Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: jwalsh07

The point is to do a risk/reward assessment. Putting kids in a lifevest to swim has a low risk/cost/reward assessment. Reward: They probably won’t drown. Risks: They might get complacent. Costs: it’s not fun to swim with a vest, you can’t swim underwater, kids will make fun of you, you have to buy a vest, you have to remember to bring it all the time.

So no, given the small risk of drowning, I wouldn’t do a vest. I WOULD however watch my kids while they are swimming, because that will ALSO prevent almost all drownings, and I’m there anyway, and even with a vest I would be there. Cost is really nothing, risk is I might fall asleep, reward is I keep them from drowning. I also go to pools with lifeguards, for the same reason.

A vaccine is a one-time thing that then protects you for your life, or maybe a two or three-time thing with boosters. Each time there is a very small risk. But if we vaccinated EVERY girl, the number that would be saved from death alone each year would far outweigh the number who would die from the vaccination.

HOWEVER, the risk of HPV isn’t the same for every girl. Those who are certain to remain sexually inactive aren’t at risk, so nuns and the celebate can skip. If you are pretty sure you trust your spouse, your risk is probably low as well. Of course, my risks of getting polio were pretty low.

What you seem to be arguing is that there is some inordinate COST associated with giving girls a Gardisil vaccination that outweighs the benefits of saving a few lives. I think you are wrong, but I’m not a medical doctor so I’m depending on medical advice from “experts” that I can’t easily verify.

You are also ignoring the other problems associated with HPV that would be prevented with the vaccine, including the people who get cervical cancer but don’t die from it — even if I knew I wasn’t going to die, if I had a choice between going through cancer treatment, or getting a vaccine, I would choose the vaccine.

South Park did an excellent show which made fun of how stupid people are when it comes to risk assessment and understanding. The parents ended up sending their kids out of town into the wilderness, because they learned that kids were most likely to be abused at home by someone in their family.

Your suggestion to lock kids in the basement to avoid the minor risk of skin cancer reminded me of that show. Especially since you can also protect your kids by putting sunblock on them when they go out, if you are really paranoid.

If there was a vaccine for skin cancer, we’d take it.

Lest I forget, what I said about life vests was that I make my kids where life vests when we go on a boat. The Boy Scouts require it — my son just did a 10-day wildnerness Alaska raft adventure, and everybody including the guides wore life vests. It was a mandate without an opt-out.


2,175 posted on 09/13/2011 9:40:49 AM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2146 | View Replies ]


To: CharlesWayneCT
A vaccine is a one-time thing that then protects you for your life, or maybe a two or three-time thing with boosters.

Charles, there is no long term study on the efficacy or safety of Gardasil because there is no population group who were vaccinated long enough ago.

And Charles there was no mandate sending your rafting or joining the boy scouts.

BTW, have you vaccinated your son with Gardasil? If not why not?

2,190 posted on 09/13/2011 10:53:11 AM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2175 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson