Studies on vaccines

[Will Wiley]

Yea, villifying and calling ignorant people stupid is ironic, because it's a fundamentally ignorant position. I'm unsure the concept of 'willful ignorance' actually exists. Most people who are ignorant are that way because nothing has allowed them to accept the facts yet, nobody decides 'hey, I'm going to think this way even though I know it's wrong".

The problem is when you start 'othering' these people who are so obviously idiots, you actually make the problem worse, and entrench their beliefs further. So if you're actually interested in making an impact on the problem that has to be kept in mind.

I'd agree. I live in an area with a lot of people who are against some mandatory vaccinations. They actually do read studies, some of them are doctors or have relevant tertiary degrees. Vilifying them is counterproductive

 

[blastula]

Visual aid: Battling Infectious Diseases in the 20th Century: The Impact of Vaccines - WSJ.com

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Anti vaccine people are not entirely stupid people, they are simply scared over something they don't fully understand. What is driving that fear are the con artists that want to make money off of the capitalistic conspiracy books.

They see a positive correlation of something that harms their children, and that is the core of their fear.

The problem is that they are unwilling to look at the facts.

(On the other hand, there is an actual but small effect: Vaccines increase the autism rate because dead babies don't get autism.)

 

[bilby]

Yea, villifying and calling ignorant people stupid is ironic, because it's a fundamentally ignorant position. I'm unsure the concept of 'willful ignorance' actually exists. Most people who are ignorant are that way because nothing has allowed them to accept the facts yet, nobody decides 'hey, I'm going to think this way even though I know it's wrong".

The problem is when you start 'othering' these people who are so obviously idiots, you actually make the problem worse, and entrench their beliefs further. So if you're actually interested in making an impact on the problem that has to be kept in mind.

I'd agree. I live in an area with a lot of people who are against some mandatory vaccinations. They actually do read studies, some of them are doctors or have relevant tertiary degrees. Vilifying them is counterproductive

Sure, but what actually works? Vilifying them doesn't; Ignoring them doesn't; Picking them off with a sniper rifle is considered impolite; so what can be done about them, to prevent them from harming children?

- - - Updated - - -

Anti vaccine people are not entirely stupid people, they are simply scared over something they don't fully understand. What is driving that fear are the con artists that want to make money off of the capitalistic conspiracy books.

They see a positive correlation of something that harms their children, and that is the core of their fear.

The problem is that they are unwilling to look at the facts.

(On the other hand, there is an actual but small effect: Vaccines increase the autism rate because dead babies don't get autism.)

http://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/autism-and-vaccines

 

[Will Wiley]

Vaccines are, for the most part, pretty bullet-proof technology. The reason they work is because it's not the vaccines themselves that protect you, but your own immune system, stimulated by the vaccines. The immune response your body would give if it was exposed to live virus, is triggered by inactive virii or compounds, which confers immunity to the live virus for some length of time. .

As it only confers a limited immunity, "for some length of time" as you say, it doesn't really give the same immunity. and the effect of a vaccine varies from person to person too which is important.
This is important to know with maternal immunity for example, because a baby (who is most vulnerable) is dependent upon the immunity of the mother should that baby come into contact with the virus/bacteria. So the immunity derived from someone who had the actual disease could differ froma vaccinated person, particularly if they are a "poor responder" . this is my understanding so i'm happy for JP to correct me as I do respect his knowledge on these things.
Also a vaccinated person can have no symptoms yet transmit the disease, and in some cases at least it appears that vaccination gives a selective advantage to the virus to infect the vaccinated person. (see page 6) https://www.cdc.gov/maso/facm/pdfs/BSCOID/2013121112_BSCOID_Minutes.pdf

There are other issues as well, which all seem to stem from the fact that immunity derived from the actual disease is superior to that which arises from a vaccine, and all of the arguments I see seem to depend on this fact

 

[Will Wiley]

... Thankfully, mass vaccination can confer enough immunity at the population level that pathogens cannot maintain their own populations. Indeed, for some diseases this has effectively meant eradication. For others, it keeps outbreaks isolated and rare. ...

This is what anti-vac'sers should be made away of. They're free-loaders. It's not so obvious that they haven't contracted polio or smallpox because their friends and neighbors have had the vaccine.

Small nitpick:
The current polio vaccine/s don't stop the transmission of polio. Polio was "eradicated" due to OPV which does stop transmission, but is no longer used due to safety concerns.
So technicaly a vaccinated person could transmit it, which would be awful for an unvaccinated person

 

[Will Wiley]

I'd agree. I live in an area with a lot of people who are against some mandatory vaccinations. They actually do read studies, some of them are doctors or have relevant tertiary degrees. Vilifying them is counterproductive

Sure, but what actually works? Vilifying them doesn't; Ignoring them doesn't; Picking them off with a sniper rifle is considered impolite; so what can be done about them, to prevent them from harming children?

