This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
False. I count 32 doses recommended to all children from age 0 to 18, not counting a yearly flu vaccine and one dose of a covid vaccine.
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines-children/schedules/index.html
This is a perfect example of the belief set I am talking about. The RFK supporters I know believe that kids are getting tens of vaccines in a single day.
Okay. Which vaccines in particular do you believe in?
how many of these doses include multiple vaccines?
to be frank, it's asinine to claim someone "wrong" if they believe MMR is 3 vaccines instead of one
why wouldn't you count these?
"hundreds" is wrong, but so is "32" even if we accept 1 dose=1 vaccine which is hardly some sort of objective fact
Sure, we can break down dtap and mmr into three vaccinations. That brings the total to 48. Still a far cry from hundreds, so I don't see what's asinine about saying that hundreds is wrong. There's just no way you can torture the numbers to get to hundreds.
Simply because in my experience most kids don't get these on a regular basis.
they're on the schedule
hundreds is wrong, but so is 32
the number of vaccines on the CDC schedule for a child born today through age 18 is ~80
How is it 80? 48 I counted above, plus 18 flu, plus 2 covid makes 68.
boosters and multi year shots and "ask your doctor about RSV" means, in practicality, you should get the RSV "vaccine"
What boosters and multi year shots? I counted the boosters. Seriously, show your math, because I am pretty sure you are hiding the ball.
RSV vaccine is not recommended for all children. If we're going to stick to what's recommended on the schedule, let's stick to the schedule.
I care to bicker about a number if it's the difference between 32 and 68 or 80. I don't care between 68 or 80. I sincerely doubt any person has some marginal number between those 2 figures which significantly changes their opinion. Use whatever number between those you feel like.
But since you asked, babies are recommended to get 2 influenza shots in the first 12 months of life, so the number is 20 and not 18. If we're counting the combos, MMR & DTaP would count for 24 and not 18 (8 total doses of these shots). HPV is 2 or 3 doses. When I count, I get 72 or 73 not including the RSV.
the "around 80" comes from boosters (teal), RSV, and "some children" recommendations like dbl flushots per year for very young children which I believe to be routinely recommended for those following the schedule and my experience with young children going through this process at multiple median pediatric practices in different states
The standard recommendation is one shot in the first year of life.
Yes, 24 is the number I used after breaking down the vaccine cocktails.
HPV is one or two doses.
You are still hiding the ball, because you've counted 47 with some fudging and there's only 24 other recommended shots on the schedule. Even with these inflated numbers you only get 71. "A hundred dollars? What do you need fifty dollars for?"
Boosters are not teal, teal shots are not recommended for all children.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
What’s your experience?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
My mistake, I should have said dozens. I think I saw "hundreds" somewhere recently and internalized that for some reason.
The technology for smallpox vaccines could be totally sound, and the company that makes the shots puts too much mercury in them or something. A batch could be bad. Maybe the adjuvants are too strong. We have good heuristics for noticing when something causes noticeable immediate side effects, but not when something contributes to chronic stress. Maybe every shot contains one of the 32 arms of Exodia, and you need to catch them all to visit the shadow realm.
Children in the US are no longer vaccinated for smallpox because the disease is extinct.
More options
Context Copy link
So... there's no actual vaccine that you "believe in", and your belief is strictly in the theoretical (but so far unattained) possibility of producing a good vaccine?
It's imminently reasonable to suspect that some vaccines are not manufactured well. That would be a very explanation for why 1) vaccines are a good technology that save lives 2) some people seem to be getting sick from them.
But there's no way to distinguish well manufactured and poorly manufactured vaccines?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Let's not do the thing where the poster is directionally correct, but we're nitpicking the details. Yeah, it's not 100 shots, but it's a lot, and it's a lot more than before.
Let's flip it. Why should an infant be receiving Hep B and Covid vaccines? Why should they receive any vaccines that they didn't in 1990 (or whenever the Chicken Pox vaccine came out).
The post-1990s vaccines to have vanishingly little benefit and unquantified risk.
Wait a second. There is no "directionally correct" here - the poster said not 100 but "hundreds" and the true number is around 30. It's "directionally correct" in the sense that the sign is right, but that's about it. If he said "thousands", would that still be "directionally correct"?
And it's not a semantic nit, because we can mostly all agree that the ideal number of vaccines is greater than 0 and less than "hundreds". So where exactly we are on that spectrum is basically the entire discussion.
I don't think there's a good reason to vaccinate infants against COVID.
I don't know why infants are vaccinated against hep B but it's been recommended for newborns since the 1991 (and patented in 1972), so by your heuristic that one seems pretty safe.
It's not clear to me that this is the case, but I'd be curious to see if anyone has actually looked at this rigorously. I don't know off the top of my head which ones are post 1990s.
*not including the annual flu shots (sometimes multiple) and covid shots
I guess we'll just forget those even exist
Please show your math for "hundreds" of vaccinations on the schedule. I went through and counted, you can surely put some minimal effort in rather than low effort sneers.
where did I claim there were "hundreds" of vaccines on the schedule? It's around 17 "vaccines" and 80 "doses"
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The RFK-associated site I saw claimed 7 shots in one day, which appears to be true. (RSV, Hep B, Rotavirus, DTaP, Hib, Pneumococcal, Polio).
That's much closer to the truth but not necessarily true.
So taking those two at 2 months instead of 3 months cuts the number to 5.
And polio is a going concern only in a couple of third world eastern hemisphere countries, so you can safely skip that one.
Polio doesn't work like that.
IPV which we use in the US (and basically anywhere where with the infrastructure to manage the necessary cold-chain) has no effect on infection or transmission of polio. It is highly effective at preventing severe disease (although polio normally presents as just a cold with no distinguishing symptoms, so we've never actually studied the vaccine's impact on mild disease), which is what we mean when we say the US has "eradicated polio". In practice, polio spreads largely through poor sanitation, not direct person-to-person contact, so improved sanitation has probably actually reduced spread a fair bit, but there's no reason to believe the vaccine has done so. And we don't know because no one tests for polio (although there's some small push to start doing some wastewater testing).
Genuinely didn't know that, thought polio being eradicated in the western hemisphere+even slightly non-shithole parts of the eastern hemisphere was due to vaccines, like smallpox. Thanks for the context.
In practice I suspect countries which don't have to worry about cholera can skip polio shots, but I now understand why it's still on the vaccine schedule.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
What's old is new again
Ah, yes, third world migrants are the gift that keeps on giving.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
7 shots in one appointment, however, is a plausible claim, even if it isn't necessary to do it that way.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link