Science/Environment Anti-vacc Crazies at it again. Post appropriate outrage ITT

[Clubs are trumps]

It might be news to you that there is a world wide shortage of IC Nurses. Guess why?

Mate i work at the hospital i mentioned in my post above. Im giving an insight into whats happening. I watched my ex struggle to get employment as a nurse after graduating here during the outbreak of the pandemic, simply because she was born in Nepal. If you're going to ask a condescending sarcastic question you can cram it.

 

[DemonTim]

Its not that simple. The level of vaccination is related to the chance of contracting a disease. The more the populace is vaccinated the less chance of a disease spreading. So at over 90% coverage, the 10% have a good chance of being protected. Its better if 100% get immunised. At less than 90% the chance of incidental protection reduces significantly. The effect is called community immunity, or 'herd' immunity.

Again, a solid belief system is no protection.

Not sure this related to what I said?

I was responding to a study saying vaccinatable diseases only accounted for 1% of total infant deaths, and was criticising the comparison to overall deaths. If Anti Vaxxers want to make the claim that vaccines dont do anything, then a study should be done, only using unvaccinated childrens deaths as the base marker.

 

[apparentlydead]

I think if some more people grew up with polio victims with the leg calipers. Or if they knew the victims who survived in an iron lung. Or the many who survived with disability only to suffer through post polio syndrome.

More people on here would realise the difference vaccination has made to our society. You just know things until they are gone.

What about a world without antibiotics? Its happening now. Thats the effect of Vaccines. If the protection from them was gone, we would be in a miserable world let me tell you.

Beliefs & ignorance are not unrelated things it seems.

My wife, (Vietnamese) contracted polio as a child because Lebbo73 , (you dolt, and others), Vietnam didn't have polio vaccinations because of the war! She is only mildly disabled in her legs, but post polio syndrome is a constant worry.

I lived in Vietnam and worked voluntarily with polio victims and it is a tragedy...just bloody heartbreaking to see how a single injection could have stopped a life of suffering.

 

[Long Live HFC]

For me the pro-vacc anti-vacc side taking is too simplistic and at a policy level counter productive. There is no doubt that vaccines have led to huge reductions in the incidences of certain diseases. However, we cannot trust the drugs companies to behave ethically. And much of the research is flawed. We should still be asking a lot of questions to ensure the best health outcomes, respecting parent's wishes for their children, and ensure cost effectiveness for taxpayers.

which vaccine's research is flawed?

 

[Long Live HFC]

Are parents who choose not to vaccinate significantly endangering their kids? I think the hysteria is unwarranted.

The health of infants is affected by periodic epidemics of diseases that are preventable by vaccination (see Explanatory Notes, paragraph 20). However, deaths from vaccine preventable causes make up a relatively small proportion of infant deaths. Between 1982 and 1996 there were a total of 56 deaths from diseases covered in the National Immunisation Strategy: 5 deaths were from measles, 14 from whooping cough, 1 from rubella and 36 from haemophilias influenza type B (HiB). These vaccine preventable deaths accounted for less than 1% of all postneonatal deaths reported during the 15-year period.​

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@...0A9D2467C7CA2AF8CA2568A900139375?OpenDocument

Compare that to 'SIDS' which is the leading cause of death for infants accounting for nearly 50% of all postneonatal deaths.

“death” might be the most serious of outcomes, but it’s hardly the only one that matters.

 

[Lester Burnham]

Wouldn't you need to compare deaths from diseases that can be vaccinated against overall deaths of children not vaccinated? Not compare it to overall deaths. Complete flaw in the study there

Such studies do exist but I quoted the Australian Bureau of Statistics on the rate of vaccine preventable deaths compared to other causes of infant mortality. I was questioning whether parents who choose not to vaccinate significantly endanger their kids. Government policy is to remove welfare payments from parents who choose not to vaccinate and one poster in this thread has proposed the state remove children from such parents. Yet vaccine preventable deaths accounted for less than 1% of all postneonatal deaths. If SIDS accounts for 50% of infant mortality why are we not focusing our outrage on parents who smoke?

 

[Lester Burnham]

which vaccine's research is flawed?

What makes you believe that vaccine research is less flawed than other medical research?

 

[Illinois Nazi]

I actually know of a girl who died of complicating encephalitis resulting from measles at the age of 14 a few years ago.