Well , I'd say it's not easy to convince a mother who is concerned for the safety of her child. as you know, the government here is penalising them, but to a mother that means little at times. I don't see any good alternative but calmly going over what science has shown us. But i think mothers are not so interested in what vaccines have done but in what they do now.
And I'm sure you understand that with vaccines it's crucial that for them to be effective we need a very high rate of vaccination due to the waning of the effectiveness.

No mother wants to take a chance with her child, because for her it may mean a life or torment. Look at the study I posted earlier. the sample size is too small of course, but as it is probably the only study done it carries a disproportionate weight.

Science teaches us that knowledge comes through hypothesis and experiment, so we should rely on science and explain why it is relevant

 

[Will Wiley]

There seems to be limited incidence of outbreaks amongst vaccinated groups. Perhaps due to some who don't respond well to vaccinations, possibly for genetic reasons.

The fact that for decades that outbreaks among the unvaccinated in the US would definitely speak well to the vaccinations. We've only just been seeing outbreaks amongst the unvaccinated because more and more people are reckless, ignorant fuckers and not vaccinating their children.

The post above your outlined the largest outbreak in North America recently where people were 98% vaccinated.

Read this too...99% vaccinated ...

.incidence of measles, mumps, and rubella remains high

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24586717

The reported coverage of the measles-rubella (MR) or measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine is greater than 99.0% in Zhejiang province. However, the incidence of measles, mumps, and rubella remains high. In this study, we assessed MMR seropositivity and disease distribution by age on the basis of the current vaccination program, wherein the first dose of MR is administered at 8 months and the second dose of MMR is administered at 18-24 months.

 

[Rayschism]

Anti vaccine people are not entirely stupid people, they are simply scared over something they don't fully understand. What is driving that fear are the con artists that want to make money off of the capitalistic conspiracy books.

They see a positive correlation of something that harms their children, and that is the core of their fear.

The problem is that they are unwilling to look at the facts.

(On the other hand, there is an actual but small effect: Vaccines increase the autism rate because dead babies don't get autism.)

Facts are confusing things to simple people, especially when there is a lot of scientific terms. Also tone and how people come across is important too.

And all facts can be argued. But what that really is is just being argumentative in an attempt to be disruptive. Being argumentative is entirely dishonest and never has any real substance to it.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The fact that for decades that outbreaks among the unvaccinated in the US would definitely speak well to the vaccinations. We've only just been seeing outbreaks amongst the unvaccinated because more and more people are reckless, ignorant fuckers and not vaccinating their children.

The post above your outlined the largest outbreak in North America recently where people were 98% vaccinated.

Read this too...99% vaccinated ...

.incidence of measles, mumps, and rubella remains high

Wow, seriously. So Prior to the 60's and vaccines, almost all children got the measles (millions getting it each year).

They aimed to eliminate measles in the US in the early 80s.

And today, the disease is very rare.

So went from all kids get it to almost no one gets it. That seems pretty definitive to me. Your attempt to try and cherry pick data can be shoved back into the orifice in which is was presented from.

 

[Will Wiley]

The post above your outlined the largest outbreak in North America recently where people were 98% vaccinated.

Read this too...99% vaccinated ...

.incidence of measles, mumps, and rubella remains high

Wow, seriously. So Prior to the 60's and vaccines, almost all children got the measles (millions getting it each year).

They aimed to eliminate measles in the US in the early 80s.

And today, the disease is very rare.

So went from all kids get it to almost no one gets it. That seems pretty definitive to me. Your attempt to try and cherry pick data can be shoved back into the orifice in which is was presented from.

Maybe I misunderstood. You did write

we've only just been seeing outbreaks amongst the unvaccinated

which sounded like you were saying outbreaks only happen in unvaccinated populations

 

[Treedbear]

This is what anti-vac'sers should be made away of. They're free-loaders. It's not so obvious that they haven't contracted polio or smallpox because their friends and neighbors have had the vaccine.

Small nitpick:
The current polio vaccine/s don't stop the transmission of polio. Polio was "eradicated" due to OPV which does stop transmission, but is no longer used due to safety concerns.
So technicaly a vaccinated person could transmit it, which would be awful for an unvaccinated person

You make a valid point about how they aren't receiving any benefit at all from choosing not to get the vaccine and are therefore, techically, not freeloaders. But I wonder if the mentality isn't there in most cases anyway. And surely you see that the people who do get the vaccine regardless of this share no responcibility for that fact. That is, other than having to pay higher insurance premiums to care for them.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The post above your outlined the largest outbreak in North America recently where people were 98% vaccinated.

Read this too...99% vaccinated ...

.incidence of measles, mumps, and rubella remains high

Wow, seriously. So Prior to the 60's and vaccines, almost all children got the measles (millions getting it each year).

They aimed to eliminate measles in the US in the early 80s.

And today, the disease is very rare.

So went from all kids get it to almost no one gets it. That seems pretty definitive to me. Your attempt to try and cherry pick data can be shoved back into the orifice in which is was presented from.

Maybe I misunderstood. You did write

we've only just been seeing outbreaks amongst the unvaccinated

which sounded like you were saying outbreaks only happen in unvaccinated populations

Which is a true statement.

