Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Invisusira's playground

Moderators: Aergis, Invisusira

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby fuzzygeek » Tue Feb 26, 2013 6:21 pm

Fridmarr wrote:Or maybe they look at the data and choose what they believe is in the best interest of their child over the best interest of society.


I vaccinated my kids as well, but don't recall anything contra- at the time (18/8 years ago). Some friends had a child recently and their mother told them not to get their daughter vaccinated, and the mother certainly didn't do any looking around -- she based her opinion entirely on Old Chinese Woman gossip.

While I don't doubt there are conscientious objectors out there that are well-informed, I suspect there are fewer of them than there are people who ... aren't.

Now that I think about it, I wonder how that particular demographic's gossip started. "vaccines are bad" is a particularly virulent (heh I make small joke) meme, and I wonder how these things go cross-cultural.
Image
User avatar
fuzzygeek
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 3447
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 1:58 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby fuzzygeek » Tue Feb 26, 2013 6:22 pm

Koatanga wrote:If you think that sounds a hell of a lot like many "members" of society who want the benefits of government but don't want to pay for it or don't think the rules should apply to them, you're quite right.


Should everyone pay taxes, regardless of income bracket?
Image
User avatar
fuzzygeek
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 3447
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 1:58 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Koatanga » Tue Feb 26, 2013 7:11 pm

fuzzygeek wrote:
Koatanga wrote:If you think that sounds a hell of a lot like many "members" of society who want the benefits of government but don't want to pay for it or don't think the rules should apply to them, you're quite right.


Should everyone pay taxes, regardless of income bracket?

Only the people who actually benefit from the government. Such benefits may include (but are not limited to) police, military, emergency services, infrastructure, recordkeeping, and licensing.

Anyone who doesn't benefit from any of that should be exempt from taxes. Everyone else should pay their fair share.
Un-Retired. Ish. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1664
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Koatanga » Tue Feb 26, 2013 7:15 pm

Fridmarr wrote:Or maybe they look at the data and choose what they believe is in the best interest of their child over the best interest of society.

Well, I reckoned that what was best for my kid was to do everything in my power to avoid this:

Image
Un-Retired. Ish. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1664
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fridmarr » Tue Feb 26, 2013 7:47 pm

Ok lets not go there. I don't want to see pics (or the video footage) of people who've been adversely affected by vaccines either. We've already talked about the consequences on both ends, imagery isn't necessary or even a very compelling tactic.

Koatanga wrote:
Fridmarr wrote:Or maybe they look at the data and choose what they believe is in the best interest of their child over the best interest of society.

Well, I reckoned that what was best for my kid was to do everything in my power to avoid this:
Well that's my point, it's more of a best interest of the child thing, than any obligation to society. Isn't it entirely possible that looking at the data, particularly with a study out there suggesting a new link to autism via vaccines that parents choosing not to vaccinate their children believed that were doing the same thing?

fuzzygeek wrote:While I don't doubt there are conscientious objectors out there that are well-informed, I suspect there are fewer of them than there are people who ... aren't.
But it's actually kind of a pain to avoid them because according to the CDC, all 50 states require some level of vaccinations before entering public school. Then of course you have the whole birth and care visits growing up too. That's why I tend to think this is a group that's putting forth an effort to educate themselves.

fuzzygeek wrote:Now that I think about it, I wonder how that particular demographic's gossip started. "vaccines are bad" is a particularly virulent (heh I make small joke) meme, and I wonder how these things go cross-cultural.
Well I have no clue if there is any data out there regarding people who choose not to vaccinate. I don't think I even know anyone that has made that choice, not that it really ever comes up in conversation.

Koatanga wrote:Anyone who doesn't benefit from any of that should be exempt from taxes. Everyone else should pay their fair share.
And by fair share are you using a usage based model, or just taking the total cost and dividing that by the number of payers? :D
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6464
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Darielle » Tue Feb 26, 2013 8:00 pm

Well that's my point, it's more of a best interest of the child thing, than any obligation to society. Isn't it entirely possible that looking at the data, particularly with a study out there suggesting a new link to autism via vaccines that parents choosing not to vaccinate their children believed that were doing the same thing?


Any data that you could possibly get depends on the people who do vaccinate though. Your odds of, say, not getting Measles are heavily influenced by the amount of people that get a Measles vaccine, and you're required to weigh THAT number against the odds of bad reaction to in any way get some study that puts not vaccinating in a favourible light.

