Vaccinate your children

[@Li3n]

Its not stupidity that keeps people from vaccinating. Its ignorance, misplaced trust, and misinformation, something we are all capable of.

I like how you're implying that we're not all capable of being stupid.

Which is my point. Genetics might give you some tendency, but unless some genetic defect affects the way your brain develops, it's how it is stimulated in the formative years that really makes a difference.

Geniuses are born in families that talk about little else than NASCAR, and mediocre idiots are born in even the most intellectual, museum-visiting, debate-loving families.

That's actually not really true... nutrition and education do play a big part in your formative years, but the difference in IQ isn't that large, and when it is it's simply a fluke that happens very rarely.


But natural selection doesn't really care about that, if you screwed up passing on your genes (by getting your kids killed) you're not worthy of survival...

Just because someone's parents are idiots doesn't mean they'll be idiots. There are plenty of kids who are good kids despite the fact that they're raised by morons.

Interesting how you use "good" instead of "smart"... >



Seriously though, i'm not really a fan of involuntary eugenics, i was just pointing out how there are other ways to look at this.

 

[tegid]

Its not stupidity that keeps people from vaccinating. Its ignorance, misplaced trust, and misinformation, something we are all capable of.

I like how you're implying that we're not all capable of being stupid. [/QUOTE]

Dude, what he's saying is very simple: even the most intelligent person can be misinformed.

On the natural selection part, I insist that even if you look at it this way, you wouldn't be selecting off the children of stupid people but also people who can't be vaccinated or have low defenses. (I won't get into the genetics discussion. For the sake of the argument, I'm assuming that the genetic component of intelligence is dominant over environmental factors as a working hypotheses. It's not even important.)

 

[Calleja]

No dude, we really aren't evolving in the traditional sense of the word, for one simple reason: there's no more natural selection. As harsh as it may sound, the minute civilization decided the defective deserved to live, we lifted ourselves right out of that. The genes that are surviving don't belong to people that pass their genes "more so than somebody else"... cause NO ONE is passing their genes more than the next guy. Everyone gets to reproduce now. Defective or weak traits aren't getting weeded out.

In a planet with six billion+ people, even the ugliest and dumbest get a mate.

 

[strawman]

You guys can argue semantics all day long, but before you continue it might be useful for both of you to define "evolution" and "natural selection" so that you can at least stop shouting across the chasm between your points of view.

 

[Necronic]

Its not stupidity that keeps people from vaccinating. Its ignorance, misplaced trust, and misinformation, something we are all capable of.

I like how you're implying that we're not all capable of being stupid. [/QUOTE]

Dude, what he's saying is very simple: even the most intelligent person can be misinformed.

[/QUOTE]

On the nose, thank you. It's not that hard to figure out. Even the most intelligent of us can be obtuse I guess.

But as an aside, since the thread has shifted, let me say:

Intelligence is not linear. Period. The whole concept of intelligence being a linear variable is so completely stupid that the irony might actually cause a head-splode.

Why would ANYONE think intelligence is a linear variable? There are so many different aspects of it. Memory. Willpower. Intuitiveness. Ability to Extrapolate. Creativity.

The idea that there is a single number, IQ, that has any bearing on what someone's intelligence is is sad and, frankly, pretty stupid. One of the researchers whose work was used to create the IQ scale vehemently disagreed with it as a concept:

The scale, properly speaking, does not permit the measure of intelligence, because intellectual qualities are not superposable, and therefore cannot be measured as linear surfaces are measured.

 

[sixpackshaker]

Vision correction, plastic surgery, hairclub for men, and the beauty industry has damaged natural selection.

 

[Hylian]

I don't really have anything to say that has not already been said but when has that ever stopped someone here from saying something anyways?



I completely agree that children should be vaccinated. I know there is a small chance that things can go wrong but I think the benefits far outweigh the negative aspects and it is just plain irresponsible of the parents not to get the children vaccinated.

 

[@Li3n]

Its not stupidity that keeps people from vaccinating. Its ignorance, misplaced trust, and misinformation, something we are all capable of.

I like how you're implying that we're not all capable of being stupid. [/QUOTE]

Dude, what he's saying is very simple: even the most intelligent person can be misinformed.

