Vaccination & epidemic

[Aliantha]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

Actually, that doesn't make sense. In most cases the children who got the whooping cough were not deliberately unvaccinated, they were younger than the vaccine schedule would have them immunized. In my friend's case, there's no question that she got the disease from her mother. Except her mother was vaccinated as a child, just like we all were. Her mother got the disease because, as doctors will freely admit, a vaccine doesn't give you lifelong immunity like having the disease does. It wears off. It is the millions of adults walking around who are now susceptible to the disease again because their childhood vaccines have worn off, rather than the handful of unvaccinated children. There's been a big push in this country--for over three years, at least, because I got all the handouts when my first one was born--for new parents to re-immunize themselves against whooping cough, so they won't pass it to their baby. We've set ourselves up to need lifelong "booster shots."

Whether it makes sense or not, that's what is being reported.

A resurgence in the disease has been attributed to less people immunising over the last 10 to 15 years, so it's more prevalent in general, which means it's more likely that an unimmunised child/baby could come into contact with the disease.

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

Whether it makes sense or not, that's what is being reported.

A resurgence in the disease has been attributed to less people immunising over the last 10 to 15 years, so it's more prevalent in general, which means it's more likely that an unimmunised child/baby could come into contact with the disease.

As I understand it, there has to be roughly 95% vaccination rates for them to be effective at a societal level. Currently, the NorthEast of England is running at about 85% takeup (with some areas of the NE even lower): worryingly, this region is currently experiencing its biggest measles outbreak for 20 years.

[jinx]

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about, but you want to tell me what the "truth" is?
Excuse me while I go think for myself, thanks.

Originally Posted by jinx

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about, but you want to tell me what the "truth" is?
Excuse me while I go think for myself, thanks.

[jinx]

Bacterial vaccines:
Anthrax
Brucellosis
Cholera
Diptheria*
Hib*
Meningococcus*
Pertussis*
Plague
Pneumococcal*
Tetanus*
TB (BCG)
Typhoid
Typhus
combo vaccine DTwP/DTaP*

*= on current vaccine schedule in US

Originally Posted by jinx

Bacterial vaccines:
Anthrax
Brucellosis
Cholera
Diptheria*
Hib*
Meningococcus*
Pertussis*
Plague
Pneumococcal*
Tetanus*
TB (BCG)
Typhoid
Typhus
combo vaccine DTwP/DTaP*

*= on current vaccine schedule in US

I don't think that the fact that I was wrong about bacterial vaccines (which I readily acknowledged a few posts back - I don't have a problem admitting it when I've made a mistake) really invalidates the fact that many bacterial illnesses have diminished because they are easily preventable and treatable with antibiotics. If your argument against vaccines hinges on the availability of bacterial vaccines, you don't have an argument at all.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by jinx

Bacterial vaccines:
Anthrax
Brucellosis
Cholera
Diptheria*
Hib*
Meningococcus*
Pertussis*
Plague
Pneumococcal*
Tetanus*
TB (BCG)
Typhoid
Typhus
combo vaccine DTwP/DTaP*

*= on current vaccine schedule in US

I have pretty much had them all except Brucellosis and Cholera. I will let you know if I get any central or peripheral nervous system disorders.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

I have pretty much had them all except Brucellosis and Cholera. I will let you know if I get any central or peripheral nervous system disorders.

Military?

The Y. Pestis vaccine, by the way, is still experimental and not in common use. I looked it up, because I like looking things up. Nonetheless, plague is not a widespread or common infection, because it has been controlled through hygiene and is easily treatable with antibiotics.

My point is, the fact that many diseases have been controlled through means other than vaccination does not invalidate or minimize the importance of controlling other diseases through vaccination. It doesn't even make any logical sense to argue that it does.

[jinx]

If your argument against vaccines hinges on the availability of bacterial vaccines, you don't have an argument at all.

