The devastating impact of vaccine deniers, in one measles chart(washingtonpost.com)
washingtonpost.com
The devastating impact of vaccine deniers, in one measles chart
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/01/22/the-devastating-impact-of-vaccine-deniers-in-one-measles-chart/
5 comments
"On the other, how much pressure is reasonable to put on parents to vaccinate their children against an illness that poses less danger to them than meteors."
Lifetime odds of dying from a meteor strike: 1-in-250-million
source: Dr. Sten Odenwald, NIA (National Institute of Aerospace)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-sten-odenwald/death-by-mete...
Lifetime odds of dying from a meteor strike: 1-in-250-million
source: Dr. Sten Odenwald, NIA (National Institute of Aerospace)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-sten-odenwald/death-by-mete...
"On the other, how much pressure is reasonable to put on parents to vaccinate their children against an illness that poses less danger to them than meteors."
Not sure about the statistic, but it's irrelevant; the reason polio is not acommon that is because... Wait for it... We all get immunized! If we just stop getting the immunization and a strain comes in from over seas (which it does, even today), well, it's a problem again.
You speak of a debate as if each side is on equal footing, but that's not the case. This is a debate of fact vs ignorance. These people put everyone else at risk, my children as well as your own. I have little patience for that dangerous sort of ignorance, and I'm ok with harsh language.
Not sure about the statistic, but it's irrelevant; the reason polio is not acommon that is because... Wait for it... We all get immunized! If we just stop getting the immunization and a strain comes in from over seas (which it does, even today), well, it's a problem again.
You speak of a debate as if each side is on equal footing, but that's not the case. This is a debate of fact vs ignorance. These people put everyone else at risk, my children as well as your own. I have little patience for that dangerous sort of ignorance, and I'm ok with harsh language.
No. I'm not.
I'm just saying that while we're debating, be civil. It's not just about being nice. Thinking in labels like "denier" makes us dumber, less likely to be correct.
Hold your position. Argue for it. Just, do it intelligently and reasonably.
I'm just saying that while we're debating, be civil. It's not just about being nice. Thinking in labels like "denier" makes us dumber, less likely to be correct.
Hold your position. Argue for it. Just, do it intelligently and reasonably.
There are a group of people who are actively fighting immunization and using bad science to show that it is bad for you. This is a different than someone who doesn't follow the normal vaccination schedule, because why bother. The former group is worse than the later because they convince others that it is bad. Enough that people die.
Name calling is a way to short-circuit any discussion and slander your opponent.
Vaccines are necessary and we shouldn't take the anti-vaccine movement lightly.
But -- the argument here, and the accompanying chart, make me very uncomfortable. The author makes the explicit claim that the chart proves vaccine deniers have caused a massive explosion of measles cases.
The author then offers one opinion poll's number, for a single year.
That's all we have, in this argument, to conclude causation. It's just not enough.
The trend is not at all clear from the graph -- with every line the same color, there is no movement, no trend here.
Without a matching history of even that one opinion poll, we can't even make a statistically inappropriate assumption that there's a correlation between vaccine opinion and measles cases.
This is a poorly formed argument about a serious topic. These sorts of misfires are dangerous in that they can add fuel to the non-science-based side of a debate that threatens lives...
Edit: The author misquoted the actual numbers in the 2014 study he linked through to -- 53% of respondents were Extremely or Very Confident that vaccines for children were effective. Another 30% were Somewhat confident.
In all, 83% of respondents were confident enough that they would/would probably have a vaccine administered.
The WonkBlog has been producing some hit-or-miss content recently. There was another "Literally every goat in the US" graph they put out that, while humorous, suggested rounding up to the nearest 500 goats was "literally" every goat...
But -- the argument here, and the accompanying chart, make me very uncomfortable. The author makes the explicit claim that the chart proves vaccine deniers have caused a massive explosion of measles cases.
The author then offers one opinion poll's number, for a single year.
That's all we have, in this argument, to conclude causation. It's just not enough.
The trend is not at all clear from the graph -- with every line the same color, there is no movement, no trend here.
Without a matching history of even that one opinion poll, we can't even make a statistically inappropriate assumption that there's a correlation between vaccine opinion and measles cases.
This is a poorly formed argument about a serious topic. These sorts of misfires are dangerous in that they can add fuel to the non-science-based side of a debate that threatens lives...
Edit: The author misquoted the actual numbers in the 2014 study he linked through to -- 53% of respondents were Extremely or Very Confident that vaccines for children were effective. Another 30% were Somewhat confident.
