somewhat understandable, the benfits FAR outweigh the risks of taking vaccines. It really isn't even possible to launch a coherent, reasonable argument against vaccines. Due to the nature of our world and the ability to travel rapidly there can no longer be a choice about taking vaccines. One does not have the right to refuse a vaccine as it puts the community at risk. It's as simple as that.

 

[philbo]

Aside from those who have had a reaction to a given vaccine, as already stated, which is somewhat understandable, the risks FAR outweigh the benefits of taking vaccines. It really isn't even possible to launch a coherent, reasonable argument against vaccines. Due to the nature of our world and the ability to travel rapidly there can no longer be a choice about taking vaccines. One does not have the right to refuse a vaccine as it puts the community at risk. It's as simple as that.

er.. don't you mean the benefits far outweigh the risks?

 

[Nietzsche]

Why would the 'vaccinated public' be at risk of someone who is not vaccinated? If they are vaccinated, aren't they safe?

Not exactly. Vaccination works by preparing the body for the disease, giving it the anti-bodies to fight it as soon as you catch it. However, with unvaccinated individuals the disease is able to linger. It can continuously spread because there are hosts that can't destroy it. This gives it opportunity to mutate just enough that the anti-bodies you developed for the original strain are no longer effective. And that's why anti-vaxx is so dangerous, it's beefing up the disease, making it harder & harder for our bodies to destroy. You're aware of the "Super-germ" idea right? Where use of anti-bacterials kill off 99.9% of germs, but those remaining .1% that survived are more resistant or immune?

Vaccination is sort of like that, except the body is able to destroy 100% of the disease rather than leaving any of it alive, because the immune-response is coordinated. Anti-bacterials just kill, anti-bodies seek out & destroy.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The only thing I've ever had was chicken pox at the age of 7 and it really wasn't that bad.

Congratulations: you're now susceptible to shingles for the rest of your life. The chicken pox virus is dormant in your nervous system and it can reinvigorate itself at any time, painfully inflaming your nerve endings.

I had chicken pox as a kid (I'm old enough that the chicken pox wasn't available when I was a baby). I had shingles a few years ago - it really sucks.

 

[Vishvavajra]

There really isn't a discussion to be had on this issue. Anti-vax is on the same level as young-earth creationism: there are those who understand the science and those who do not (and fill in the gaps with bizarre conspiracy theories).

 

[Aupmanyav]

What about conspiracy theories? I would certainly not like to use vaccines manufactured in Pakistan. Who knows what they will put in them?

 

[Marisa]

Male biological clock possibly linked to autism, other disorders : Article : Nature Medicine

 

[Debater Slayer]

Yeah exactly. And if vaccination is not 100% protection, then they are compromising their immune systems for nothing.

Anyway, the point is we should have a right to say yes or no to vacs... I appreciate the right to self determination because its part of being human. Some people would want to take that away from us and its plain wrong.

I find it deeply hypocritical that you would oppose abortion on the grounds that you are "pro-life" but reject vaccination because it doesn't mesh with your religious beliefs.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Personally speaking, I think that this is an arrogant claim that does not take into account why people are anti-vax. It's just so easy to point a finger and say "you're an idiot" than it is to try to understand why people think what they do.

I've tried to understand why anti-vaxxers are opposed to vaccinations. So far, I haven't found any reasons that are based in fact.

I'm satisfied that Wakefield's paper that really sparked the "vaccines cause autism" argument was a fraud. It's been exposed that he manipulated his data and took secret payments for his study (from parents engaged in a lawsuit over their child's autism). The journal that published his original paper has retracted it and he lost his medical license over the affair. Also, 15 years after mercury-containing preservatives were removed from vaccines, we can see in the clinical data that autism rates didn't drop. His paper and its conclusions have been thoroughly debunked.

Still, he continues to have his supporters, and I think that his paper continues to have a strong influence on the anti-vax movement. I have no problem saying that these people have been duped by lies from a con man. This doesn't mean they're idiots, but it does mean that they're mistaken.

Aside from this, the only motives I've seen in the anti-vax movement are either based on fringe religious beliefs (e.g. "I don't vaccinate because we pray to God for healing instead of going to the doctor") or logical fallacies, specifically post hoc ergo propter hoc (e.g. "my baby was vaccinated, then X happened, therefore the vaccine caused X") or the naturalistic fallacy (e.g. "I don't want to inject my baby with 'chemicals").

If you know of some other rationale, I'd love to hear about it.

 

[YmirGF]

er.. don't you mean the benefits far outweigh the risks?

Indeed. What can I say, I posted around 6am when only one eye was open.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What about conspiracy theories? I would certainly not like to use vaccines manufactured in Pakistan. Who knows what they will put in them?

I can concede that what the CIA did (using a vaccination program as cover to collect DNA samples to find Osama bin Laden's relatives) raises concerns that vaccination can be abused, but:

- this is only a legitimate concern in very narrow contexts
- it would never apply only to vaccines.

For instance, if you don't trust Pakistani vaccines, would you trust Pakistani produce? If your concern is some sort of Pakistani plot against India, then it's more rational to worry about "stuff from Pakistan" in general than vaccines specifically.

 

[YmirGF]

Vaccination is sort of like that, except the body is able to destroy 100% of the disease rather than leaving any of it alive, because the immune-response is coordinated. Anti-bacterials just kill, anti-bodies seek out & destroy.

Now if only they can come up with a vaccine for the "silent killer" that is known as stupidity.