New poll shows shocking lack of belief in basic scientific facts among Americans, such as the Big Bang and age of universe; higher belief in ID than climate change
So I have doubts about the efficacy of childhood vaccinations. We have just seen people get the measles from people who were vaccinated in their youth. I think people should get their kids vaccinated but we know that vaccinations don't always work perfectly. If I were asked if I felt confident in childhood vaccination in a survey I'd say "no." In my lifetime I've seen the age of the universe get gradually pushed back. Before new information came in that supported an older universe the age of universe was stated with certainty in the general science media. If you asked me if weather I feel certainty that the universe if 13.5 billion years old I'd say "no." Lots of generally accepted scientific literacy things are like this. The real tragedy of the general populaces scientific literacy is that they have no idea that a CNN report that report that raisins will increase your life span by 5-10 years is just a data point that needs rigorous testing before being anything like a widely accepted report that should be acted on. Conversely the people who realize that such a raisin report is pretty bullshitty and wholly reject scientific discoveries because they don't know anything about how scientific research is conducted and are burned again and again by our medias effort to sell toothpaste and care with sensationalist headlines. The religious wackos would look a lot more like a corner case if they had any idea about how scientific research and knowledge is conducted, contestable and ever changing. Instead science is reported as fact and people have a great deal of certainty over stuff they should generally accept but be excited to find out was wrong based on new and amazing discoveries.
If I were asked if I felt confident in childhood vaccination in a survey I'd say "no."
Here is how the survey was presented: Please indicate how confident you are that the statement is correct.
How would you respond? Childhood vaccines are safe and effective
[ ] Extremely confident
[ ] Very confident
[ ] Somewhat confident
[ ] Not too confident
[ ] Not at all confident
These surveys make me uncomfortable. I respect the 2 to 4% who refuse to respond. When the statement is "The Earth is 4.5 billion years old," what is the alternative? 4.6 billion years? 4.54 billion years? Six thousand years? I think you are expected to turn off most of your critical thinking and say "yeah, sure, everybody knows smoking causes cancer" (4% not too/not at all confident).Very confident.
You're one of the good guys then. The article worries about those who were "not too confident" (11%) or "not at all confident" (4%), saying that "15 percent — have doubts about the safety and efficacy of childhood vaccines." PDF with results.
The mistake is in generalization. Lots of vaccines are at the same efficacy they've always been; some are losing effectiveness for a number of reasons (more resistant bugs; decreased herd immunity; the varicella vaccine looks like it might have been rushed to market, etc). You can't really say "vaccines" any more than you can say "medicine". I have more reasons than most to know stuff about this and I think you can safely say that, as a general rule, vaccines are highly effective at preventing disease. You cannot, however, say they are 100% effective. As far as the age of the universe, the shift you've observed is due to theories being disproven through empirical observation. We went from "4 billion" to "10 to 20 billion" to "14 billion" to "13.5 billion" - and it's important to note that the "4 billion" number predates widespread discussion of The Big Bang Theory. Bit of a corner case, really, and if you were to focus on "tested theory" your range would be "10 to 20 billion." Guy I went to high school with is an expert on CBMR, and I'm currently reading Tegmark; I recommend it. It's a light and easy read.
The efficacy of childhood vaccinations is in absolutely no doubt, and no sane medical professional would tell you otherwise. Immunity works, and population level immunity is a real, meaningful concept. That a vaccination is not a 100% guarantee that a particular person will never get a disease is not a strike against what we mean when we say "vaccines are effective." There aren't very many things in medicine that are ever 100%, and there is no reason to expect that inciting a natural immune response will always lead to complete immunity, particularly when you are dealing with an evolving target as is the case in all vaccinations. The fluid nature of safety and usage of vaccines is the only possible area of meaningful discussion.
