Congratulations Anti-vaxers. Measles spreading in California

[Berzerker]

Yes, it's such a goddamn shame that our terrible horrible medicine prevents unfit people from being killed off by the beautiful delicate balance of nature.

It'll be a shame if our medical arms race with nature leads to our extinction

[regexcellent]

We have a pretty good track record at kicking nature's ass.

But your concern about viruses evolving resistances belies your massive ignorance about how vaccines work.

[Berzerker]

I'm more worried about over-population and habitat destruction than disease - the latter keeps us in check

there's your greater good

[Lorizael]

It'll be a shame if our medical arms race with nature leads to our extinction

Medicine doesn't actually create bugs with superpowers, just bugs that beat our current interventions. The worst that happens is we go back to the way things were before and have to wait for new advances in medicine. So our choices are (a) let bugs kill millions of people or (b) prevent bugs from killing millions of people but have to work hard to maintain the status quo. Again, that's quite a toughie.

[Sava]

Medicine doesn't actually create bugs with superpowers, just bugs that beat our current interventions. The worst that happens is we go back to the way things were before and have to wait for new advances in medicine. So our choices are (a) let bugs kill millions of people or (b) prevent bugs from killing millions of people but have to work hard to maintain the status quo. Again, that's quite a toughie.

Perfectly put.

[Berzerker]

We have a pretty good track record at kicking nature's ass.

But your concern about viruses evolving resistances belies your massive ignorance about how vaccines work.

Your first comment belies your massive arrogance about how evolution works. Who is better off, the descendant of someone saved by a vaccination or the descendant of someone who didn't need the vaccination to ward off disease?

[Lorizael]

What you're missing, Berserker, is that by reducing the spread of viruses, complete or nearly complete vaccination campaigns actually slow down the evolution of viruses. (The same is true with the proper use of antibiotics.)

[Sava]

Your first comment belies your massive arrogance about how evolution works. Who is better off, the descendant of someone saved by a vaccination or the descendant of someone who didn't need the vaccination to ward off disease?

If they each survived long enough to reproduce, they are both equally successful organisms.

It's not "survival of the fittest", it is "survival of those who can best adapt to change"

jesus christ, go enroll in a biology course at your local community college

please

[regexcellent]

Medicine doesn't actually create bugs with superpowers, just bugs that beat our current interventions. The worst that happens is we go back to the way things were before and have to wait for new advances in medicine. So our choices are (a) let bugs kill millions of people or (b) prevent bugs from killing millions of people but have to work hard to maintain the status quo. Again, that's quite a toughie.

And in the absence of drugs, the drug resistances are a disadvantage for the bugs with them, meaning they can lose them over time.

[DinoDoc]

I'm more worried about over-population and habitat destruction than disease - the latter keeps us in check

there's your greater good

I'm not sure you'd have gotten much traction arguing against polio eradication when it was going on.

[Berzerker]

Medicine doesn't actually create bugs with superpowers, just bugs that beat our current interventions. The worst that happens is we go back to the way things were before and have to wait for new advances in medicine. So our choices are (a) let bugs kill millions of people or (b) prevent bugs from killing millions of people but have to work hard to maintain the status quo. Again, that's quite a toughie.

The worst would be bugs we cant stop

What you're missing, Berserker, is that by reducing the spread of viruses, complete or nearly complete vaccination campaigns actually slow down the evolution of viruses. (The same is true with the proper use of antibiotics.)

Ebola is rare and thats partly why its so deadly, not enough people in the world with immune systems able to defeat it. If it was more common the descendents of survivors would be proportionally more numerous. Survivors of the plague tend to have more immunity from AIDS while vaccinated survivors would not be passing those genes on to their kids. And what does "proper use" mean? Less use? Only when absolutely necessary? You've supported my argument. We aint doing that with vaccinations.

If they each survived long enough to reproduce, they are both equally successful organisms.

It's not "survival of the fittest", it is "survival of those who can best adapt to change"

You didn't answer the question, one is less likely to survive long enough - the one descended from folks who were vaccinated. And the one best able to adapt to change is the one who survived diseases without vaccinations.

And in the absence of drugs, the drug resistances are a disadvantage for the bugs with them, meaning they can lose them over time.

So the solution to superbugs is to stop medical interventions and pray you're right? Descendents of plague survivors didn't lose their protection in the absence of plague, I doubt viruses will act much differently.

