Teen Gets Vaccines During Measles Outbreak, Despite Mom's Belief

Yet the anti-vaxers are still out in force, against any move by the government requiring vaxination.[1]

People with children too young to be vacinated are running scared[2].

its odd. I really wonder sometimes what is driving the anti vax movement. It seems like something that exists with nothing for anyone to gain. I'm all for questioning things, but it seems people aren't able to make the rational decisions and are endangering others.

[1]https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2019/02/08/washington-...

[2]https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/it-wi...

pick one

Getting an immunization doesn't guarantee immunity. There is a fundamental trade-off at play: make the immunization shot too strong and more people get harmed; make it too weak and fewer people actually get immunity.

The funny thing about the anti-vax crowd is they have opted to turn the dial to the maximum, and most dangerous, setting: use a full strength virus in order to gain future immunity.

Children get harmed with no recourse, while the adults responsible go free.

You’ll never crack the religious people as communities that push this crap isolate people.

Or use the scientific method to determine what methods of persuasion have the highest success rates for promoting behavioural changes, such as motivational interviewing?

https://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c1900

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-8804(02)80030-1

Or require parents to consult with local public health departments to obtain a waiver, which has significantly reduced vaccine exemptions in some cases?

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/04/can-skeptical-parent...

Yes, we'll recruit from the Flat Earth Society, Moon Landing Deniers, Church of Scientology, Climate Change deniers, the Pizza Gaters, the 9/11 Truthers, Fluoridation haters, Shooting Victims are Child Actors group, Chemtrail worriers, Black Helicopter spotters, Blame George Soros fans, Illuminati Be Playin' 4D Chess Club, and every f'ing halfwit in a tinfoil hat.

Or just outlaw all exemptions except medically necessary and block unimmunized children from attending school.

I'll bet that once there's a $50/year bill to remain unvaccinated, 95% of the problem will clear right up. For the remainder, great we've got the extra money to take care of it.

It's possible to get through to these people if you're willing to argue in terms they understand, which means dropping "scientific framework". You might be unwilling to do that, but if you can stomach it, it works. Constructing persuasive irrational arguments for positions that are correct takes some practice, but it's not exactly difficult.

Insurance companies may indeed pay more or less for 'well designed' vaccinations programs, and may incentivize vaccination in general in some locales as a long-term cost reduction program [2].

[1] https://seattlemamadoc.seattlechildrens.org/pediatricians-co...

[2] https://vaxopedia.org/2017/09/24/that-3-million-vaccine-bonu...

Google provides this explanation about a Blue Cross incentive program similar to what you describe that sounds modest, benign, and completely justified: https://vaxopedia.org/2017/09/24/that-3-million-vaccine-bonu...

My insurance program gives incentives for people to achieve a healthy weight, quit smoking, and get regular checkups.

I understand the financial incentives, but presumably a couple people in the firm think they might be helping people too.

Even insurers can't be sinister all the time.

Insurance companies would in effect be saying with their wallet that vaccinations are safe and effective. Effective enough that paying doctors ten's of thousands is cheaper than paying for the increased costs of care resulting from a significant number of patients not being vaccinated. Since insurance companies would also bear a significant part of the cost of care for patients that were negatively affected by vaccines, this also implies that the rate of and impact of negative effects from vaccination are low.

There is nothing inherently bad about these incentive models (they are trying to address a number of issues with the current fee-for-service model). If anything, they are proof of the efficacy of these actions. The "evil" insurance company's primary goal is spending less money on care, so if they're willing to pay doctors to vaccinate at the recommended rate, then clearly it's in their financial interest to do so (i.e. vaccinated patients cost the insurance company less money, which is a pretty good proxy for "vaccinated patients have fewer health issues").

Can you articulate why you would want to "slow down" the vaccination schedule? The current guidelines are based on a significant body of research. What evidence are you basing your decision on?

As far as payers are concerned, your insurance may incentivize certain physicians based on overall (covered) patient immunization rates; this isn’t anything new, going back at least a few decades. From the insurance perspective, immunizations are a financial firewall — vaccinated kids means fewer seriously ill (read: expensive) kids. However, there’s no evidence that financial incentives materially change vaccination rates, just the quality of documentation (less of an issue with EMRs these days).

Any financial incentives that exist are because insurance companies are incentivised to have everyone vaccinated for very obvious reasons.

If you don't understand what the obvious reasons are, think about how much it costs to take care of someone hospitalized, versus the cost of a shot.

You aren't wrong to question, because most professionals seem to just apply a rubric deductively rather than spending thought analyzing every situation. But if you would seriously like to understand / check her advice, then you need to do research on this specific subject and come up with your own informed opinion. Likely there is some debate in the medical community on timing, and the doctor either made that decision and doesn't seem the need to revisit it or is simply following a colleague.

What you can't do is take her lack of explanation as if she's hiding something, and then backpropagate and conclude that she must be doing it for nefarious reasons. That is essentially equating laziness with malice.

All they have to do is throw handwavey bullshit out there until enough people doubt and do stupid made-up stuff like spacing out the vaccines for some unknown, unmeasurable benefit.

There are people in my state, in the "best country on Earth", dying from preventable diseases because of OTHER PEOPLES' pseudo-scientific crap and "beliefs". I just can't take it. When are we going to drop what we're doing and pour the billions we need into public education? - funding, reform, curriculum, emphasis on personal finance and logical reasoning skills. Pick a topic - climate change, flat earth, vaccines/autism, all of this irrationality starts with education.

Also, insurance companies go out of their way to incentivize and encourage proactive health measures, especially for younger groups; given all credible scientific research and data, and barring some other weird conspiracy, it seems reasonable to think they're encouraging vaccines because they keep people from getting preventable diseases and suffering miserable deaths.

If you get chicken pox, your chances of getting shingles later in life is much higher. It is not pleasant. Also, chicken pox can be deadly. That's why we have a vaccine now.