[/QUOTE]

On the nose, thank you. It's not that hard to figure out. Even the most intelligent of us can be obtuse I guess. [/QUOTE]

Yes, it's pretty obvious you can be obtuse...

Evolution is not a gradual increase in good things, it's an increase in strategies that help you have more babies that will have more babies.

Nope... having 300 babies doesn't matter if they all die of the same disease while the sole child of someone else survives because he's been vaccinated...

A better definition would be an increase in strategies/traits that help you and your progeny survive and spread their genes.

No dude, we really aren't evolving in the traditional sense of the word, for one simple reason: there's no more natural selection. As harsh as it may sound, the minute civilization decided the defective deserved to live, we lifted ourselves right out of that.

No, see, what we did was find the best strategy to help us survive, it's called helping each other.

See, natural selection has only 1 way to determine who's defective, something kills them before they can breed (or their offspring all die etc.)... our concept of fitness doesn't really come into it (better odds notwithstanding).

 

[strawman]

I think the salient point is that natural selection pressures are now pushing humans to be able to survive in the world we have created for ourselves. The idea that there is an absolute measure of "fitness to survive" is inadequate. We must take into account that fitness is relative to the environment one is attempting to survive and reproduce in.

 

[Necronic]

Vision correction, plastic surgery, hairclub for men, and the beauty industry has damaged natural selection.

I think those items have simply changed the goal of natural selection. Natural selection is now working on reducing genetically predisposed diseases, specifically those that will make it impossible for you to reproduce (due to early death etc.) Genetic counseling, when it becomes more common, will accelerate that natural selection, which will allow us to produce less faulty devices. I mean children. Apply Lean/Toyota Production System philosophy to birthing. Don't let your offspring be one of the seven muda.

 

[Covar]

Geniuses are born in families that talk about little else than NASCAR, and mediocre idiots are born in even the most intellectual, museum-visiting, debate-loving families.

Because NASCAR is only for poor and stupid people

 

[strawman]

Hey, if it weren't for our ability to categorize and classify things instantly based on appearance, we'd have died out long ago.

Prejudice isn't ideal, but it is useful.

 

[Necronic]

Or how about:

Stereotypes are wrong, but generalizations are useful. Damned if I know the difference.

 

[strawman]

Speaking of vaccinations, I just spent 20 minutes on the phone with the CDC doing a survey about the flu vaccine. Interesting...

 

[strawman]

that annoying British guy

Oh, well gee, that certainly narrows it down...

 

[Krisken]

 

[strawman]

Nothing like centuries of royal inbreeding to set oneself apart from the masses...

 

[Necronic]

Apparently before getting themselves inoculated to small pox by sniffing pox blisters, the British Royal Family decided it was better to have their physicians experiment on the general populace first.

Well, I know I support animal testing.

....

Sorry, been playing Empire Total War and the lower class are just making me furious.

 

[@Li3n]

"babies that will have more babies." if your 300 babies have 300 babies your genes will be out there to a much greater extent than that one child could ever do (unless that one child than develops the ability to create broods). While this may not be a good strategy for humans due to the energy intensive nature of what we are, it is easily observed in our daily lives by insects that will probably be around this world long after humanity is forgotten.

As far as vaccination is concerned, please point out where I said getting vaccinated is a bad strategy for survival? If those three hundred babies get vaccinated as well as that one child and they both survive to reproduce their genes than those three hundred babies have more relatives in the great grand scheme of the overall human gene pool.

I have a friend who is a millionaire, well educated, person who practices vaccination, with 6 children. I also have a pair of friends who are both PhD's, have a good amount of money, do vaccinate their child but only have one male child. The millionaire has an equal amount of male and female children. Who has created the better situation to pass on their genes?

Natural selection is not the only form of selection having an effect on the evolution of anything, it's the most common but it's not the only thing that Darwin or any of the other evolutionary researchers have been talking about. There is also the fact that Humans/things don't just have sex with anyone they come across. People still make the active choice (true, rape does happen but there are still choices surrounding this situation) to attempt to reproduce.