In all, 83% of respondents were confident enough that they would/would probably have a vaccine administered.
The WonkBlog has been producing some hit-or-miss content recently. There was another "Literally every goat in the US" graph they put out that, while humorous, suggested rounding up to the nearest 500 goats was "literally" every goat...
those damn vaccine deniers like the cdc. http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/should-not-vacc.htm
I'm pointing out that the issue is more complicated than most people make it.
I'm pointing out that the issue is more complicated than most people make it.
1. Everyone has the right to deny being treated without stigmatization or punishment.
2. Everything the article depends on in its interpretation of the chart, mostly summarized by the 2nd paragraph, is based on unwarranted assumptions.
2. Everything the article depends on in its interpretation of the chart, mostly summarized by the 2nd paragraph, is based on unwarranted assumptions.
Everyone has the right to deny being treated without stigmatization or punishment.
The first part of this sentence is OK, the second part is not.
For basically all of history, quarantine -- backed up by the threat of deadly force if necessary -- has been an accepted feature of civilization, since allowing an untreated carrier of infectious disease into a population has impacts beyond just that one person's health.
Or, more simply: sure, you can have a right to refuse treatment. And everyone else can have a basic right to defend themselves from you when that refusal poses a threat to their own health.
The first part of this sentence is OK, the second part is not.
For basically all of history, quarantine -- backed up by the threat of deadly force if necessary -- has been an accepted feature of civilization, since allowing an untreated carrier of infectious disease into a population has impacts beyond just that one person's health.
Or, more simply: sure, you can have a right to refuse treatment. And everyone else can have a basic right to defend themselves from you when that refusal poses a threat to their own health.
Quarantine is only accepted under he most dire circumstances. Hell, they didn't even quarantine people with AIDS and how many did that epidemic kill, millions?
It is the acceptance of corporate tyranny, that seems to becoming the norm in first world nations, which is truly alarming. Do people really understand what it would mean to have mandatory vaccinations? Not only would it not stop all cases of any of these diseases, but pharmaceutical companies would be falling over themselves to create more and more marginally effective vaccines to add to an already large list. And prices would go through the roof. Be careful not to make the prefect the enemy of the good.
It is the acceptance of corporate tyranny, that seems to becoming the norm in first world nations, which is truly alarming. Do people really understand what it would mean to have mandatory vaccinations? Not only would it not stop all cases of any of these diseases, but pharmaceutical companies would be falling over themselves to create more and more marginally effective vaccines to add to an already large list. And prices would go through the roof. Be careful not to make the prefect the enemy of the good.
Hell, they didn't even quarantine people with AIDS and how many did that epidemic kill, millions?
Exceptionally bad comparison. If I have measles, I can infect dozens of other people in a matter of days without realising it, by walking around, in places and situations in which these people have every expectation of not being at increased risk. Once I know I have measles, I know I am a walking dispensary of disease and can expect to infect other people just be walking around near them, sneezing and coughing and touching things. If I get quarantined (and don't die), a week or so later I'm clean.
If I have HIV, I cannot infect dozens of people by walking around with it. Other people would have to be exceptionally unlucky to catch it from me, or be deliberating engaging in known unsafe practices. If I know I have it, I could take a few extra precautions myself and have every expectation of never infecting anyone. If I get quarantined, I'm there until I die. Decades maybe. That's not quarantine; that's life without parole.
Exceptionally bad comparison. If I have measles, I can infect dozens of other people in a matter of days without realising it, by walking around, in places and situations in which these people have every expectation of not being at increased risk. Once I know I have measles, I know I am a walking dispensary of disease and can expect to infect other people just be walking around near them, sneezing and coughing and touching things. If I get quarantined (and don't die), a week or so later I'm clean.
If I have HIV, I cannot infect dozens of people by walking around with it. Other people would have to be exceptionally unlucky to catch it from me, or be deliberating engaging in known unsafe practices. If I know I have it, I could take a few extra precautions myself and have every expectation of never infecting anyone. If I get quarantined, I'm there until I die. Decades maybe. That's not quarantine; that's life without parole.
- people with AIDS who knowingly have unprotected sex often get convicted of manslaughte
- measles killed millions
- we already have "mandatory" vaccines -- you're theoretically required to have them to go to school. And yes, some have criticized the expansion of that list.
- but a much more common criticism of drug companies is that they're not researching vaccines and cures -- it's much more profitable to sell a pill that you take every day than it is to sell something that you take once a lifetime.
