Why don't you vaccinate your kids? (Read 1573 times)

Purdey


Self anointed title

     

     

    Trent


    Good Bad & The Monkey

      Purdey, which of this don't you follow?  Not being snarky.  This has been explained several times, and I want to make sure it is clear.

       

      No vaccine works 100% of the time, and so the way we protect children is to vaccinate them AND to reduce the amount of the disease circulating in the population by vaccinating other children.  Vaccinated or not, if there is no measles out there for you to get, you won't get measles.  But if measles is circulating, a portion of children who have been vaccinated will get it despite being vaccinated AND they may then pass it along to others.  The more kids that are vaccinated, the less a chance that the disease will gain a foothold.

       

      And then there are children who are not vaccinated because they are too young or have some medical reason that prohibits certain vaccinations and put them at higher risk of getting sick (kids with cancer, for example). 

      Purdey


      Self anointed title

        Hadn't read this train-wreck of a thread in it's glorious entirety. Thanks Trent.

        What proportion of vaccinated children can still contract the disease? Say for measles?

         

         

        Trent


        Good Bad & The Monkey

          That is a good question, and the answer is both unclear and likely varies based on the disease, the time of year, the general disease incidence in the population, individual patient and family characteristics, etc.  From the perspective of a concerned parent, I don't want my child to have any excessive risk.

          Purdey


          Self anointed title

             

             

            Lane


              Interesting

               

              I'm impressed by the way that this article is written without any bias.

              Trent


              Good Bad & The Monkey

                Interesting

                 

                Lies.  Damned lies.  And statistics.

                 

                I don't really find it interesting at all.

                 

                This is just a spin on what I have said: some portion of all people who have been vaccinated will still get the disease.  If 99% of all children are vaccinated and vaccines are not 100% effective, then it stands to reason that during an outbreak, most of those infected will still have been vaccinated. 

                 

                Look at it differently.  99% of kiddos have been vaccinated (funy number, likely close to that).  In an outbreak involving 1000 kids, 77% were vaccinated and 23% were unvaccinated.  That means that the 1% of kiddos who were unvaccinated accounted for 23% of the kids with the disease.  That is, their risk was 23 times higher for contracting the disease (and passing it along) than kids who have been vaccinated.

                 

                The article states: "Vaccines may actually increase your risk of disease. Notice that far more vaccinated children were stricken with mumps than non-vaccinated children?"  Well, while it is true that more faccinated children were stricken than nonvaccinated children, this is only because there are far far more vaccinated children who can be stricken with the disease, not because individual kids are at greater risk.  My sixth grader's math class covers this basic statistical calculation.  It is unfortumate that this website nonetheless is out there purposefully misinterpreting the findings.

                Purdey


                Self anointed title

                   

                  Lies.  Damned lies.  And statistics.

                   

                   

                  Works for both sides. MTA: Wink loving the thread.

                   

                   


                  Menace to Sobriety

                    Have any providers ever been caught selling less than the real deal? I'm sure have been parents who in good faith tried to get their kids vaccinated, but have in reality gotten diluted, out of date vaccine, or even worse, some inert substance. The rate has to be relatively low, but with all the local grocery stores seemingly now selling flu vaccine, it makes me wonder.

                     

                    MTA: I don't view this as a reason not to have kids vaccinated, just curious.

                    Janie, today I quit my job. And then I told my boss to go f*** himself, and then I blackmailed him for almost sixty thousand dollars. Pass the asparagus.

                       

                      Look at it differently.  99% of kiddos have been vaccinated (funy number, likely close to that).  In an outbreak involving 1000 kids, 77% were vaccinated and 23% were unvaccinated.  That means that the 1% of kiddos who were unvaccinated accounted for 23% of the kids with the disease.  That is, their risk was 23 times higher for contracting the disease (and passing it along) than kids who have been vaccinated.

                       

                        My sixth grader's math class covers this basic statistical calculation. 

                       

                      I stink at math, but I think with those numbers that would make them 29.6 x more likely to contract.

                      Come all you no-hopers, you jokers and rogues
                      We're on the road to nowhere, let's find out where it goes
                      fasteronce


                        Hey! This is the second chapter of the book, Denialism, I posted about the other day.  Vaccines and the Great Denial is athe title of the chapter.  Interesting stuff. 

                         

                        Talks about the actual objective research on vaccines (hint: they were not shown to be these great dangers.) Also about the impact and infection of cholera, yellow fever, mumps, and measles - that most of us today have not seen.  It's easy to be scared of vaccines, I suppose, when you haven't seen the real horrors they are preventing.  You aren't appreciative of avoiding a disease you never considered contracting because we are lucky in the time we live and the vaccines available.   Now the autism vaccine link has been completely debunked, but my cousin who has an autistic child said it very clearly -  she'd much rather have an autistic child than a dead child even if there was a shadow of a doubt.

                         

                        In 2007, in areas of the world where the measles vaccine is not widely available, 200,000 children died from measles encephalitis.  That's 20 an hour.  Imputing those statistics, 52 million measles infections were avoided, saving 17000 people from being mentally retarded, and 5000 children from dying - in two decades since the vaccine was released.  It has an impact of the individual people, and the country's medical costs.  Because off vaccines being turned down, measles, which was set to be eradicated in Europe by 2010 like so many other diseases have been, no longer on track.