This reminds me of that old Packet Forwarding game. You can get away with Declining if enough people in the system Accept packets, but if enough start Declining, the entire network slows down and if everyone starts Declining, the network breaks down.
Darielle
 
Posts: 853
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 2:41 am
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fridmarr » Tue Feb 26, 2013 9:09 pm

Darielle wrote:
Well that's my point, it's more of a best interest of the child thing, than any obligation to society. Isn't it entirely possible that looking at the data, particularly with a study out there suggesting a new link to autism via vaccines that parents choosing not to vaccinate their children believed that were doing the same thing?


Any data that you could possibly get depends on the people who do vaccinate though. Your odds of, say, not getting Measles are heavily influenced by the amount of people that get a Measles vaccine, and you're required to weigh THAT number against the odds of bad reaction to in any way get some study that puts not vaccinating in a favourible light.

This reminds me of that old Packet Forwarding game. You can get away with Declining if enough people in the system Accept packets, but if enough start Declining, the entire network slows down and if everyone starts Declining, the network breaks down.
Yeah we already covered that. It's just another data point though. I don't know what data people were getting. I remember when the research came out because it generated some buzz, but I was years from having kids. I'm sure there was an element of trust involved too, because of the various accusations being made.

Here's some context: http://www.nature.com/embor/journal/v7/ ... 00862.html
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6464
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Koatanga » Tue Feb 26, 2013 9:13 pm

Fridmarr wrote:
Koatanga wrote:Anyone who doesn't benefit from any of that should be exempt from taxes. Everyone else should pay their fair share.
And by fair share are you using a usage based model, or just taking the total cost and dividing that by the number of payers? :D

Because a fair and equitable tax plan can be summed up in the space of a Maintankadin post, amirite?

Obviously there are differences between corporations and small businesses, rich and poor, able or disabled, etc. to consider. I don't believe government exists only to make roads and invade foreign countries, but to provide some basic services for the governed as well.

However, I don't get to control the population. I know that for every person in legitimate need, there are 5 or 10 lazy bastards holding their hands out.

So starting from an inequitable population, I don't know how to make any sweeping judgements that would create a fair and even taxation for all people and/or businesses - not in the space of a post here at any rate. It would probably take months to sort out the details.
Un-Retired. Ish. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1664
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Koatanga » Tue Feb 26, 2013 9:39 pm

Fridmarr wrote:Well that's my point, it's more of a best interest of the child thing, than any obligation to society. Isn't it entirely possible that looking at the data, particularly with a study out there suggesting a new link to autism via vaccines that parents choosing not to vaccinate their children believed that were doing the same thing?

My kid can live with autism a hell of a lot easier than with meningitis. Between meningitis B and C, New Zealand had a 12% infection rate and 5% death rate as recently as 2004. Between 2006 and 2010, there were between 5 and 8 deaths per year from meningococcal disease, and in 2011 there were 13 deaths. That makes no mention of the number of kids who were maimed by the disease.

I have not found any evidence of even a single death in that time, linked to a vaccine, that was not presented by someone with an anti-vaccination agenda or that was confirmed by any credible study.

So yeah, keeping my kid from dying or being maimed is in my best interest, and the irresponsible bastards who don't do their part to protect other children from such horrendous diseases are full of crap, in my opinion.
Un-Retired. Ish. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1664
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Darielle » Wed Feb 27, 2013 3:27 am

Yeah we already covered that. It's just another data point though. I don't know what data people were getting. I remember when the research came out because it generated some buzz, but I was years from having kids. I'm sure there was an element of trust involved too, because of the various accusations being made.


It's not really "just another data point". It's pretty much the entire premise.
Darielle
 
Posts: 853
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 2:41 am
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Nooska » Wed Feb 27, 2013 3:37 am

If everyone else got vaccinated, why should I put myself through the non-zero risk of being vaccinated? I mean, its not liek I'll pick up the disease from zoonosis or standing around, I have to meet someone else with it (thats why we don't have smallpox (variola) anymore for instance - I know I'm not vaccinated against smallpox, but thats not a genuine risk) is the premise.

