catch yourself,
I don’t remember anyone asserting that vaccines were the sole, or even greatest, factor in all disease reduction and prevention.
I didn’t think that was ZD’s intention, either.
I believe it was asserted via zahavasdad’s rhetorical question. Otherwise, his post makes no sense in context.
Please don’t get off topic now with a specious discussion of statistics. For purposes of this discussion, it doesn’t really matter if a disease killed ten percent or fifty percent of children globally before a vaccine was developed.
I agree, it doesn’t matter in terms of whether the benefits of vaccines outweigh the risks. In fact, the reality of 150 years ago really doesn’t factor into that calculus either. What matters to me is the promulgation of misinformation. If one wants to be on the side of science and reason, then he should make sure his statements and arguments are factual and correct.
This is a classic smoke-and-mirrors debate tactic.
More than smoke and mirrors, such mistakes provoke an argument to logic fallacy in response, where “anti-vaxxers” latch onto misinformation such as this and then claim that the conclusions of “pro-vaxxers” are also erroneous. If you read my posts, I am not trying to do that. In fact, my intention is the opposite – to correct such errors so that they are not used to muddy the conversation.
The main discussion is about whether the possible risks of vaccines outweigh the benefits, not about whether it was vaccines or improved hygiene which proved more beneficial overall.
The problem is, “pro-vaxxers” over-inflate the benefits (and risks of inaction), while “anti-vaxxers” over-inflate the risks and downplay the dangers of disease. This leads to a lack of a middle ground and flexibility.