- measles killed millions
- we already have "mandatory" vaccines -- you're theoretically required to have them to go to school. And yes, some have criticized the expansion of that list.
- but a much more common criticism of drug companies is that they're not researching vaccines and cures -- it's much more profitable to sell a pill that you take every day than it is to sell something that you take once a lifetime.
People have been prosecuted under various existing laws for intentionally or recklessly transmitting HIV, and new laws have been passed criminalizing such behavior:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_transmission_of_HIV
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_transmission_of_HIV
[deleted]
>> 1. Everyone has the right to deny being treated without stigmatization or punishment.
This is one of our biggest problems these days. You do have the right to self-determination. Others have the right to stigmatize you, especially if your choices impact others! If my house is a dangerous mess, should I be surprised when my friends and neighbors avoid me?
Freedom is a two-way street.
This is one of our biggest problems these days. You do have the right to self-determination. Others have the right to stigmatize you, especially if your choices impact others! If my house is a dangerous mess, should I be surprised when my friends and neighbors avoid me?
Freedom is a two-way street.
For your point 1, there are some kinds of negligence or neglect which are criminal. And putting other people at risk is certainly ground for stigma.
[deleted]
Kinda over the top, dontcha think? I had measles as a child, and it was hardly "devastating". Chart seems to be missing any indication of the percentage of people vaccinated, so that one can at least see a correlation, let alone infer causation, or "impact"! And since Disneyland is a tourist spot, isn't it at least possible that some of the guests could be people from countries which don't vaccinate for measles? That is assuming that the strain of the current measles outbreak is the same one prevented by the vaccine.
http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Measles/Pages/Complications.asp...
1 in 5000 people who get measles will die.
The "uncommon" (for medication side effects "uncommon" means between 1 in 100 and 1 in 1000 people get the side effect; "rare" means that between 1 in 1,000 and 1 in 10,000 people are affected and "very rare" means that fewer than one in 10,000 people are affected -- I don't know if this is the same for disease complications).
Uncommon:
liver infection (hepatitis)
misalignment of the eyes (squint), if the virus affects the nerves and muscles of the eye
*infection of the membranes surrounding the brain and spinal cord (meningitis) and infection of the brain itself (encephalitis)
These seem pretty severe, especially since they're mostly avoidable.
EDIT:
> possible that some of the guests could be people from countries which don't vaccinate for measles?
Which countries would they be? Measles immunisation covers 80% of children under 1 year old.
http://www.who.int/immunization/programmes_systems/en/
> assuming that the strain of the current measles outbreak is the same one prevented by the vaccine
Are you saying the Edmonson strain doesn't protect against current strains? Or are you making shit up?
1 in 5000 people who get measles will die.
The "uncommon" (for medication side effects "uncommon" means between 1 in 100 and 1 in 1000 people get the side effect; "rare" means that between 1 in 1,000 and 1 in 10,000 people are affected and "very rare" means that fewer than one in 10,000 people are affected -- I don't know if this is the same for disease complications).
Uncommon:
liver infection (hepatitis)
misalignment of the eyes (squint), if the virus affects the nerves and muscles of the eye
*infection of the membranes surrounding the brain and spinal cord (meningitis) and infection of the brain itself (encephalitis)
These seem pretty severe, especially since they're mostly avoidable.
EDIT:
> possible that some of the guests could be people from countries which don't vaccinate for measles?
Which countries would they be? Measles immunisation covers 80% of children under 1 year old.
http://www.who.int/immunization/programmes_systems/en/
> assuming that the strain of the current measles outbreak is the same one prevented by the vaccine
Are you saying the Edmonson strain doesn't protect against current strains? Or are you making shit up?
However it is more complicated than this, b/c the majority of people that do get the measles and die from it typically already have other health problems. Recently my niece got the measles --a "breakout case" from the vaccination itself actually. I was very concerned b/c I thought if they expect everyone to get vaccinated it must be pretty deadly. The doctor said otherwise. Because she was perfectly healthy in all other respects, there was no cause for concern.
Measles is pretty devastating in the approximately 0.3% of cases in which it's fatal, and that's in the US (according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measles). It's (even) worse in less well-developed countries.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6334a1.htm#Tab3 here.
The magic number you are looking for is 95%.
http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-measles-spread...
You may be surprised to learn that Disney etc may have thought of the source and method of spreading of this particular outbreak.
