Hacker News Reader

Comment by rbourke | Hacker News Reader

The effectiveness of vaccines rely on 'herd immunity', that is: you need more than 90% of a population immunised to stop a disease spreading (as vaccines are never 100% effective)(also varies according to vaccine types/adjuvants and disease contagiousness)

So by not vaccinating your self/dependents you are actually extremely selfish as you are benefiting from herd immunity whilst at the same time avoiding the (small) side reactions each vaccine may have. This is one of the most selfish things you could ever do.

View on HN

Good points. I would just add two things. First, as you say, the percentage you need to reach herd immunity depends on a lot of factors. Broadly speaking, the vaccination coverage you need is 1 - 1/R0, where R0 is the basic reproductive number of the disease (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_reproduction_number). For diseases like measles, where the estimated R0 is above 10, you need at least 90% vaccinated, perhaps even more; for other diseases it may be lower.

Second, even if you reach herd immunity, it is a concept that completely relies on a random vaccination distribution. Say your R0 is 10, and you have attained a vaccination coverage of 90%, you may still get lots of outbreaks, because the 10% that are unvaccinated may not be randomly distributed. Indeed, it's becoming quite clear that in almost all cases unvaccinated people are clustered. This is why you get these sporadic outbreaks in under-vaccinated communities.

We (some of my colleagues at the Center for Infectious Disease Dynamics and I) are doing a MOOC this fall on exactly these topics: https://www.coursera.org/course/epidemics

Here is an in-browser demonstration of herd immunity[1], which I think shows the importance pretty well. It was posted on HN before[2].

[1] http://op12no2.me/toys/herd/index.php?scenario=intro

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5190234

I am pro vaccination for anything that has sufficient maturity (high proof of action/low enough risk).

For the sake of the point, I'll just put out that vaccination is for the good of the community, but this community might not fully commit to support members who react badly to vaccines.

I don't refer to direct health concerns if something goes bad, but on the long term effects when there is some disability left. You'll vaccinate your kid to protect others as well, but if his lever doesn't stand it and became diabethic, you'll have a hard time finding schools that will provide assistance towards kids with special needs.

If a vaccine has a 1% chance of going awry, commiting to do what it takes to support the 1% "unlucky" ones would help a lot lowering the resistance toward vaccines.

In a conversation like this, it's important to discount hypothetical risks. Vaccination has been around for a long time. Hypothetically, there could be one with a 40% risk of long-term disability. But there isn't.

Show me an example of disability caused by vaccination (they exist), complete with a percentage estimate of how many people will suffer. Then we can talk about the associated costs.

I think you are looking at this from a statistical point of view, where you balance the risk for the group and what might happen to one person. I understand this point.

What I am saying is that from an individual point of view, people won't react the same if you tell them:

A - "Your kid has a 1 in 800 million have it bad, it should be OK but if it's not, tough luck, you deal with it"

B - "Your kid has a really small chance to suffer from it, but it's for the group. If it goes bad the group will do everything to support you and your kid"

I'd really wish it would more of the B pattern, and that everyone would be on the same page, not fearing to have to mildly go through hell if they hit the vaccine lottery. You talk about associated costs, I think some of the people refusing vaccines feel that the main cost (and that not just financial cost) in case of failure will be on them, not on the general population. You can agree or disagree, but that's a point of view that is too often overlooked I think.

'''B - "Your kid has a really small chance to suffer from it, but it's for the group. If it goes bad the group will do everything to support you and your kid'''

To be fair, that's why the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act was passed, though there are limitations:

> to be eligible to file a claim, the effects of the person’s injury must have: 1) lasted for more than 6 months after the vaccine was given; or 2) resulted in a hospital stay and surgery; or 3) resulted in death.

For examples, if you get the measles vaccine and within 4 hours go into anaphylactic shock, then it's presumed to be caused by the vaccine. If in the month after getting the chicken pox vaccine you start suffering from chronic arthritis, then again it's presumed that the vaccine caused the condition.

In those cases you can be paid (quoting from http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/84521booklet.pdf ):

• a reasonable amount for past and future nonreimbursable medical, custodial care, and rehabilitation costs, and related expenses (There is no limit on the amount a person with an injury may be paid for these types of expenses. Payments are based on your vaccine injury needs.);

• up to $250,000 for actual and projected pain and suffering;

• lost earnings; and/or

• reasonable lawyers’ fees and other legal costs or legal costs, not fees, of petitioners representing themselves, if your claim was filed on a reasonable basis and in good faith.

Worse, some people can't get certain vaccines, due to health/immune issues. They actually need herd immunity to stay alive. By refusing to get vaccinated, you're putting already sick people at risk.

Like me, I'm allergic to most vaccines. So I can't have them, and require herd immunity to keep me OK. Thankfully I've been fine thus far.

From my research, people who avoid vaccines are usually afraid of (big) side reactions, like infertility or autism.

Oh, those are "big" (as in, serious, though rare; or serious, but doesn't fucking happen...) but do you know what is bigger? Somebody who could not get immunized dying because you refused to get immunized.

That is why it is selfish. Incredibly selfish.

If one was forced to immunize their child, that child then dies from a reaction to that vaccine. Is that the "unselfish" act? You might of well have said it's against your "morals". Your full of it, might as well say we should cull the autistic kids from the herd, you know to protect the herd.

Vaccines save millions of live. If, in your personal system of morality, the veeery slight chance that your child will die takes priority over the benefit vaccines present to society, then while you are entitled to that viewpoint, I have the right to call you a selfish monster who embodies much that is wrong with modern society.

Furthermore, neither autistic kids nor eugenics have fuck all to do with vaccinations. Quit peddling this bullshit.

Your comment made absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Yep, which would be valid except there is no scientific basis for those.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com