Some books about Evolution I would highly recommend are:

Evolution for Everyone (David Sloan Wilson),

Darwins Cathedral (David Sloan Wilson),

Homicide (Foundations of Human Behavior) by Margo Wilson and Martin Daly (Paperback - Jan 1, 1988): a husband and wife couple who investigate the reasons why people kill each other and try to interpret it through a variety of evolutionary filters such as Kin Selection etc),

Why humans Cooperate (Henrich, title may be different can't really remember. Author is a really cool guy, I had the opportunity to work for him in an evolutionary/ cultural psychology lab. It's a bit technical and if you're not familiar with Anthropological techno babel it may be a bit hard for you to understand),

Just about any paper by W.D. Hamilton,

Sociobiology by E O Wilson

and then read about a quarter of each book by that annoying British guy and ignore the hatred. Though the Selfish Gene has some good ideas in it. Richard Dawkins, the drunken frat boy who wont shut up at the evolution party.

Did i miss write something?! Or did you just not read any of my previous points?!

The idea was that there's more to evolution then having more kids, they and their progeny also have to survive... so i was talking about the parents that shun vaccines and have lots of kids vs 1 kid that had a vaccine. They both increase their chances by different methods...

But the % being better for more kids is only a %, useful for you when using math for your anthropology work, but not so much for when you get eaten by a bear or die from some disease together with thousands of your close and not so close relative while some lone guy who's got the right gene survives...

It's all a toss up, and nature (which is why it's called natural selection, and not just sexual, so i was including other stuff besides whatever you though i was limiting myself to) only care about the end result, not how you get there...

BEWARE, THIS POST WAS ABOUT MY POINT OVERALL, NOT JUST YOUR POST, WHICH WAS BASED ON A MISUNDERSTANDING OF WHAT I SAID.

 

[Norris]

I can see where parents with autistic kids would want to believe the anti-vaxxer hype. There is truly something comforting about being able to say "this what caused the bad thing to happen". I'm even sure that most of them have totally honest beliefs and intentions.

Which doesn't make them any less wrong or harmful.

 

[Azurephoenix]

So am I bad because I think the flu vaccine is a bullshit vaccine that is generally unecessary? I catch flak from a lot of people about not getting vaccinated for the flu.

Note, I am vaccinated against damn near everything else and so is my wife and my son has everything he can at his age (except the flu shots).

 

[Chibibar]

So am I bad because I think the flu vaccine is a bullshit vaccine that is generally unecessary? I catch flak from a lot of people about not getting vaccinated for the flu.

Note, I am vaccinated against damn near everything else and so is my wife and my son has everything he can at his age (except the flu shots).

me too.

 

[Mountebank]

So am I bad because I think the flu vaccine is a bullshit vaccine that is generally unecessary? I catch flak from a lot of people about not getting vaccinated for the flu.

Note, I am vaccinated against damn near everything else and so is my wife and my son has everything he can at his age (except the flu shots).

me too.[/QUOTE]
It's generally unnecessary if you have a good immune system, few risk factors and the time to spend being ill for a short while.

If you're in an at-risk group to whom influenza has a far greater chance of being fatal, then it's far from a bullshit vaccine. It's also quite useful if you're in a job which brings you into contact with a large cross-section of the public (including those at risk) and it would be detrimental to be infected and pass it on to them (such as health professionals).

 

[Dave]

That and the chicken pox vaccines are the only ones I'll give anyone a pass on.

 

[Dave]

someone in my office just got the chicken pox at 35. It's a deadly flu if you don't catch it when young.

Good point.

 

[strawman]

The flu vaccine is strongly recommended for those with weak immune systems, respiratory diseases (asthma, emphysema, etc), the elderly, and also if they come into contact with at-risk groups such as infants and toddlers.

Beyond that, there are good reasons to not take it. You chances of dying from the flu are less than dying from the vaccine (it's all statistics though, so there's a lot of hand waving in there). Further, the flu vaccine is a best guess - there are many flus that it will not cover each year.

I have asthma. I carry an inhaler, but only need it once or twice a year. If I were normal, the flus and colds of the season would last their normal period of time, and then life would go on. However my asthma is aggravated by respiratory illness such as the flu, and many of these illnesses turn into 2-3 week long bouts where I no longer have the flu, but I can't function at even 50% mentally or physically.

Further, I have 5 kids, 4 of which attend two different schools. I will be exposed to and catch every single flu and cold in this area. Last flu season was just bad. Bad, bad, bad. We even ended up having to take our 8 year old to the hospital, and he was admitted for 3 days while they helped him breath - and he doesn't have asthma.