It is also why I don't think a mandate is good, it forces people to take a non-zero risk with certainty. Also, I think its bad practice for the government to mandate specific medical treatments (proactive or reactive), as it kinda goes against the whole basis of medicine being informed consent (we can of course talk about how informed the consent really is, but thats a whole otehr discussion), and that medicine isn't infallible.

As for requiring vaccinations to enroll in school (to pick one example), how does that work with other illnesses? should we mandate the flu shot, as that keeps kids out for at least a week, and infects the other kids before so there is a staggered period of about a month before the teachers then stay home sick?
And how does a mandate or requirement protect anyone, when a vaccination isn't a 100% guarantee (it still relies on the recipients immune system providing the antibodies)? (see my earlier post about getting certain "one-off diseases" twice as a child)
Main Characters:
Nooska, Blood Elf BM/SV Hunter on Argent Dawn (EU)
Morosin, Bloody freezing orc death knight on Argent Dawn (EU)
Niisca, Shady forsaken "priest" on Argent Dawn (EU)

Keeper Emeritus of the BM hunters guide on Elitist Jerks and the wowhead version untill patch 5.3.
User avatar
Nooska
 
Posts: 1517
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 10:55 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Paxen » Wed Feb 27, 2013 4:09 am

Nooska wrote:If everyone else got vaccinated, why should I put myself through the non-zero risk of being vaccinated? I mean, its not liek I'll pick up the disease from zoonosis or standing around, I have to meet someone else with it (thats why we don't have smallpox (variola) anymore for instance - I know I'm not vaccinated against smallpox, but thats not a genuine risk) is the premise.


Perfect example of why vaccines SHOULD be mandatory. Why should everybody else put themselves at risk while you skip out? Classic tragedy of the commons.

Take two seconds and imagine how the world would look if everybody thought like you do. It shouldn't be hard, but it's probably terrifying.
Paxen
 
Posts: 530
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 3:38 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby KysenMurrin » Wed Feb 27, 2013 4:25 am

Nooska wrote:If everyone else got vaccinated, why should I put myself through the non-zero risk of being vaccinated? I mean, its not liek I'll pick up the disease from zoonosis or standing around, I have to meet someone else with it (thats why we don't have smallpox (variola) anymore for instance - I know I'm not vaccinated against smallpox, but thats not a genuine risk) is the premise.

What's an acceptable proportion of people to take this attitude and not be vaccinated? What's the portion of the population that needs to be unvaccinated for a disease to survive? Is it right to allow (in the name of freedom of choice) the people of the former group to reach the latter number, allowing the disease to continue and putting others who are not unvaccinated by choice - newborn children, people with severe allergies to the vaccine, for example - at risk?

Disease transmission is not something that can be thought about solely on the basis of individual risk.
KysenMurrin
 
Posts: 4795
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:37 am
Location: UK

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fridmarr » Wed Feb 27, 2013 8:36 am

Darielle wrote:It's not really "just another data point". It's pretty much the entire premise.

Are you suggesting that those are mutally exclusive? I realize it's important, but it's still a data point.

If your assessing the risk of getting immunized or not, then vaccination rates and infection rates are part of that equation. As those change, so does the risk, fortunately you aren't required to make a choice for life, if you ever decide the risks change you can still get immunized, well if you haven't already died from the disease at least.

Paxen wrote:Perfect example of why vaccines SHOULD be mandatory. Why should everybody else put themselves at risk while you skip out? Classic tragedy of the commons.

Well it's already been said that there is no evidence, not a single case, of any serious side effects from vaccinations. I realize the CDC says that if you have had serious allergic reactions from vaccination, you shouldn't get them, but since they don't publish data suggesting that that has ever happened, it must not really occur. 

So isn't all the risk on the crowd opting to not get immunized? Didn't you see the picture of the little kid? That's what happens if you don't get immunized.  Wasn't the point of many of those posts that not getting immunized poses a greater risk than getting imunized?  Those that are immunized are lucky and shouldn't be concerned, as they are immune.

Of course during that period in which there was such research linking vaccines to autism and colitis, when the team that had the research published went to the media to suggest that a vaccine was not safe and should be pulled, only at that point was there reason to believe there was risk associated with being vaccinated. So it's only then, when there was a perceived risk, that they should have been mandatory.  Now that that published research was debunked, they should be optional again.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6464
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fridmarr » Wed Feb 27, 2013 9:24 am

fuzzygeek wrote:While I don't doubt there are conscientious objectors out there that are well-informed, I suspect there are fewer of them than there are people who ... aren't.