She'd contracted measles at 18 months old after failing to be vaccinated by her parents (I worked with the mother) as they'd bought into the anti-vacc argument. After ten or so years of lying dormant, the disease moved to her brain and by the time they diagnosed the problem, it was too late.

At least she didn't catch autistic.

 

[DemonTim]

Such studies do exist but I quoted the Australian Bureau of Statistics on the rate of vaccine preventable deaths compared to other causes of infant mortality. I was questioning whether parents who choose not to vaccinate significantly endanger their kids. Government policy is to remove welfare payments from parents who choose not to vaccinate and one poster in this thread has proposed the state remove children from such parents. Yet vaccine preventable deaths accounted for less than 1% of all postneonatal deaths. If SIDS accounts for 50% of infant mortality why are we not focusing our outrage on parents who smoke?

Hasn't there been many changes in smoking laws because of that? Although I didn't know there was a direct link between smoking and sids

Even for your point the data is flawed. If you want to look at if vaccination has a basis for that, you need to only look at unvaccinated deaths.

If there are 10000 deaths a year, that would mean preventable diseases cause 100. If 90 of that 100 are unvaccinated children and there is only 200 unvaccinated deaths, that would put it at 45%. Taking into account all deaths lowers the figure for no reason

 

[Lester Burnham]

Hasn't there been many changes in smoking laws because of that? Although I didn't know there was a direct link between smoking and sids

Even for your point the data is flawed. If you want to look at if vaccination has a basis for that, you need to only look at unvaccinated deaths.

If there are 10000 deaths a year, that would mean preventable diseases cause 100. If 90 of that 100 are unvaccinated children and there is only 200 unvaccinated deaths, that would put it at 45%. Taking into account all deaths lowers the figure for no reason

You don't need to extrapolate. The numbers are in the ABS report. Between 1982 and 1996 there were a total of 56 deaths from diseases covered in the National Immunisation Strategy.

 

[DemonTim]

You don't need to extrapolate. The numbers are in the ABS report. Between 1982 and 1996 there were a total of 56 deaths from diseases covered in the National Immunisation Strategy.

And how many of those were children who weren't vaccinated? What's the incidence of non vaccination?

 

[Lester Burnham]

And how many of those were children who weren't vaccinated? What's the incidence of non vaccination?

I don't know. But even if 100% of those children were not vaccinated we are looking at 4 deaths a year that might have been preventable. Does this justify welfare policy measures for millions of children?

 

[DemonTim]

I don't know. But even if 100% of those children were not vaccinated we are looking at 4 deaths a year that might have been preventable. Does this justify welfare policy measures for millions of children?

Yes? There's welfare policies for parents who refuse to educate their children, I'd say something that causes 4 kids to die a year is a pretty damn good thing to put policies in place to prevent

 

[Lester Burnham]

Yes? There's welfare policies for parents who refuse to educate their children, I'd say something that causes 4 kids to die a year is a pretty damn good thing to put policies in place to prevent

So why do we have policy where something that has a 50 times greater cause of infant mortality has no welfare sanctions?

 

[DemonTim]

So why do we have policy where something that has a 50 times greater cause of infant mortality has no welfare sanctions?

Can you link some studies on SIDS and smoking?
Its stupid logic either way. "Oh but you allow this and that kills kids too. So we can't ban this even if it would prevent deaths"
I feel the girl from the taco ad could input into this convo

 

[apparentlydead]

Lester in full answering a question with multiple questions mode.

 

[Long Live HFC]

What makes you believe that vaccine research is less flawed than other medical research?

well i don't consider "other medical research" to be inherently flawed. studies? drugs? companies? absolutely. but i don't belong to the camp that presumes and assumes that all research is wrong just because i have a chip on my shoulder about big business or whatever (eg little graham). i don't assume that just because i dislike something it means i can extrapolate that dislike across all and sundry.

secondly, the most serious breaches of care re biotechnology tend to be on the cutting edge of vastly-profitable products, not with, say, vaccines that have been around since forever which have been studied and proven by more than just a business' research division. vaccines are a tiny fraction (less than 2%) of US pharmaceutical revenues, so am less concerned about the profit motive than i might be with other products.

finally, you didn't answer my question. you said "much" of vaccine research is flawed. i'd like to know which papers or vaccines you had in mind.

 

[SwampCreature]

Sweep shots cause autism

 

[madmug]

Not sure this related to what I said?

