Un-Polarize

Madame:

Nice job tying up many of our subject divergences.  Permit me to add one tie-in to the original post before going on to another topic.

"My generation, labeled Millennials (b. 1981-2000), is less formal, less concerned with customs and traditions, and honest about our view that excessive work demands might not be worth the cost of advancement.  In general, we have an affinity for digital technology and social media. We look for meaningful work in a collaborative environment and value a results-based promotion system over the traditional tenure track. Many of us desire a more sustainable work/life balance than previous generations, and we are willing to work for less money to achieve it. We like to ask 'why?' and desire to innovate and change our workplace rather than operate under the status quo. Millennials want to operate in an efficient workplace that values obtaining results over managing prescribed processes. We want clear direction and timelines on assignments followed by the flexibility to complete the tasks within the given parameters. On the aggregate, we admit our seniors have a stronger work ethic, but we do not accept the premise that time at the job equates with efficient mission completion.  The notion that we require excessive positive praise for doing our job is overplayed and insulting. We do, however, desire candid feedback, either positive or negative, more often than previous generations." From "Lead Us!" by  Lt Michael Mabrey, USN, Proceedings Magazine, February 2015.  Read the full article here: http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2015-02/lead-us

I watched the recent vaccination brouhaha and noticed it took on an all too familiar pattern: the shallow corporate media slid into easy groupthink, and after that, there was only polarization—one was either on board with vaccination in toto and without question for any and every vaccine, all the time, or one was a soft-headed pampered liberal or paranoid conservative kook.  Not surprisingly, John Rosemond was one of the few to make any discernment and take a calm and rational approach, although perhaps even he didn’t go deep enough.

Let’s get some facts out there:

The 1998 study that linked autism with vaccines has been thoroughly discredited.

However, that does NOT mean vaccines are “safe.”  Vaccines carry some risk, usually small, of an adverse, sometimes even fatal, reaction, depending on the individual, and, very rarely, even on the quality of the vaccine.

That risk is usually outweighed by the benefits of being inoculated, especially given the seriousness of what is being protected against.

Inoculation is especially important in attaining “herd resistance” and preventing small outbreaks from spreading (and particularly from them going epidemic).

Some individuals cannot be given a particular vaccine, for various reasons, whether allergies, immunity system condition, medical condition, etc.  This increases the importance of others becoming inoculated,  to attain “herd resistance.”

A few inoculations “don’t take.”  That is, the individual was inoculated, but, for whatever reason, resistance or immunity is not attained.

The younger a child is, the harder on its system a vaccine typically is.  This is a nervous dilemma for parents, as intellectually they may know the increased risk taken in inoculating a small child or baby is still low, and the probable benefit is great, but this is their child, and emotionally, that’s a big hurdle.

This dilemma is made even harder by the fact that there is correlation (although no proven causation) between Sudden Infant Death Syndrome and vaccination.  As a parent, I can sympathize with the concern.  As a historian who is familiar with the historical record of disease devastation to children under age five, I can tell you statistically, on both a local and grand scale, the difference between inoculated and un-inoculated populations is vast and tragic.

At one time, a case could be made that vaccination zealotry had overreached, that we were urging inoculation for a number of things that did not require it—flu, chickenpox, HPV, etc.  Now, however, the research seems to indicate that, despite sometimes mixed results, the overall benefit is warranted.  Still, we must be wary that we don’t carry it too far.

Understanding the above could help unstiffen the polarization.  For instance, I wouldn’t suggest a parent forego inoculation for their children in most cases, and would instead urge them to follow the advice of a trusted medical professional.  However, if they did, contrary to advice, choose to forego inoculation until age five, I could understand it.  We could even allow a number of un-inoculated children to attend public school (kindergarten or pre-school), but once the statistical (small) limit had been reached, un-inoculated children would have to find another school or be home schooled.  We don’t need to throw the parents in jail, as some, incredibly, chillingly, advocate.  We need to continue to present evidence, and increase the chance of persuasion.  We also need better research to help us make better decisions and increase confidence.

What we HAVEN’T had on all this, aside from Rosemond’s column, is a calm and rational discussion between the sides.  We have had instead the emotion-driven certainty of the ABSOLUTE correctness, enforceable by force if necessary, of one’s position.  A hallmark of fanatics. 

And there in the unvisited middle, is, again, the lonely truth, waiting for discernment to come calling.