Now that I think about it, I wonder how that particular demographic's gossip started. "vaccines are bad" is a particularly virulent (heh I make small joke) meme, and I wonder how these things go cross-cultural.

I came across this site which talks about this topic. http://www.vaccineriskawareness.com/Mor ... -Vaccinate


Now that site seems to be one of those anti vaccine sites, but it does cite its sources and the first couple I checked pan out. I don't know that they accurately capture the spirit of everything they cite either, so you'd have to verify that. They also have a lot of BMJ references but I guess that makes sense since that was where the research was from.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6464
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby fuzzygeek » Wed Feb 27, 2013 10:05 am

Fridmarr wrote:I came across this site which talks about this topic. http://www.vaccineriskawareness.com/Mor ... -Vaccinate


Interesting, thanks. The article's from 2007 and splits between a "full schedule" and "none *or* selective schedule." I suspect some statistical grouping is going on here. The tone of the piece raises a bunch of red flags, but I read everything skeptically so maybe it's just me.

Their attempt to link smart mothers with non-vaccination and poor people with vaccinations is pretty blatant in their headlines. Like, "More Educated Mothers Are Less Likely To Vaccinate" and "Poor Children from Deprived Areas are More Likely to be Vaccinated" as headers, and the sole "pertinent reader's comment" being a slam at "people who profit from the use of vaccines" is pretty transparent. Closing with a study about "concerns" always raises my hackles too. Unless you're working PR, waving around "concern" pieces is basically "these smart/popular/beautiful/successful people are *concerned* and *you should be too!*" Don't tell me that they *are* concerned. Tell me *why*.

But yeah. I've never had a conversation with someone who has done the research and opted out; I've had several with the "oh I hear they make you stupid." Maybe the filter is somewhat self-selected, in that those that have opted out don't talk about their choice, so the vocal idiots in the opt-out party become the visible "face" of the group.
Image
User avatar
fuzzygeek
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 3447
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 1:58 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Nooska » Wed Feb 27, 2013 10:55 am

Paxen wrote:
Nooska wrote:If everyone else got vaccinated, why should I put myself through the non-zero risk of being vaccinated? I mean, its not liek I'll pick up the disease from zoonosis or standing around, I have to meet someone else with it (thats why we don't have smallpox (variola) anymore for instance - I know I'm not vaccinated against smallpox, but thats not a genuine risk) is the premise.


Perfect example of why vaccines SHOULD be mandatory. Why should everybody else put themselves at risk while you skip out? Classic tragedy of the commons.

Take two seconds and imagine how the world would look if everybody thought like you do. It shouldn't be hard, but it's probably terrifying.


That was an argument diabolicus; I always use "I" when I argue, regardless of whether I think or do what I'm arguing about (I find it is usually easier to shoot down some unespecified hypothetical person than the person one is arguing with with attempts at strawmanning the hypothetical person).

That said, If noone was vaccinated, I think more people would be vaccinated - I mean, if the risk of not getting the shot was greater than the percieved risk of getting the shot.
As is, with almost everyone getting the shots, there is no statistically sound reason to get a vaccinated yourself - when most parents do its because of irrational fears of the diseases their children might get. Meningitis does not result in amputations generally (diabetes is a more prevalent source for that, yet parents all over the western world are far less likely to maintain a healthy diet to lower the risk of getting diabetes 2)

Another consequence of noone being vaccinated would be higher mortality rate, and lower population in the western world (and thus lower unemployment, and probably less technological and scientific advancement, as there would be a higher focus on physical fitness to overcome disease risks, leading to lower prestige from being scholarly, and less support from parents to be scholarly etc, etc, etc.)
Main Characters:
Nooska, Blood Elf BM/SV Hunter on Argent Dawn (EU)
Morosin, Bloody freezing orc death knight on Argent Dawn (EU)
Niisca, Shady forsaken "priest" on Argent Dawn (EU)

Keeper Emeritus of the BM hunters guide on Elitist Jerks and the wowhead version untill patch 5.3.
User avatar
Nooska
 
Posts: 1517
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 10:55 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Jabari » Wed Feb 27, 2013 12:13 pm

Hate to break up the vaccine stuff, but if this is true...

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/senate-gop-ponders-shifting-power-to-obama-88149.html#ixzz2M7AE28wZ

What difference is there between Rs and Ds again?
Buncha spineless cowards, the lot of them.

Couple quick comments on the vaccine stuff:
#1) The correct answer to 99% of questions that begin "Should the government be able to mandate ..." is NO.

#2) A lot of the vaccinations are important. That said, the "schedule", especially right after birth, is completely insane. Those need to be spread out a bit, at minimum, and there are probably some that can be eliminated.

#3) I think people glossed a bit over one of Fridmarr's posts - there's an important point here that really needs to be understood (and covers more than just government-"mandated" vaccines): http://maintankadin.failsafedesign.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=32890&start=1740#p757364 Anybody thinking that "government is doing the best for me" is deluded at best. If you have questions about such things, do the research and make your own determination.
Most people want the wealth produced by a society with limited government distributed to them more generously by bigger government.
Jabari
 
Posts: 681
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 8:46 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Darielle » Wed Feb 27, 2013 1:26 pm

Are you suggesting that those are mutally exclusive? I realize it's important, but it's still a data point.

If your assessing the risk of getting immunized or not, then vaccination rates and infection rates are part of that equation. As those change, so does the risk, fortunately you aren't required to make a choice for life, if you ever decide the risks change you can still get immunized, well if you haven't already died from the disease at least.


The use of the word "just" to trivialise the "data point" certainly is.

It's also irrelevant from the point of view of the system. As in the Packet Forwarding scenario, it is 100% on the system designer (or whoever controls the system) to ensure that the system stays optimal, which would definitely involve "punishing" or "disincentivising" people doing something to the detriment of others and their own gain.

Now, you could certainly argue that things like schools that won't let you in is "enough punishment", or that it should work the other way with "incentivising vaccination" etc. But it IS fairly important to realise that this "data point" is not "just another data point" - and it certainly isn't that way to anyone whose responsibility or authority it is to ensure the system continues working in its best capacity (keeping the dangerous infections to a minimum).

As for requiring vaccinations to enroll in school (to pick one example), how does that work with other illnesses? should we mandate the flu shot, as that keeps kids out for at least a week, and infects the other kids before so there is a staggered period of about a month before the teachers then stay home sick?


It's probably one of the more important things, but people will probably squirm at the concept of mandated flu shots, but will accept free flu shots *shrug*.

That said, If noone was vaccinated, I think more people would be vaccinated - I mean, if the risk of not getting the shot was greater than the percieved risk of getting the shot.
As is, with almost everyone getting the shots, there is no statistically sound reason to get a vaccinated yourself - when most parents do its because of irrational fears of the diseases their children might get. Meningitis does not result in amputations generally (diabetes is a more prevalent source for that, yet parents all over the western world are far less likely to maintain a healthy diet to lower the risk of getting diabetes 2)


Ummm.
Two things:
- You'd have to actually prove there is no statistically sound reason to get vaccinated with numbers.
- The flaw in that kind of system is that it puts the most risk on people who do want to get vaccinated but cannot. Or on people with weaker immune systems - the kind of people that actually need the most shielding from everyone else.

Another consequence of noone being vaccinated would be higher mortality rate, and lower population in the western world (and thus lower unemployment, and probably less technological and scientific advancement, as there would be a higher focus on physical fitness to overcome disease risks, leading to lower prestige from being scholarly, and less support from parents to be scholarly etc, etc, etc.)


Some of these are actually really not a consequence. For example, lower unemployment only follows through if a greater proportion of people who work are hit than people who "run businesses". Similarly, the concept of scholarly is not mutually exclusive from "fit", especially in these current times. Also, while technological and scientific advancement might be different in focus and scope, it's a pretty loose idea to suggest that it might possibly be less.
Darielle
 
Posts: 853
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 2:41 am
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fridmarr » Wed Feb 27, 2013 2:02 pm

Darielle wrote:The use of the word "just" to trivialise the "data point" certainly is.


...ok then it's just a data point.  The point you are getting at is so tangential, I just don't care about it.
 
Darielle wrote:It's also irrelevant from the point of view of the system.


Of course it's irrelvent to the system.  The person making a choice isn't concerned about the efficient management of a system over which they have almost zero control.  They are concerned about their child.  If the system breaks down, that's just a change to the value of that data point in their assessment.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6464
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Koatanga » Wed Feb 27, 2013 2:06 pm

Do you home-school? If not, you put your child in far more danger driving him to school or letting him ride the bus than you would be having him immunised.

