Vaccines vs. Autism

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Whoever it is, I bet they have excellent communication skills.

They do. They're called "media". 🙂

Which of these two headlines would sell better?

1.
"MMR vaccine can make your child autistic!"

2.
"MMR vaccine doesn't make your child autistic!"

Originally posted by no1marauder
I see no sound reason for an "opt-out" provision. Give parents a consent form and appropriate medical information so they can make an informed decision.

I think Palynka's comment:

"I think the only possible justification would be a free-rider problem. If disease is virtually eradicated by a vaccine but there are side effects, then you'd have an incentive to not inoculate your kid. So inoculation rates could be sub-optimal. Also, there is a lot of fear-mongering so the fringe opinions tend to have more audience than they should."

explains why an "opt-out" provision could be justifiable. Coupled with the fact that suboptimal vaccination rates can actually lead to the worst of health outcomes in the case of diseases such as measles and mumps which are more severe if suffered in adult life. In such cases, vaccination above the herd immunity threshold is the ideal situation, but vaccination below the threshold can lead to worse overall health outcomes than no vaccination at all.

Originally posted by Teinosuke
I think Palynka's comment:

"I think the only possible justification would be a free-rider problem. If disease is virtually eradicated by a vaccine but there are side effects, then you'd have an incentive to not inoculate your kid. So inoculation rates could be sub-optimal. Also, there is a lot of fear-mongering so the fringe opinions tend to have more a below the threshold can lead to worse overall health outcomes than no vaccination at all.

I meant that as a justification for mandatory vaccines. If someone doesn't like the word mandatory, then make people pay a premium on health care provisions if they chose to opt-out (for those who are not exempted). I think the latter would be my preferred choice. Non-inoculation is a burden on the system as mass vaccination is usually very cost effective.

"Opt-out" may help but I'm personally not a fan as it seems the government is actively trying to deceive the population. Same for organ doning, I would prefer to see the goverment taxing/increasing premiums on non-organ donors as a reflection that organ donors provide value to the health care system.

Originally posted by Palynka
Ah, evasion. Expected.

I looked up Palynka in the dictionary. Seemingly it means toilet.
Who'd a thunk it.

All you ever do is shout: "Evasion! Answer the question."
But there's never a question there.

You're so full of it, you're justly named.

Originally posted by Palynka
I meant that as a justification for mandatory vaccines. If someone doesn't like the word mandatory, then make people pay a premium on health care provisions if they chose to opt-out (for those who are not exempted). I think the latter would be my preferred choice. Non-inoculation is a burden on the system as mass vaccination is usually very cost effective.
...[text shortened]... non-organ donors as a reflection that organ donors provide value to the health care system.

Stop evading the question and give a god damned straight answer for once.

Originally posted by Palynka
"Opt-out" may help but I'm personally not a fan as it seems the government is actively trying to deceive the population. Same for organ doning, I would prefer to see the goverment taxing/increasing premiums on non-organ donors as a reflection that organ donors provide value to the health care system.

Interesting that you find "opt-out" more problematic than "mandatory". Surely "opt-out" is a healthy compromise between imposing vaccination on all and allowing a public health issue to be hostage to individual, not always well-informed decisions. And I suspect an opt-out system would be sure to bring vaccination rates above the herd immunity threshold.

Originally posted by shavixmir
Stop evading the question and give a god damned straight answer for once.

I think Palynka gave a straight answer. He said that the pharmaceutical industry would have just as clear an interest in manufacturing and supplying three separate vaccines as they do in supplying one triple vaccine.

Originally posted by shavixmir
Stop evading the question and give a god damned straight answer for once.

Hush, now, the adults are speaking.

Originally posted by Teinosuke
Interesting that you find "opt-out" more problematic than "mandatory". Surely "opt-out" is a healthy compromise between imposing vaccination on all and allowing a public health issue to be hostage to individual, not always well-informed decisions. And I suspect an opt-out system would be sure to bring vaccination rates above the herd immunity threshold.

There are two issues here. The first, and the one related to the OP, is how best to achieve the desired inoculation to beat the coordination problem that I mentioned. The other one is what tools are acceptable for the government to use.

Regarding this last one, I have a small issue with the government explicitly reformulating reference points to induce behavior. I know they have to pick one formulation, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't strive to be neutral. If you don't mind a bit of slippery sloping for illustration purposes, think of the government fiddling about with reference points to get the answer it wants in a referendum. It's obviously not that bad, but I think there's still an issue of transparency.