                         

                        The book discusses why it is easy to blame certain things on vaccines with no scientific support.  Such as autism, whose symptoms tend to show up developmentally soon after the vaccine schedule (whether or not the child receives a vaccine.) Coincidence.  Fear.  And hope for an explanation.

                         

                        There was worry over thimerosal.  Countries that removed it from their vaccines, still had the raise in autism diagnosis seen in the US.    Ten studies showed no link between MMR and autism, six more showed no link between thimerosal and autism.  (And the mercury in vaccines is NOT methyl mercury.  We may drink ethyl alcohol, methyl alcohol would blind us... them both being alcohol does not make the same. Same with mercury)  Tons of studies have compared vaccination and unvaccinated children as well, in many countries.  The difference is NOT there!

                         


                        The fear of vaccines isn't new.  Ben Franklin opposed inoculation against smallpox until his child died from it... with the final total of 1 in 40 dying who were inoculated verse 1 in 6 who were not... after which he became a strong supporter.  He saw the true horrors.

                         

                        We do get more vaccines than decades ago. However- you know what?  All the vaccines today have fewer antigens than the fewer number of vaccines then.  The smallpox vaccine itself contained 200 proteins- all eleven vaccines received today have  fewer than 130.

                         

                         

                        Parents refusing vaccine threatens herd immunity.  The biggest concern, for me, isn't my child who is vaccinated - but those who do not have the choice to vaccinate. Those who are too young or too sick and have to rely on herd immunity to keep them safe -- those who have even more to be concerned about from contracting these diseases.  What's this, screw everybody else and make this decision for my kid (in complete absence of scientific evidence)?    People are not getting vaccines because they have the luxury of herd immunity. 

                         

                        I would be happy if schools made vaccine exemptions MUCH more difficult. 

                         

                        End of the chapter, I agree with and will post here.... it is discussing specifically the autism fears that I hope we all know are groundless now, but applies to any number of nameless fears about this particular bogeyman.

                         

                        "By choosing not to vaccinate their children, parents are not protecting them from autism -- as so many epidemiological studies have demonstrated.  They are simply putting their children - and the children of their neighbors - at greater risk of contracting diseases that would send them to the hospital or worse.  How many American children will die  in order to make the point that vaccinations are vital?"

                         

                         

                         

                        PS. Chickenpox vaccine,... immunity can fade.  It can also fade if you actually get chickenpox.-- Since chickenpox is less common period now, the immunity boost people who had it would get every time exposed to the disease is no longer there - for those vaccinated or those who got chickenpox.  That is why immunity fades, not a flaw in the vaccines.  HOWEVER, with the vaccine effectiveness not being quite the effectiveness of other vaccines, and chickenpox in children being relatively free of complications, I'm not so much talking about parents who refuse that vaccine as the others.  I'd consider it more along the line of the choice whether to get the flu shot.  If you are in contact with those at risk, you probably should, otherwise your choice and I'm not going to judge it.  However, I will still be giving my children the vaccine and the boosters, because it has shown, even if they get it, to lessen the severity.   ALSO:::  "To date, those who have received the vaccine have a much lower incidence of shingles than those who actually had chickenpox over the same time period. Those who receive the vaccine also have a dramatically decreased risk of scarring. Finally, studies so far have found the chickenpox vaccine to be highly effective in preventing moderate and severe chickenpox in children (Redbook: Report of the Committee on Infectious Diseases, 2009)."

                        Trent


                        Good Bad & The Monkey

                          Works for both sides.

                           

                          True.  But my estimates were conservative.  Without knowing the actual size of the exposed population, we cannot perform real statistics.  This being the New Jersey and New York area, it is likely tens or hundreds of thousands of children.  Again, playing conservative, if there were 10 000 exposed kids, assuming a 99% vaccination rate, we'd get something like this:

                           

                            Vaccinated Nonvaccinated Totals
                          Sick 770 230 1000
                          Well 8910 90 9000
                          Totals 9680 320 10 000

                           

                          The risk of getting sick is 7.8% if you are vaccinated (770 out of 9680).

                          The risk of getting sick is 71.8% if you are unvaccinated (230 out of 320).

                           

                          That is a 9x greater chance of getting sick if you have not been vaccinated based on this conservative model.

                           

                          ---

                           

                          If there were 100 000 exposed kids, assuming a 99% vaccination rate, we'd get something like this:

                           

                            Vaccinated Nonvaccinated Totals
                          Sick 770 230 1000
                          Well 98 010
                          990 99 000
                          Totals 98 780 1220 100 000

                           

                          The risk of getting sick is 0.7% if you are vaccinated (770 out of 98780).

                          The risk of getting sick is 18.8% if you are unvaccinated (230 out of 1220).

                           

                          That is a 26x greater chance of getting sick if you have not been vaccinated based on this less conservative model.

                          Purdey


                          Self anointed title

                            Nice. But it is widely recognised that 56.34% of statistics are complete bollocks.

                             

                             

                            Trent


                            Good Bad & The Monkey

                               

                              I stink at math, but I think with those numbers that would make them 29.6 x more likely to contract.

                               

                              Yah, mine was a quick estimate.  See my followup post with better numbers.  Determining the true relative risk requires knowing the population size.

                              Trent


                              Good Bad & The Monkey

                                Nice. But it is widely recognised that 56.34% of statistics are complete bollocks.

                                 

                                Heh heh heh

                                 

                                Wink