So, yeah, the vaccine was created for people like me. It won't stop everything, but if it only saves me from one or two weeks of illness throughout the season it will have been more than worth it.

Whether we get the kids vaccinated depends on a variety of factors, but typically we don't because we give them a choice, and as miserable as they are when they're sick, they would rather be sick than get a shot.

 

[Calleja]

Not getting vaccinated because you don't get sick yourself is irresponsible and immoral, you can still carry the virus around and infect those around you with weaker immune systems.

 

[Azurephoenix]

Not getting vaccinated because you don't get sick yourself is irresponsible and immoral, you can still carry the virus around and infect those around you with weaker immune systems.

I knew someone was going to saunter in here with this argument... didn't think it would be you though Calleja.

I'm sorry but I will never get the flu vaccine... and saying that I'm irresponsible and immoral because I don't want to get a shot for a virus that has an extremely low mortality rate is a gross overexaggeration. There's a big difference between the common flu and something like polio.

 

[Calleja]

The flu kills people. Even if it has a low mortality rate, some people with weakened immune systems die because of it. Think about people going through Chemo or with AIDS or even just sick with something else, the extra infection could very well be what sends them under.

How is a 2 second shot "gross overexaggeration" again? What are the risks you're afraid of? Why are you so against it?

 

[Azurephoenix]

The gross overexaggeration is calling people like me irresponsible and immoral. Irresponsible would be not getting your child vaccinated against polio.

Flu vaccines aren't even very effective for what you are talking about. The flu vaccine is more about preventing hospitalization and death than stopping you from getting the flu... so guess what. Vaccinated people can still easily be carriers of the virus too.

 

[Mountebank]

The flu kills people. Even if it has a low mortality rate, some people with weakened immune systems die because of it. Think about people going through Chemo or with AIDS or even just sick with something else, the extra infection could very well be what sends them under.

How is a 2 second shot "gross overexaggeration" again? What are the risks you're afraid of? Why are you so against it?

People with severely compromised immune systems shouldn't be in the general public - it will likely kill them. Even a regular cough or cold could finish them. If you have regular contact with those at-risk groups, then by all means get the vaccine. Otherwise getting everyone a flu shot "just because" is unnecessary.

 

[Calleja]

What I don't get is why you seem to think that getting a 2-second, free, painless shot is going so much out of your way you REFUSE to do it. You don't have to have DIRECT contact with people with compromised immune systems to affect them by proxy... even if it's a tiny, infinitesimal chance that you may get someone killed... isn't it still worth a gorram shot?

 

[strawman]

getting everyone a flu shot "just because" is unnecessary.

Doesn't the flu evolve more quickly in well-vaccinated groups? Doesn't the argument against continuous streams of anti-biotics also apply, in some small degree, to vaccines?

 

[Calleja]

I don't think so... vaccines boost your immune system by giving you the antibodies to fight the infection off. Virus don't become immune to your immune system, they become immune to antibiotics. Which is why antiobiotics are supposed to only be used when necessary and vaccines are preventive.

 

[Azurephoenix]

Doesn't the flu evolve more quickly in well-vaccinated groups? Doesn't the argument against continuous streams of anti-biotics also apply, in some small degree, to vaccines?

That's a possibility... but I don't have any sources to back it up (it does seem logical though).

What I don't get is why you seem to think that getting a 2-second, free, painless shot is going so much out of your way you REFUSE to do it. You don't have to have DIRECT contact with people with compromised immune systems to affect them by proxy... even if it's a tiny, infinitesimal chance that you may get someone killed... isn't it still worth a gorram shot?

It's not free first of all... it costs taxpayers millions of dollars for those things. Secondly... severely immunocomprimised people are more likely to contract and die from things like rhinovirus and norovirus than influenza based on the widespread distribution of those viruses. Also, there's a tiny chance I could have an anaphylactic reaction to the vaccine and die... sucks to be me?

---------- Post added at 10:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:01 PM ----------

I don't think so... vaccines boost your immune system by giving you the antibodies to fight the infection off. Virus don't become immune to your immune system, they become immune to antibiotics. Which is why antiobiotics are supposed to only be used when necessary and vaccines are preventive.

That's not how a vaccine works against something like the flu. It's a totally different type of virus... we need someone like Chaz in here to explain it better than I can.