You are a perfect example of the ignorance of the question about doubt in science. Because vaccines aren't 100% effective researchers are continuing to research immunology in general and specific vaccines to increase their effectiveness. This is because they DOUBT the effectiveness of the existing vaccines. If you don't believe that vaccines are going to be more effective in one hundred years you are a fool. Science would be neigh impossible if all people did was accept that what is good isn't good enough. I can only assume that you find vaccine denial so offensive that you were unable to read my comment for what it said. I'm the parent of a fully vaccinated three year old because I don't want my kid to die. I have my kid vaccinated for her own sake but also for the safety of those people who are immune compromised. It's completely ignorant to argue that there is no room for rational doubt about the efficacy of childhood vaccines. Telling people not to get vaccines because unsupported autism suspicions that are supported in no way be the data or because your god told you not to use technology that was developed after the 18th century is anti-social and probably immoral. People are so quick to accept what the NY Times science page tells them is fact when it's really just a way station of the path to greater understanding. Doubt is a necessary and essential part of being able to improve and understand our world in the face of new problems and evidence.
What?! Did you even read my post? I directly stated that vaccines aren't 100% effective. Of course we want to increase their efficacy, but it is still an incontrovertible fact that vaccines are already effective and useful. I have no problem with acknowledging that vaccines aren't perfect, that there may be adjuvants that would enhance their efficacy safely, and that we will always work to improve current vaccines. I can acknowledge all that and still point out that there is absolutely no doubt that the vaccines of today work. I didn't finish medical school to be talked down to by an emotionally-overreactive person on the Internet about things I don't even say. This conversation is over. Eit: after reviewing my post, I guess I can see where you assumed I was saying something else. I apologize for the lack of clarity, but I still have absolutely no interest in continuing a conversation with you. This is the statement I took issue with: >So I have doubts about the efficacy of childhood vaccinations. We have just seen people get the measles from people who were vaccinated in their youth. I think people should get their kids vaccinated but we know that vaccinations don't always work perfectly. If I were asked if I felt confident in childhood vaccination in a survey I'd say "no." You made a comment about adults getting measles directly after saying you had "doubts about the efficacy of childhood vaccinations", the implication being that because some people get a disease after being vaccinated that there is reason to doubt the efficacy of vaccines (possibly at large). There is some ambiguity in the phrase "efficacy of vaccines" that is causing this disconnect.
Yes I read your post. I could only assume seeing that the general gist of my post being that what is generally accepted as scientific facts is being constantly challenged by new research and information as a good foundation for doubting most scientific knowledge in a rational and healthy way that you coming back at me with there is no doubt that vaccines are effective as you not bothering to try to read or understand what I was saying. Everyone should have doubts about childhood vaccines. Peoples teens are getting whooping cough which they were previously vaccinated for and giving it to babies. The first round of whooping cough didn't stick and people need to get revaccinated if they are going to be around immune suppressed people. Seems like we are talking around each other. Maybe you did understand my original post and just chose to take me on for some other reason. I considered that I should really cover more thoroughly why I have doubts about the effectiveness of vaccines but thought "well they will probably understand what I'm getting at if they read the whole thing." I do think you have proved exactly what I was saying about these kinds of questions. The whole poll is about skepticism and confidence. People should be skeptical about the effectiveness of vaccines and skepticism is viewed as an anti-scientific view point while if you are confident then you are on the right side on truth. Because I say that I have doubts about these things I get a lecture about how great vaccines are.
I'm not sure you understand what vaccines are, what they are for, how they work, and what we work to do with them. It's somewhat evident that you are not particularly learned in medicine, and I don't think I have much to gain from exploring those topics with you. As I think is already evident, I don't think you are posting in good faith or would be a worthwhile person to continue conversing with, so I am reaffirming my commitment to not converse with you. Have a good day.
A little voice in my head tells me you weren't old enough to have experienced polio or smallpox.So I have doubts about the efficacy of childhood vaccinations. We have just seen people get the measles from people who were vaccinated in their youth.
To be fair, the Big Bang is a tough concept to grasp in and of itself. I mean you're asking someone to believe (essentially on faith, since most people aren't smart enough or don't have enough time to read in to these things themselves) that nothing exploded into everything an unfathomably long time ago. I don't doubt the Big Bang myself, but I don't think it's unreasonable to be somewhat understanding about these things.
Given the fact that the information's pretty well explained even on Wikipedia, I'm not going to agree that one should be understanding about it. There's ignorance and then there's a rank lack of curiosity.
these things need to come with an asterisk that states: *most likely adults over the age of 35.
You have a point. Still, I find that these people do not have much influence in or on our peer group as a whole. Nor do I see any forthcoming reason why that would change. Entirely anecdotal life experience though, so I guess it means nothing.