I was responding to a study saying vaccinatable diseases only accounted for 1% of total infant deaths, and was criticising the comparison to overall deaths. If Anti Vaxxers want to make the claim that vaccines dont do anything, then a study should be done, only using unvaccinated childrens deaths as the base marker.

I understand. I was saying that the %age of a vaccinated population affects the infection rate in a roughly exponential fashion. Thus the rate of unvaccinated children dying is masked by the reduced chance of infection occurring due to the 'herd Immunity' factor. The only way to test the infection rate of death rate etc is to end vaccination for a generation. That would be a disaster.

We cant let the idiots win, or we all lose.

 

[DemonTim]

I understand. I was saying that the %age of a vaccinated population affects the infection rate in a roughly exponential fashion. Thus the rate of unvaccinated children dying is masked by the reduced chance of infection occurring due to the 'herd Immunity' factor. The only way to test the infection rate of death rate etc is to end vaccination for a generation. That would be a disaster.

We cant let the idiots win, or we all lose.

Have been speaking to my best mate about it. There was 84 deaths in 2014 as a result of diseases that are vaccinated against

 

[Lebbo73]

I understand. I was saying that the %age of a vaccinated population affects the infection rate in a roughly exponential fashion. Thus the rate of unvaccinated children dying is masked by the reduced chance of infection occurring due to the 'herd Immunity' factor. The only way to test the infection rate of death rate etc is to end vaccination for a generation. That would be a disaster.

We cant let the idiots win, or we all lose.

I thought the world was overpopulated?

 

[Sydney Bloods]

It's a conspiracy between big pharma, the rand corporation and reverse vampires to get rid of dinner!

don't forget big Milk. they're in on it too.

 

[Sydney Bloods]

Whooping cough. It hasn't disappeared. Vaccinated people are still getting it.

the word is DECLINED. do you understand anything about how vaccines work? like at all?

Sometimes i think you do for example, you admit that smallpox, mumps and polio have all DECLINED so much so that their are very few cases of those illnesses in countries which have vaccination programs against them.

but then like an utter muppet, you imply that the Whooping Cough vaccine doesn't work because people still get it.
You do know people still get smallpox, mumps and polio right?
it's just rare and those that do get it are usually immunised so only have mild symptoms, but every now and then a person who's either not immunised or it's been yonks since their vaccination or they have a compromised immune system due to other illnesses will get those viruses...... and they usually die or are rightly ****ed up by it even if they live.

try to stay with me: vaccines increase the likelihood of a person being able to fight off a pathogen before it can take hold in a host.
this means when infected the vaccinated person is less likely to spread the pathogen to other people. As more and more people are immunised the fewer viable hosts the pathogen has, making it harder for the virus to spread. this is called herd immunity. it leads to a DECLINE in the number of cases.

when the number of vaccinated individuals in society drops the greater number of viable hosts increases, thus the virus multiplies and spreads much easier increasing the number of cases.

hence when vaccination rates for whooping Cough DECLINE the number infection rates for Whooping cough increase.

Is any of this getting through or do you start getting light headed when someone explains this to you?

 

[Sydney Bloods]

Such studies do exist but I quoted the Australian Bureau of Statistics on the rate of vaccine preventable deaths compared to other causes of infant mortality. I was questioning whether parents who choose not to vaccinate significantly endanger their kids. Government policy is to remove welfare payments from parents who choose not to vaccinate and one poster in this thread has proposed the state remove children from such parents. Yet vaccine preventable deaths accounted for less than 1% of all postneonatal deaths. If SIDS accounts for 50% of infant mortality why are we not focusing our outrage on parents who smoke?

You're ignoring the reason why those deaths are so low as a percentage. the current levels of vaccination uptake are what is keeping those deaths so low. If the levels of immunisation continue to decline the effectiveness of herd immunity decreases. this will lead to more and more deaths and the potential for pandemics for vaccine preventable diseases.

are you suggesting the government should be reactive rather than proactive when it comes to ensuring that we have a strong and robust health system?