On the other hand, mandatory has the problem of being forceful, but the advantage of being transparent. I don't think mandatory is always bad (there many examples in the law) but for me to approve government using it, it better have a pretty damn good reason for it. I'm not sure this issue warrants it, probably it doesn't.

So I think a tax (or premium increase) that internalizes the cost to society of someone deciding not to inoculate his children has the best of both worlds. You explicitly state that you can chose not to do so, but you must compensate society as your actions are costly to the rest.

BUT, despite all this talk, it's not really that big a deal. I'd be happy with opt-out if in the end it solved the issue.

Originally posted by shavixmir
I looked up Palynka in the dictionary. Seemingly it means toilet.
Who'd a thunk it.

All you ever do is shout: "Evasion! Answer the question."
But there's never a question there.

You're so full of it, you're justly named.

in what language? in mine it means an alcoholic beverage similar to vodka but made from plums or pears (prolly other fruits as well)

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
in what language? in mine it means an alcoholic beverage similar to vodka but made from plums or pears (prolly other fruits as well)

...with a bit of a misspelling for good measure. The peach one can also be lovely.

Brutally strong and unforgiving for the uninitiated but with a fruity twist that makes it an acquired taste and keeps you warm at night. That's me. 😏

Originally posted by Teinosuke
I think Palynka's comment:

"I think the only possible justification would be a free-rider problem. If disease is virtually eradicated by a vaccine but there are side effects, then you'd have an incentive to not inoculate your kid. So inoculation rates could be sub-optimal. Also, there is a lot of fear-mongering so the fringe opinions tend to have more a ...[text shortened]... below the threshold can lead to worse overall health outcomes than no vaccination at all.

Giving the people free choice might very well lead to what some believe is suboptimal outcomes. I believe coercive measures regarding decisions within the realm of our Natural Rights are usually a suboptimal outcome in and of themselves. "Opt-out" presupposes that people are inclined to do something without any proof that they are. Therefore, I oppose such measures. If people choose to get vaccinated at lower rates than some feel is desirable, so be it; it's probably medically desirable for people to wear a coat if the temperature is under 0 C, but we don't mandate that they do.

As to Pal's point, universal health care doesn't change the issue for me. Under such a system an individual is still free to choose what health services he uses. I'm unconvinced that forcing them to receive something they don't want to in order to receive services they feel they need is just.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Giving the people free choice might very well lead to what some believe is suboptimal outcomes. I believe coercive measures regarding decisions within the realm of our Natural Rights are usually a suboptimal outcome in and of themselves. "Opt-out" presupposes that people are inclined to do something without any proof that they are. Therefore, I oppose su ...[text shortened]... e something they don't want to in order to receive services they feel they need is just.

What about my proposal of taxing people who chose not to inoculate their children? After all, there is a clear externality here. People do not internalize the costs of their children infecting others.

Originally posted by Palynka
What about my proposal of taxing people who chose not to inoculate their children? After all, there is a clear externality here. People do not internalize the costs of their children infecting others.

I don't think its worth the bother; it would be hard to determine what amount of the remaining incidence of the disease was caused by the lack of vaccination (some people vaccinated still get the disease). Even if you could and say there were a 1000 extra cases caused by going from a 95% to 80% innoculation rate as the UK experience supposedly shows in the case of measles, the cost would be relatively trivial per child not vaccinated. It probably cost far more to collect than the revenue it would bring in.

EDIT: You'd of course have to subtract from the amount of the externality the savings in costs from the non-inoculated not having any negative side effects of the vaccination itself.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I don't think its worth the bother; it would be hard to determine what amount of the remaining incidence of the disease was caused by the lack of vaccination (some people vaccinated still get the disease). Even if you could and say there were a 1000 extra cases caused by going from a 95% to 80% innoculation rate as the UK experience supposedly shows in t ...[text shortened]... costs from the non-inoculated not having any negative side effects of the vaccination itself.

It seems we then agree on the basic principles but it's a question of number crunching.

The UK and Irish experiences lead to significant outbreaks. The problem was also that some areas had much lower inoculation rates than 80%. In short, I expect the costs to be higher but I understand this type of gauging costs is basically guessing.