The magic number you are looking for is 95%.
http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-measles-spread...
You may be surprised to learn that Disney etc may have thought of the source and method of spreading of this particular outbreak.
There have only ever been 21 strains of measles discovered, nothing seems to suggest that current infections involve a novel strain.
I agree. Where is the proof that the increase in cases is directly related to fewer vaccinations? I recently read a study out of South Korea that showed despite a 97% vaccination rate against chickenpox, the number of cases continue to rise.
The most fundamental problem with our healthcare system is that we all know that pharmaceutical companies primary goal is to make bank, so we can't trust them.
The most fundamental problem with our healthcare system is that we all know that pharmaceutical companies primary goal is to make bank, so we can't trust them.
The most fundamental problem with EVERY FUCKING PRIVATE COMPANY THERE IS is that we all know that their primary goal is to make bank, so we can't trust them.
Do you grow your own food? Make your own clothes? Did you assemble your car yourself from materials you created using your own steel mill and other such basic materials manufacturing plants? You trust private companies every day, every one of which happily states that they want to make money. What's so special about medicines?
Do you grow your own food? Make your own clothes? Did you assemble your car yourself from materials you created using your own steel mill and other such basic materials manufacturing plants? You trust private companies every day, every one of which happily states that they want to make money. What's so special about medicines?
Yes I do grow some food. I also eat as much organic food as I can. I also am a thoughtful and careful buyer of all things. But medicine stands out above all other industries b/c it has extreme life-and-death consequences. For the companies involved, to make money there is a strong perverse incentive to have sick people. Compare it for instance to the police. How do you think we'd fair if the police were all run by private corporations and you had to pay them for service and protection?
>Yes I do grow some food. I also eat as much organic food as I can.
This is something I use to wonder about. Isn't it more important that the food we eat be free of harmful toxins (like pesticides or harmful fertilizers?), but there is no agency that is responsible for checking the quality of vegetables or meat (At least here in India). There was an big issue with pesticides (Endosulfan)[1], in my state some time back. But still no government agency bothers to check for vegetables that are being sold to the public. No one bothers to check meat and fish for harmful levels of antibiotics or harmful chemicals.
So my question is, why are not governments spending any effort on this regards, while spending so much money of immunization. Combine with the fact that there is rampant corruption in every level of government, general poor quality of drugs sold in India, past proven incidents with pharmaceutical companies malpractices like faking results of medicine trials, is it too much if I think twice about giving an immunization drug to my kids?
[1]http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/1189820/revea...
This is something I use to wonder about. Isn't it more important that the food we eat be free of harmful toxins (like pesticides or harmful fertilizers?), but there is no agency that is responsible for checking the quality of vegetables or meat (At least here in India). There was an big issue with pesticides (Endosulfan)[1], in my state some time back. But still no government agency bothers to check for vegetables that are being sold to the public. No one bothers to check meat and fish for harmful levels of antibiotics or harmful chemicals.
So my question is, why are not governments spending any effort on this regards, while spending so much money of immunization. Combine with the fact that there is rampant corruption in every level of government, general poor quality of drugs sold in India, past proven incidents with pharmaceutical companies malpractices like faking results of medicine trials, is it too much if I think twice about giving an immunization drug to my kids?
[1]http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/1189820/revea...
But for some reason you trust a hoax which originated with falsified study?
I am getting really sick of the use of the term "denier." It's become cliched to a point where it become a euphemism intended to heard people into mental boxes and obscure rather than convey meaning.
I don't have all that much sympathy for people who don't follow the normal vaccination schedule for their kids. I think it's somewhat complex though. For example, some vaccines are more for public than private health. I think it's valid to be weirded out by a strong demand that kids go through a medical procedure for the good of humanity, rather than their own health.
On one hand I think the work being done by the Gates Foundation on wiping out Polio is incredible. On the other, how much pressure is reasonable to put on parents to vaccinate their children against an illness that poses less danger to them than meteors.
In any case, "denier" has become a term that almost always diminishes nuance and meaning rather than enhancing it. It ensures an us-and-them format to a topic. It also has a real nasty connotation (in my mind) to heresy. A heretic is a denier. In the wake of last week's attacks in Paris, it sounds even worse to me.
These people may be wrong or misguided. You might disagree with their assumptions, their conclusions or even their values. But, there is no reason or utility in this nastiness. There is less chance of convincing anyone with this language. And to those of us on the opposite side of the debate, it makes us dumber to allow such mental patterns to dominate our thinking.