* people's beliefs. for a time in australia a number of people were sniffing petrol, sniffing petrol was never linked to increased crime rates, the number of deaths from sniffing petrol were relatively low accounting for less than 1% deaths. there were some parts of society where sniffing petrol was a past time. And yet despite all of this we still mandated that since we had developed fuel which people couldn't get high from that, that fuel had to be used. Because believe it or not public health has a duty of care. where it can reduce the number of illnesses or deaths the government has not just a right, but a duty to protect citizens.

this means that no matter how much you enjoy sniffing petrol your s**t out of luck. the same applies to people wont vaccinate. Of course the difference between sniffing petrol and refusing to immunise your kids, when sniff petrol the only person you're potentially killing is yourself.

now i'm not in favour of taking kids over it, but really not vaccinating your child should be looked at as crime. If your kid dies of a vaccine preventable illness and its found that you didn't vaccinate your child. You should be charged with manslaughter. that 1% of child deaths were preventable, those parents who did not vaccinate essentially killed people. * their beliefs. it's no different than those scumbags a few years ago, who let their children die of pneumonia because they didn't believe in medicine. or that crazy bitch who gave that guy aids because she didn't believe it was a thing.

People believe all types of crazy s**t. But when it comes down to public health, it's one area where the crazy has to be told to sit in the corner and let people of sound mind make the correct decision.

You make a good point about SIDS and smoking and it should become a focus, but why do we have to have one or the other?
Why can't we say it's not okay to smoke when you have kids, because you increase the likelihood of them dying and treat it the same way you treat any other parent who's a drug addict and at the same time say * all of you anti-vaccers your dangerous *******s?

there's an old saying, my right to swing my fist ends where the other guy's face begins.
people get up in arms about their "right" to smoke, But that right ends when it endangers other people. its why it was banned in pubs because it was putting OTHER PEOPLE at risk.

does it need to extend to parents? it certainly is a conversation worth having and should be part of the national health agenda.

But i fail to see how anti-vaccers are any different. What right does a parent have to endanger the lives of their children and other children? at best its neglect, at worst it's malicious.

 

[swiftdog]

So I've seen articles from Natural News pop up a bit lately and decided to have a look for myself. Reading through the Facebook page was torturous, the amount of people that act as if internet memes are evidence and blindly follow anti-vacc rhetoric is staggering. Regardless, a couple of days ago I came across a Natural News article evaluating a vaccine article from the New England Journal of Medicine, a highly regarded journal. Compare the pair:

Natural News - "97% of children affected by 2009 mumps outbreak were vaccinated for condition"
http://www.naturalnews.com/038554_mumps_outbreaks_vaccinations_children.html

NEJM - Mumps outbreak on Orthodox Jewish communities in the United States
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1202865


Natural News contention is pretty simple, and is mentioned in the title. 97% of children affected by a mumps outbreak were vaccinated, therefore, the vaccine is "essentially useless". They also mention that vaccines increase the risk of disease transmission. This is completely disingenuous. First of all, that 97% number occurs in a subset of children aged between 13 - 17 years of age. This is important, because, as mentioned in the NEJM paper, the Orthodox Jewish male population that was the focus of the outbreak undergoes chavrusa study involving close-up, one-on-one, face-to-face study for up to 15 hours a day. NEJM concluded that having such an intense exposure can facilitate the spread of the disease that might overcome the effectiveness of the vaccine. Natural News tried to dismiss intense exposure as not much different to 'common exposure' ("But what exactly constitutes "intense exposure" anyway, and how is this really any different than common exposure?"). It's pretty obvious that chavrusa study is unlike what the majority of US children participate in on a day-to-day basis. Finally, Natural News failed to mention that rates of complications were lower among individuals that had received two doses of the MMR vaccine.

What's got me puzzled is - was the article posted on Natural News a genuine analysis of the NEJM article, as in, was that the NN authors genuine take on the article or did he cherry-pick the NEJM article to push an agenda? I've only presented a snapshot analysis above so read the articles for yourself. There's an obvious dissonance between the two articles both writing about the same dataset. It makes for pretty frustrating reading actually, and what's worse is people buy into this hook, line and sinker.

 

[Flash of power]

Such studies do exist but I quoted the Australian Bureau of Statistics on the rate of vaccine preventable deaths compared to other causes of infant mortality. I was questioning whether parents who choose not to vaccinate significantly endanger their kids. Government policy is to remove welfare payments from parents who choose not to vaccinate and one poster in this thread has proposed the state remove children from such parents. Yet vaccine preventable deaths accounted for less than 1% of all postneonatal deaths. If SIDS accounts for 50% of infant mortality why are we not focusing our outrage on parents who smoke?

Just focussing on death rates is simplistic and one dimensional, it does not take into account impacts on quality of life as a direct result of the disease, cost to the health system and individuals etc

The majority of people that catch preventable diseases don't actually die from them, that is not to say the negative impact is not significant.