> If this meeting is cancelled, we would expect the vaccine to be less effective and would see greater impact (simply because it wasn't tailored to the be the most likely effective vaccine), but due to all the variables I mentioned it could even appear that "things got better after we did this" (post hoc ergo propter hoc).
There is an alternative here - a population left to fight an outbreak through natural immunity will be stronger in the end. That's definitely not a popular opinion, and it may not be worth the cost, but it does align with large drops in death rates of past outbreaks which generally happened before a vaccine was even available.
> There is no steel man here
That's not how steel manning an argument works. The whole point is to make the most generous version of the argument, usually assuming the best intent. There is always a most generous explanation that would lead to the argument made, you just may not like it or may not think its likely.
> Or RFK could somehow be right and we see a huge magic increase in public health across the country (not seen in other countries that keep vaccination). I am not aware of very many scientists who believe this will happen
I don't know RFK's stance particularly well, but I would guess that he wouldn't expect a noticeable increase in health over a short timeline and without improving peoples' health in general. I'm pretty sure I've seen him argue for removing toxins from our food and water, reducing dependence on pharmaceuticals, etc. All of those are important factors and it isn't realistic to assume that removing only one factor would magically fix everything.
> a population left to fight an outbreak through natural immunity will be stronger in the end.
Most people get the flu multiple times during their lives already. When is this natural immunity supposed to kick in and stop the elderly and infirm from dying from it?
Hell, why didn't this natural immunity protect the hundreds of millions of people who died prior to the introduction of vaccines from reoccurring outbreaks over the millennia? Never mind those who suffered lifetime disabilities from deafness to warped limbs.
> Measles mortality fell markedly (>90%) from the 19th century to mid-20th century prior to introduction of measles vaccine or the widespread use of antibiotics for secondary bacterial infections [1][2]
This story is similar for most infections we now vaccinate for, death rates were dropping dramatically years before vaccines were introduced.
The flu isn't a stable thing though, there are multiple strains of what we call "the flu" and its constantly adapting/mutating. Previous infection is no guarantee of protection, just like previous vaccination us no guarantee.
> When is this natural immunity supposed to kick in and stop the elderly and infirm from dying from it?
That's a whole different ball game. You're talking about immunocompromised individuals, their immune system isn't well prepared to respond to natural infection PR vaccination. Vaccines can still help, though they're usually less effective and more likely to cause symptoms similar to the original disease you're vaccinating against.
A vaccine isn't a magic bullet for preventing death. Vaccines still depend on the immune system doing its job effectively.
So to be clear you’re arguing let’s kill a whole bunch of people to “increase” the population’s strength, although you express some mild concern about the “cost” of doing that? Is that the argument here?
Vaccines attempt to induce natural immunity not reinforce it. This is precisely why vaccines are less effective for those with preexisting conditions and immune disorders - their immune system can't as easily respond to and learn from the vaccine. An effective vaccine stimulates the immune system after introducing enough material similar to the natural pathogen that the immune system can learn to respond to it. I could just be misunderstanding your meaning hear, but "reinforce" sounds to me more like an additional layer of defence - a beam reinforcing a homes foundation is adds additional strength to existing beams rather than making the existing beams themselves stronger.
I'm not arguing that we kill anyone. You're implying that choosing not to intervene with vaccines is murder, which I would disagree with, but even then I left open the door for that cost to not be worth it.
My argument here was simply that if vaccines aren't used, as happened for effectively all of natural history, the population remaining (assuming some remain) is stronger for it.
That doesn't meant we should choose not to administer vaccines if we have them and they are proven safe and effective. That also does not mean that we should actively kill anyone, eugenics is a pretty messed up idea.
> This is precisely why vaccines are less effective for those with preexisting conditions and immune disorders - their immune system can't as easily respond to and learn from the vaccine.
You've missed a significant strength of vaccines by focusing on individuals rather than on populations.
Vaccines slow the transmission rate through a population and reduce the severity of infection.
In a population with a high vaccination rates those few with weak immune systems have less exposure to infection.
It's similar to back burning and fuel reduction in combating wildfires.
I understand the argument for herd immunity, I've just never seen a study proving it out. The idea is compelling and modelling studies seem to show that its possible, but that is still different from a controlled study showing it happening.
Early on in the Covid pandemic response claims of herd immunity were being thrown around and Fauci was claiming a threshold of 60-65% vaccine rate for it to work. As time went on that number kept going up, eventually he admitted that they used a low number to start with only because they didn't think people would comply if the required vaccine rate seemed unrealistically high.
Herd immunity is almost certainly a thing at a certain immunity rate, the question that goes unanswered is what that rate actually is. For there to even be a case for vaccine mandates, of even just the arguments that people ought to get vaccinated due to herd immunity, we have to know the % of immunized population and the risk of vaccine side effects.
My understanding is that we don't have a solid understanding of the exact tipping point for herd immunity, and that at least during the covid pandemic response we didn't have a solid understanding of the true risks of adverse side effects to the vaccines either.
We know how many people died before we had vaccines, especially children. There is no argument here. We eradicated or almost eradicated a whole bunch of terrible diseases with vaccines.
What you're proposing here is simply murder. We know what would happen, many more people would die.
> Measles mortality fell markedly (>90%) from the 19th century to mid-20th century prior to introduction of measles vaccine or the widespread use of antibiotics for secondary bacterial infections [1][2]
This story is similar for most infections we now vaccinate for, death rates were dropping dramatically years before vaccines were introduced.
I wouldn't propose that people should be stopped from taking a vaccine if they want it.
I'm a strong supporter of informed consent. In this context that simply means that people need to know the pros and cons of a vaccine, what isn't known or scientifically studied yet, and they can make their own mind up.
We don't keep up any relevant research to prove that out. Vaccine studies don't use placebo controls, meaning we only know how they compare against what is usually the last approved vaccine. If you tell people that we know for certain that more people would die today without a particular vaccine you're lying, we simply can't know that without testing it.
> And herd immunity protects those that can't be protected by vaccines, your "experiment" would put them at risk as well.
How can we know herd immunity works as we predict it should without testing it? Its an untested hypothesis, and that's totally fine if we're not willing to risk testing it. We can't act as though it is scientific fact at that point though, its a hypothesis that a large majority agree with but that has yet to be tested in any significant way.
There is an alternative here - a population left to fight an outbreak through natural immunity will be stronger in the end. That's definitely not a popular opinion, and it may not be worth the cost, but it does align with large drops in death rates of past outbreaks which generally happened before a vaccine was even available.
> There is no steel man here
That's not how steel manning an argument works. The whole point is to make the most generous version of the argument, usually assuming the best intent. There is always a most generous explanation that would lead to the argument made, you just may not like it or may not think its likely.
> Or RFK could somehow be right and we see a huge magic increase in public health across the country (not seen in other countries that keep vaccination). I am not aware of very many scientists who believe this will happen
I don't know RFK's stance particularly well, but I would guess that he wouldn't expect a noticeable increase in health over a short timeline and without improving peoples' health in general. I'm pretty sure I've seen him argue for removing toxins from our food and water, reducing dependence on pharmaceuticals, etc. All of those are important factors and it isn't realistic to assume that removing only one factor would magically fix everything.