More U.S. Children Vaccinated Than Ever

In article ,
(abacus) wrote:

Robert Vienneau wrote in message
...
In article ,
(abacus) wrote:

I find the economic arguments for allowing individuals freedom of
choice to be very convincing. While it's not obvious at first
glance,
the mathematics indicate that optimum good for society can only
be
achieved by allowing individuals the ability to make those
decisions
for themselves. Have you studied that aspect of it at all?

The math says exactly the opposite.

Given your reputation with those on this newsgroup whom I respect, I
must conclude that I am on the right tract. Thanks

It would be in vain to ask "abacus" what he is talking about. How
could my "reputation" change whether or not Debreu (1959) proves
the first and second Welfare theorems in a model with complete
contingent intertemporal markets? What does my "reputation" have
to do with whether or not one obtains some benefit if one's
neighbors are vaccinated?

"A bad nomenclature (Pareto-optimum) in the literature, together
with much carelessness in textbooks, often misleads people into
thinking that there is some theorem which claims that a
competitive equilibrium is socially optimal. There is no such
claim...

...For instance, there are many accounts to be found that a
free-trade equilibrium is Pareto-efficient for the world as a
whole. Very rarely do these textbooks spell out completely
and precisely what is required to reach this result, in
particular, absence of increasing returns and a complete set
of Arrow-Debreu markets. If these assumptions were stated and
discussed, they might be less inclined to declare free trade
'optimal'".
-- Frank Hahn, "General Equilibrium Theory", in "The Crisis
in Economic Theory". Basic Books, 1981.

--
Try http://csf.colorado.edu/pkt/pktautho.../Bukharin.html
To solve Linear Programs: .../LPSolver.html
r c A game: .../Keynes.html
v s a Whether strength of body or of mind, or wisdom, or
i m p virtue, are found in proportion to the power or wealth
e a e of a man is a question fit perhaps to be discussed by
n e . slaves in the hearing of their masters, but highly
@ r c m unbecoming to reasonable and free men in search of
d o the truth. -- Rousseau

(David Wright) wrote in
news
You may not find such a person. The best solution is to let the
parents decide, and let them use the best available info.

That second half is the real killer -- the idea that all parents will
go out an use the "best available info." Instead, they might
unwittingly use something like your lamentable "FAQ" and conclude that
they, like you, should find flimsy excuses for not vaccinating their
own kids, then pray that everyone else *does* vaccinate, thus allowing
them to be the same sort of parasite you are.

Even if they've got the best of intentions, the fact is that parents tend
to deal with potential risks to their children emotionally rather than
rationally. Protecting one's children was an important function long
before the cerebral cortex evolved much, so it tends to be a midbrain
function. That's why, for example, one of the classic propaganda
techniques for stirring up hatred against a group is to claim that they
pose a threat to children; it gets parents to think emotionally rather
than rationally. In the absence of complete knowledge, parents will go
with whatever is the most emotionally compelling. And all too often that
means going with whoever has the best salesmanship. Plus, we all have a
built-in bias that causes us to perceive the risk of doing something as
greater than it actually is, and the risk of not doing something as less
than it actually is.

In , Eric Bohlman wrote:

Even if they've got the best of intentions, the fact is that parents tend
to deal with potential risks to their children emotionally rather than
rationally. Protecting one's children was an important function long
before the cerebral cortex evolved much, so it tends to be a midbrain
function. That's why, for example, one of the classic propaganda
techniques for stirring up hatred against a group is to claim that they
pose a threat to children; it gets parents to think emotionally rather
than rationally. In the absence of complete knowledge, parents will go
with whatever is the most emotionally compelling. And all too often that
means going with whoever has the best salesmanship. Plus, we all have a
built-in bias that causes us to perceive the risk of doing something as
greater than it actually is, and the risk of not doing something as less
than it actually is.

Keep in mind that that emotional response also tends to heavily
color how we weigh facts, so that even those (very) few in
posession of "complete facts [1]" won't necessarily come to
objectively justifiable conclusions.

Considering the amount of effort and expertise that goes into
making usable sense of those "complete facts," it's very
telling that anyone would seriously propose that each and
every parent take the time to master them before making
life-and-death decisions about their children.

[1] Rog has often complained that researchers haven't forwarded
him their complete datasets, including personal identifying
details. Free, of course.

--
| Microsoft: "A reputation for releasing inferior software will make |
| it more difficult for a software vendor to induce customers to pay |
| for new products or new versions of existing products." |
end

"Eric Bohlman" wrote
than rationally. In the absence of complete knowledge, parents will go
with whatever is the most emotionally compelling. And all too often that
means going with whoever has the best salesmanship. Plus, we all have a

So parents hear emotional arguments for and against vaccines.
They also hear emotional arguments about where to live, what
to eat, whom to vote for, etc. They still manage to make reasonable
decisions.

Roger Schlafly wrote:
"Jonah Thomas" wrote

those decisions. Likewise, we have a similar problem with the bias of
the experts who are making vaccine policy recommendations. In the
end, I trust the people who are most likely to have the best interests
of the child at heart more than I do experts in the field.

This is a serious problem. Expertise is not enough and good will is not
enough. Unless you can find one person that you are sure has both, your
results will be quite uncertain.

You may not find such a person. The best solution is to let the
parents decide, and let them use the best available info.