Argument? I just posted the a list of bacterial vaccines to clear up the misinformation you posted about them not existing.

Originally Posted by jinx

Argument? I just posted the a list of bacterial vaccines to clear up the misinformation you posted about them not existing.

Sort of a red herring, don't you think? I had already admitted to being wrong about bacterial vaccines, and it doesn't have much to do with the discussion at hand, which is about whether vaccines prevent disease.

[jinx]

Originally Posted by Tiki

Sort of a red herring, don't you think? I had already admitted to being wrong about bacterial vaccines, and it doesn't have much to do with the discussion at hand, which is about whether vaccines prevent disease.

No, see, it's not a red herring... It started with you suggesting that Jenny McCarthy and all her anti-vaccine minions are causing MMR uptake to decline - which would then cause measles epidemic and OmGZ!!!11! polio too!!!

I posted statistics which show that measles(along with several other communicable diseases) was in decline (98% decrease) for decades prior to the introduction of the applicable vaccines, if any were even introduced at all. I also posted information showing that there were measles epidemic years post vaccine introduction but pre-Wakefield. My intended point being; we might not suddenly return to the 1800's if we take a minute and do some safety studies on the vaccines we use today.

You then declared the information I shared to be completely irrelevant
because of your ignorance of the existence of bacterium based vaccines
and what you thought that implied about the importance of hygiene.
Presented with new (to you) information you didn't even pause to
consider, you jumped right back into arguing. You may have
admitted to being wrong, but only before launching into another tirade about how illogical "my argument" was. Since it's not all about you, I went
ahead and posted complete, accurate information, for others who may be
following along.

For the record, my argument is; first, do no harm. My argument is; informed consent should be based on real, accurate, meaningful and relevant information - and if that information doesn't exist yet, we need to go looking for it.

Originally Posted by jinx

No, see, it's not a red herring... It started with you suggesting that Jenny McCarthy and all her anti-vaccine minions are causing MMR uptake to decline - which would then cause measles epidemic and OmGZ!!!11! polio too!!!

I posted statistics which show that measles(along with several other communicable diseases) was in decline (98% decrease) for decades prior to the introduction of the applicable vaccines, if any were even introduced at all. I also posted information showing that there were measles epidemic years post vaccine introduction but pre-Wakefield. My intended point being; we might not suddenly return to the 1800's if we take a minute and do some safety studies on the vaccines we use today.

You then declared the information I shared to be completely irrelevant
because of your ignorance of the existence of bacterium based vaccines
and what you thought that implied about the importance of hygiene.
Presented with new (to you) information you didn't even pause to
consider, you jumped right back into arguing. You may have
admitted to being wrong, but only before launching into another tirade about how illogical "my argument" was. Since it's not all about you, I went
ahead and posted complete, accurate information, for others who may be
following along.

For the record, my argument is; first, do no harm. My argument is; informed consent should be based on real, accurate, meaningful and relevant information - and if that information doesn't exist yet, we need to go looking for it.

Unless I missed an entire post of yours, I already explained why the statistics you posted weren't relevant, Jinx, and I can't for the life of me figure out why you still think they are. You and LJ have consistently gone with hysteria and namecalling over rational discussion, and I really just can't take you seriously at all.

This, however, is totally relevant:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0v_85tAey9s

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by jinx

My argument is; informed consent should be based on real, accurate, meaningful and relevant information - and if that information doesn't exist yet, we need to go looking for it.

Here in lies the problem with most people when it comes to health care and any issue surrounding it, whether it be factual data about the risks and issues or the politics. The majority of Americans are quite ignorant about the issues, risks, benefits, and or relevant data available. I would estimate that a good 85% of patients get their information from the baby channel, CNN, or their equally ignorant family. Yea it's a big problem.

[lumberjim]

oh....I though the discussion was about who didn't click what link, and who's a lunatic idiot, and who has done all her homework and research so that she can talk down to other people and stuff.

I may have to re read this thread.