 

[Treedbear]

This is what anti-vac'sers should be made away of. They're free-loaders. It's not so obvious that they haven't contracted polio or smallpox because their friends and neighbors have had the vaccine. They narrow-mindedly look at their own situation and find the probability of getting the disease as very low, so it carries little weight in the attitude they choose to tak.

On the contrary whooping cough is common enough in an area with a lot of non vaxers. I live in an area with a larger number of anti vaxxers and whooping cough is common

I think this discussion is about the general effectiveness of vaccines. There are of course exceptions to anything, but anecdotal evidence is to be avoided.
From the CDC:

Q: Can pertussis be prevented with vaccines?

A: Yes. Pertussis, or whooping cough, can be prevented with vaccines. Before pertussis vaccines became widely available in the 1940s, about 200,000 children got sick with it each year in the United States and about 9,000 died as a result of the infection. Now we see about 10,000 to 40,000 cases reported each year and unfortunately up to 20 deaths.

This kind of information is just so easily available these days.

 

[rousseau]

I'd agree. I live in an area with a lot of people who are against some mandatory vaccinations. They actually do read studies, some of them are doctors or have relevant tertiary degrees. Vilifying them is counterproductive

Sure, but what actually works? Vilifying them doesn't; Ignoring them doesn't; Picking them off with a sniper rifle is considered impolite; so what can be done about them, to prevent them from harming children?

Robust education, at all levels of society: public awareness campaigns, public schools, affordable secondary schools.

This can be a problem when you're still struggling with democracy, and a good chunk of your population is barely eating.

Other than that, probably not much.

 

[bilby]

Sure, but what actually works? Vilifying them doesn't; Ignoring them doesn't; Picking them off with a sniper rifle is considered impolite; so what can be done about them, to prevent them from harming children?

Robust education, at all levels of society: public awareness campaigns, public schools, affordable secondary schools.

This can be a problem when you're still struggling with democracy, and a good chunk of your population is barely eating.

Other than that, probably not much.

Despite the recent floods in the wake of Cyclone Debbie, the Northern Rivers region of New South Wales has plentiful food supplies and very little severe hunger (although lots of people there have the munchies at any given time). We are even getting supplies of Norco milk in Brisvegas again.

And despite the best efforts of the NSW State Government, they do still have democracy (although when even Queenslanders think your state has a corruption problem, you know you are in strife; and few of the hippies would likely have put a '1' against the National Party's Kevin Hogan at the federal election).

Yet the Northern Rivers is riddled with anti-vaccine loons. Despite significant public education campaigns, and free schooling until year 12.

 

[rousseau]

Robust education, at all levels of society: public awareness campaigns, public schools, affordable secondary schools.

This can be a problem when you're still struggling with democracy, and a good chunk of your population is barely eating.

Other than that, probably not much.

Despite the recent floods in the wake of Cyclone Debbie, the Northern Rivers region of New South Wales has plentiful food supplies and very little severe hunger (although lots of people there have the munchies at any given time).

And despite the best efforts of the NSW State Government, they do still have democracy (although when even Queenslanders think your state has a corruption problem, you know you are in strife).

Yet the Northern Rivers is riddled with anti-vaccine loons. Despite significant public education campaigns, and free schooling until year 12.

In terms of our collective knowledge, even the most advanced nations are still pretty dumb. It'll take time until schools catch up with this stuff.

But other than doing a better job of educating people early and often, I don't know what else can be done.

 

[Will Wiley]

Visual aid: Battling Infectious Diseases in the 20th Century: The Impact of Vaccines - WSJ.com

That visual is interesting but with polio doesn't polio start to drop off after the criteria for polio was changed in 1954. Do you know how much that effected the table?

https://books.google.com.au/books?id=EQHPoGs6CvIC&pg=PA36&lpg=PA36&dq=In+order+to+qua

The Salk vaccine was introduced in 1955 , and the criteria for polio was changed in 1954. Do you know how each changes the results?

- - - Updated - - -

Despite the recent floods in the wake of Cyclone Debbie, the Northern Rivers region of New South Wales has plentiful food supplies and very little severe hunger (although lots of people there have the munchies at any given time).

And despite the best efforts of the NSW State Government, they do still have democracy (although when even Queenslanders think your state has a corruption problem, you know you are in strife).

Yet the Northern Rivers is riddled with anti-vaccine loons. Despite significant public education campaigns, and free schooling until year 12.

In terms of our collective knowledge, even the most advanced nations are still pretty dumb. It'll take time until schools catch up with this stuff.

But other than doing a better job of educating people early and often, I don't know what else can be done.

Where do you see the biggest problem education wise? What specific facts should be pointed out?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Passive aggressive Trump supporter and anti-vaxxer? What is your deal?!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Loren Pechtel]

which sounded like you were saying outbreaks only happen in unvaccinated populations

A high overall vaccination rate doesn't mean there isn't a subpopulation that has a low vaccination rate. That's where the outbreaks happen--some traveler brings in the disease and it spreads through the kids of the parents who won't vaccinate.