I tend to agree with you. Since parents have a direct stake in their
children, the result is at least that when they mess up they get a lot
of the consequences themselves. "Think of it as evolution in action."

Perhaps it would be even better, for children who're 8 years old or
older, to let the children themselves make the best informed choice they
can. By the same logic that says the parents have the child's best
interest at heart, we can say that the children themselves definitely
have their best interest at heart.

If we admit that we don't really know about long-term consequences of
things like vaccines, then it would follow that for the society as a
whole it's wrong to force people to get vaccinated. Better to prevent a
random half of the people from getting vaccinated, until we get enough
data to actually see what's happening. If half-vaccinated is not enough
to prevent occasional outbreaks among the unvaccinated half then we'd
get more data about the nature of the disease also, which is definitely
a good thing. If, over a generation or two, the advantages of
vaccination when half the population is vaccinated are obvious, then we
could gradually increase the percentage who are allowed access to
vaccines up to say 95%.

"abacus" wrote in message
om...

We can refuse to provide foster care to the kids of those who make
crummy
decisions. We can allow people to die in the streets of the illnesses
caused by bad choices & injuries sustained as a result of stupidity
coupled
with unfettered freedom. We can create lists of people who insist upon
doing whatever they want & refuse to be of any assistance to them when
their
choices bite them & their loved ones in the ass. But few of us could
turn
our backs on a hungry kid abandoned by their parents or tell somebody's
husband "Sorry, your wife was stupid & didn't buckle up -- so now that
she's
paralyzed, you'll need to figure out how to take care of her & pay the
bills
for it. Don't ask for any help from the insurance co.or the gov't,
'cause
it's YOUR problem."

Yes, that's another option for society to take. In fact, it is the
option usually advocated by strict libertarians. I am not a strict
libertarian. However, they have a valid point in that whenever
society decides to take up the slack for those that suffer as a result
of poor choices, the cost of those choices goes down for the
individual and more people will decide to abrogate their personal
responsibilities as a result. The economic models on this point are
quite illuminating.

Exactly - the problem is that we are not willing to not take up the slack
(especially where children are concerned). The "safety nets" we put in place
(whether it is herd immunity for vaccines or trauma centers and disability
insurance for seatbelts) make it easier for people to make poor decisions
and so they do. These poor decisions then present problems for the ecomomic
models you mention. They only work if everyone is making the best decision
for themselves.

Tax credits for maintaining a
healthy weight/body fat percentage (verified just as many other
deductions
require verification) -- deductions for the costs of health club
memberships (accompanied by documentation of attendance) -- proof of
regular
check ups to spot any problems early on. There would be no "punishment"
for
being fat, just as there is no "punishment" for throwing away one's
receipts
that could be utilized as deductions. Those who go the extra mile to
stay
healthy would be rewarded just as those willing to go to the trouble of
itemizing, saving receipts, & looking for ways to save on their taxes
are.
Nobody's "punished" for renting their home, but there sure are rewards
for
home ownership -- the pursuit of good health could be rewarded in the
same
ways.

Good ideas.

--
CBI, MD

"Tsu Dho Nimh" wrote in message
...
"CBI" wrote:


I agree with you and that is why I find the arguments about hospital
bills
and EMS etc to be weak in reagrds to seatbelt laws and helmets. There are
just too many other closely releated examples that we cannot legislate
and
no way to distinguish them. I think one useful distinction is when your
decision directly affects other people. Not wearing yuor own seatbelt may
not affect others directly

Yes, it does. It makes my insurance rates go up because of the
injury claims of the helmet-less and unbelted. It makes my taxes
go up because their medical bills often end up bieng covere dby
public funds. If they want to have the "freedom" to endanger
themselves, they should also declare their freedom from being
supported by the rest of us.

I agree with you that it does have some effect but also agree with those
that argue that if you hold this view you have to include all other
behaviors that have similar effects.

--
CBI, MD

"Roger Schlafly" wrote in message
t...
"abacus" wrote
Whereas, here we have a man who has read about that aspect, but didn't
understand it.

No surprise -- CBI is an innumerate.

This comming from the mathematician who doesn't understand basic logic or
statistics.

--
CBI, MD

"Tsu Dho Nimh" wrote in message
news
(abacus) wrote:


The mathenatical models only work if the individuals are making
accurate
assessmentsa of what id good for them. If you get a good number of
people
making bad decisions they go right out the window.

Thyre is absolutely no way anyone has time or knowledge to
research all the options and pick the best one.

......on every subject (except Rog and JG, of course).

--
CBI, MD

"David Wright" wrote in message
news
In article ,
Roger Schlafly wrote:

You may not find such a person. The best solution is to let the
parents decide, and let them use the best available info.

That second half is the real killer -- the idea that all parents will
go out an use the "best available info." Instead, they might
unwittingly use something like your lamentable "FAQ" and conclude that
they, like you, should find flimsy excuses for not vaccinating their
own kids, then pray that everyone else *does* vaccinate, thus allowing
them to be the same sort of parasite you are.

All? How about even a few? If a person with a graduate level degree who has
done extensive research* can't get it right what chance does an auto
mechanic without the interest to do the research have?

--
CBI, MD

* Assuming that reading The Eagle Forum counts as extensive research.