[Berzerker]

I'm not sure you'd have gotten much traction arguing against polio eradication when it was going on.

Of course not, polio vaccinations are good for the people who'd get polio without them. But their survival and proliferation ensures more people in need of the vaccine.

[Lorizael]

The worst would be bugs we cant stop

That's what I said. The way things used to be was bugs we couldn't stop. But then we stopped them by trying. Trying will always be better than not trying.

Ebola is rare and thats partly why its so deadly, not enough people in the world with immune systems able to defeat it. If it was more common the descendents of survivors would be proportionally more numerous. Survivors of the plague tend to have more immunity from AIDS while vaccinated survivors would not be passing those genes on to their kids.

Ebola is deadly because it's deadly. Hemorrhagic fevers are terrible. You seem to be under the delusion that natural selection is the most powerful force that exists when it concerns life. There's not really a good reason to believe that's true. Yes, people with natural immunity can spread that immunity to a population, and that's certainly one way to battle an illness, but it's not the only way, and I'm not sure you have any evidence to indicate that it's the best way.

Consider. It used to be that people with poor eyesight got eaten by predators or whatever. Consequently, only those with good eyesight managed to breed. Nowadays we have corrective lenses, which means people with poor eyesight don't die before reproducing. This means we're failing to use natural selection as a tool to enhance the eyesight of the human population, but it doesn't mean we're failing to enhance the eyesight of the human population. Additionally, one might claim that by allowing those with poor eyesight to continue living, we're letting the animals that predate upon us to gain an upperhand (and perhaps become superanimals), except that's not true, because we've short circuited that whole arms race. The same is exactly true with vaccinations. Viruses eliminated by vaccines don't have a chance to evolve into super viruses because we've stopped playing that game.

And what does "proper use" mean? Less use? Only when absolutely necessary? You've supported my argument. We aint doing that with vaccinations.

No, proper use means taking the complete schedule of antibiotics when prescribed. Doing so gives you the best chance to completely eliminate whatever bacterial infection you've got which, as I've said, actually slows down the evolution of bugs by giving them fewer chances to reproduce.

[Berzerker]

That's what I said. The way things used to be was bugs we couldn't stop. But then we stopped them by trying. Trying will always be better than not trying.

Here is what you said:

The worst that happens is we go back to the way things were before and have to wait for new advances in medicine.

And when we run out of advances? Thats the worst thing.

Ebola is deadly because it's deadly.

Was that a rebuttal to something I said?

Consider. It used to be that people with poor eyesight got eaten by predators or whatever. Consequently, only those with good eyesight managed to breed. Nowadays we have corrective lenses, which means people with poor eyesight don't die before reproducing. This means we're failing to use natural selection as a tool to enhance the eyesight of the human population, but it doesn't mean we're failing to enhance the eyesight of the human population.

It means more people in need of glasses, just like vaccinations. What happens when we run out of glasses and vaccines?

Additionally, one might claim that by allowing those with poor eyesight to continue living, we're letting the animals that predate upon us to gain an upperhand (and perhaps become superanimals), except that's not true, because we've short circuited that whole arms race. The same is exactly true with vaccinations. Viruses eliminated by vaccines don't have a chance to evolve into super viruses because we've stopped playing that game.

Have you ever watched a nature documentary explaining how predators strengthen the herd by taking out the weak and less viable? The predators are not eliminated if the weak and less viable become harder to eat, the predators evolve too. But instead of humans evolving natural defenses to diseases, we're employing magic bullets. What happens when the magic bullet no longer works? Far more people get sick thereby defeating the very argument in favor of vaccinations - to protect the herd by limiting outbreaks. Nature has been doing that for us and we're trying to bypass nature. What if nature responds with bugs we've breeded beyond our ability to control? I'm not so worried about human survival based on what nature has thrown at us before vaccinations and anti-biotics, I'm worried by future bugs responding to our medicine.

No, proper use means taking the complete schedule of antibiotics when prescribed. Doing so gives you the best chance to completely eliminate whatever bacterial infection you've got which, as I've said, actually slows down the evolution of bugs by giving them fewer chances to reproduce.

Prescribing anti-biotics is limiting them based on necessity, vaccinations are not limited.

[Aeson]

We're winning the war on nature in this regard. While we shouldn't use antibiotics foolishly as it limits their usefulness, we also shouldn't be throwing Timmy to the lions just because he finished last in wind-sprints at gym class.