Does your child eat? He's far more likely to get food poisoning than to catch anything from a vaccine.

Does your child play outside? The odds of contracting melanoma are higher than catching anything from a vaccine.

Will your child play any sports? The odds of injury or even death as a result of an accident playing sports is greater than contracting anything from a vaccine.

Will you allow your child to marry? The odds of being killed by his spouse is greater...

How far will people take this immunisation paranoia?

It's ridiculous to spaz out about vaccine risks, then turn around and take even greater risks with your child on a daily or even hourly basis.
Un-Retired. Ish. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1664
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Darielle » Wed Feb 27, 2013 2:35 pm

...ok then it's just a data point. The point you are getting at is so tangential, I just don't care about it.


It's not tangential; it's the entire reason the discussion even exists.

Of course it's irrelvent to the system. The person making a choice isn't concerned about the efficient management of a system over which they have almost zero control. They are concerned about their child. If the system breaks down, that's just a change to the value of that data point in their assessment.


The person making a choice IS concerned about the efficient management of a system, because it's that system that allows for the choice to be made. Ignoring it puts your child at greater risk than getting a vaccine does, especially if you trust other people to be just as "self-interested" or "easily swayed by a bad study that got tons of press".
Last edited by Darielle on Wed Feb 27, 2013 2:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Darielle
 
Posts: 853
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 2:41 am
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fridmarr » Wed Feb 27, 2013 2:39 pm

Is that directed at me?  I'm not paranoid about immunizations.  I was in the military so I've had my fair share of vaccinations...
 
That said, those analogies are all terrible.  First, you could totally flip all of them right back at you and your "paranoia" about people who aren't immunized.  But more importantly, people are doing those actions because the reward that they are getting from those activities is of greater value to them than their concern over the risks.  That reward value though is not itself risk based.
 
Immunization is purely a risk scenario, you get the shot to reduce the risk of getting a disease, or you don't get the shot to reduce the risk of not suffering side effects from the shot.  It's a straight risk tradeoff.  That's a completely independent and different scenario than your analogies.  
 
The "paranoia" was caused when scientists published accepted research which said that an immunization wasn't as safe as it should be, linked it to a disease, and said that it should be pulled from the market for further analysis. 
 
 
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6464
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Darielle » Wed Feb 27, 2013 2:41 pm

That said, those analogies are all terrible. First, you could totally flip all of them right back at you and your "paranoia" about people who aren't immunized.


You actually can't without altering either models or context. But go ahead.

But more importantly, people are doing those actions because the reward that they are getting from those activities is of greater value to them than their concern over the risks. That reward value though is not itself risk based.


No, the "reward value" is entirely risk based.
Darielle
 
Posts: 853
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 2:41 am
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fridmarr » Wed Feb 27, 2013 3:15 pm

Darielle wrote:
...ok then it's just a data point. The point you are getting at is so tangential, I just don't care about it.


It's not tangential; it's the entire reason the discussion even exists.

Of course it's irrelvent to the system. The person making a choice isn't concerned about the efficient management of a system over which they have almost zero control. They are concerned about their child. If the system breaks down, that's just a change to the value of that data point in their assessment.


The person making a choice IS concerned about the efficient management of a system, because it's that system that allows for the choice to be made. Ignoring it puts your child at greater risk than getting a vaccine does, especially if you trust other people to be just as "self-interested" or "easily swayed by a bad study that got tons of press".


...this is silly.  I just do not care how much you value that data point.   It quite obviously is not the entire reason this discussion exists.  This conversation exists because vaccinations have a non 100% effectiveness, they have a non 0% risk, and there is a non 0% exposure chance (the latter being the data point in question).  If vaccinations were 100% effective and had zero risk, exposure rate wouldn't matter, everyone would choose the vaccine.  It's a data point...  Call it the most important thing in the world if you want, I just do not care and most importantly it makes no difference to this discussion.

 

The person making the decision is concerned about the exposure risk, but not the system.  The system could just as easily be a heavily mandated quarantine system, but at the end of the day it just results in a risk.

I'm done with this digression.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6464
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

PreviousNext

Return to Arkham Asylum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

Who is online

In total there is 1 user online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 380 on Tue Oct 14, 2008 6:28 pm

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest