I wasn’t aware that I was resorting to emotional appeals. My examples of the burdens to society were, I thought, well-reasoned possibilities that should be considered. I also thought that I had given examples of how the healthcare system and society can be strained unnecessarily: increased demand for resources, increased costs to insurance companies which translates to higher costs for subscribers, increased usage of inpatient resources for more severe cases.

I do not deny that the majority of measles cases will be mild, but I am also aware of the complications that can crop up. Now, in your personal experience, you may not have seen any of these more severe cases. From the tone of your response, I’m assuming that you did not take a look at the web site I linked to (click on my name in my previous post on Nov. 7, 2:02pm, above) which shows the relative risks of vaccines vs. the diseases they prevent.

I will also offer up this bit of info regarding the history of measles:

The benefit of vaccination against measles in preventing illness, disability, and death has been well-documented. The first 20 years of licensed measles vaccination in the U.S. prevented an estimated 52 million cases of the disease, 17,400 cases of mental retardation, and 5,200 deaths.[2] During 1999–2004, a strategy led by the World Health Organization and UNICEF led to improvements in measles vaccination coverage that averted an estimated 1.4 million measles deaths worldwide.[3]

Measles is endemic worldwide. Although it was declared eliminated from the U.S. in 2000, high rates of vaccination and good communication with persons who refuse vaccination is needed to prevent outbreaks and sustain the elimination of measles in the U.S.[4] Of the 66 cases of measles reported in the U.S. in 2005, slightly over half were attributable to one unvaccinated individual who acquired measles during a visit to Romania.[5] This individual returned to a community with many unvaccinated children. The resulting outbreak infected 34 people, mostly children and virtually all unvaccinated; 9% were hospitalized, and the cost of containing the outbreak was estimated at $167,685. A major epidemic was averted due to high rates of vaccination in the surrounding communities.[4]

You can find the full text by clicking on my name for this post. I hope that this illustrates the impact that not vaccinating can have, and this is on a disease that, while not benign, is among the “lesser” diseases that can be prevented by vaccines. There are other diseases that have much more serious consequences (e.g., polio [basically eradicated in the U.S. thanks to vaccines] or tetanus).

I have offered a number of reasons why vaccinations are beneficial, not only to individuals, but also to society at large, and how having a vaccination program is better than having no program. You said that you think we are overdoing vaccinations a bit, yet you haven’t offered any real arguments explaining your position other than implying that measles is a mild disease. How, exactly, are we overdoing it? What are your recommendations for how it should be changed? How did you reach your conclusions?

You seem to have not paid attention to the “and higher quality of care” part of my comment

Your right I didn’t specifically mention it except in passing. You in turn apparently missed the pre-vaccine part of what I said.

The reason for “measles is expected inconvenience” vs. “measles is flirting with death” was due to the higher quality of care in 1963. It may surprise you but there has been little improvement since then.

You mention that it can be difficult to tell who is at risk for vaccine complications, yet the examples I gave (people with AIDS, transplant recipients, infants, etc.) had nothing to do with them receiving a vaccination, but rather being exposed to the disease

Yes. I know that. Look carefully at what I said regarding that.

Without vaccinations, herd immunity goes down precipitously

Ahh! The mantra is the message? If it does indeed drop precipitously why wouldn’t it just go back to the pre-vaccine levels?

who cares if a few sick people have a worse time of things, right? If they die, not a very big impact on society. However, if they survive but suffer permanent injury, now they put a strain on health care

Hmmm… Now you resort to emotional appeal. Stop that! You seem to forget I’m from the pre-vaccine era myself. You are trying to scare me with what I KNOW is a false image. In my three cases of measles and those of my sisters (who managed to catch mumps and rubella as well) I went to the doctor mostly once for a requisite pain-in-the-butt penicillin shot and spent the rest of the time at home. From what I gathered from my schoolmates this was par for the course. What is your definition of “health system strain?”

strong vaccination programs have big benefits for many areas of society. I’d hardly say that we are “overdoing” it, at least from a public health perspective.

The low impact of these diseases on most of the population in the pre-1963 days was due to the level of health care available and to some level of natural immunity that reduced the impact to largely an annoying inconvenience. I’ll grant you one thing: if that has changed then it was BECAUSE of the vaccine and as such would indicate the folly of general vaccination just to eliminate a nasty three-four days of misery and the attention required by harried parents to attend to the inflicted — the latter likely the true impetus for administering the vaccine in the 70’s and 80’s.

I do in fact think she is cool, because she has been promoting vaccines in interviews for some time. Give me some credit.

FWIW: According to Salon: “Peet is now a spokeswoman for Every Child by Two, a nonprofit dedicated to promoting vaccines founded by former First Lady Rosalynn Carter” What isn’t mentioned is whether this is Peet’s own belief or that of her employer.

Let’s give her the benefit of the doubt. It’s one thing to counter misinformation and quite another to advocate what may be excessive action. The latter is “uncool” in my book. Doing so while downplaying all negative complications is doubly “uncool”. YMMV of course.

No it isn’t due to the vaccine. Prior to 1963, almost everyone got measles; it was an expected life event. Each year in the United States, there were approximately three to four million cases and less than 450 deaths. More than half the population had measles by the time they were six years old, and 90 percent had the disease by the time they were 15 years old. To put things in perspective, the “common” cold and influenza account for some 20,000 annual deaths. The pre-1963 cases are ALL pre-measles vaccine.

You seem to have not paid attention to the “and higher quality of care” part of my comment. The two combined have had an impact on disease in this country.

I also never said that vaccines were 100% risk free. They do carry risks, and there are some conditions that are detectable that preclude vaccination. For the average person, however, the risk of injury or death from a vaccine is significantly lower than that from the disease itself. Click on my name for info from the CDC. Scroll down for a comparison of disease risks vs. vaccine risks.

You mention that it can be difficult to tell who is at risk for vaccine complications, yet the examples I gave (people with AIDS, transplant recipients, infants, etc.) had nothing to do with them receiving a vaccination, but rather being exposed to the disease. Without vaccinations, herd immunity goes down precipitously (see the U.K.’s outbreak after MMR vaccinations dropped as just one example) and the types of people I mention are at serious risk of serious, permanent injury or death. While a healthy individual may get off with only missing a few days of school, they are a carrier and, when in the public while they are contagious, could spread the disease to someone who is, for instance, taking immunosuppressants due to a transplant. That victim is going to have a very, very bad time of it and is not likely to fare nearly so well as that healthy person. Similarly, infants who have not yet received the vaccination are at high risk of bad things happening to them when someone who has the disease visits, say, the pediatrician’s office.

All right, who cares if a few sick people have a worse time of things, right? If they die, not a very big impact on society. However, if they survive but suffer permanent injury, now they put a strain on health care. They suck up more resources (Dr.’s time, clinic space, bed space if inpatient). Their increased costs of health care also bump up insurance costs, as the insurance companies need to spread their liability around to all of their subscribers. These people are also likely to have more sick days out from work, putting strain on their employers, or may not be able to work at all, putting strain on the welfare system.

So, vaccination programs have risks. No one denies that. But, the risks to the individual far outweigh the benefits to that same individual and are significantly less than the risks from the disease itself. Additionally, strong vaccination programs have big benefits for many areas of society. I’d hardly say that we are “overdoing” it, at least from a public health perspective.

That’s due to the combination of the U.S.’s vaccination program and higher quality of care.

No it isn’t due to the vaccine. Prior to 1963, almost everyone got measles; it was an expected life event. Each year in the United States, there were approximately three to four million cases and less than 450 deaths. More than half the population had measles by the time they were six years old, and 90 percent had the disease by the time they were 15 years old. To put things in perspective, the “common” cold and influenza account for some 20,000 annual deaths. The pre-1963 cases are ALL pre-measles vaccine.

… the results are quite different for those who are exposed to it and have compromised immune systems … There are a number of other, very serious, complications stemming from these diseases.

Getting the vaccine isn’t necessarily contributing to safety like donning a bicycle helmet would be. There can be serious complications stemming from the vaccination itself. Knowing ahead of time if the receiver is susceptible to vaccination complications is extremely difficult. When do the risks of vaccination outweigh the risks arising from contraction?

Sure, some people are more susceptible and that changes the balance for them but does that justify advocating knee jerk general vaccination? I think not.

All the same, I don’t think the people claiming MMR is tantamount to inducing autism have a leg to stand on. But many who DO believe it are simply running with what they’ve heard. Many here running in the opposite direction have almost identical reasons. Just because they are correct doesn’t make them right. Those who would giggle and snark at another’s misconceptions should should seriously assay their own positions. To those who would further claim “That’s not ME!” I ask: what makes you so sure?

—

Bronze Dog Says:

Likelihood of death by measles in America, last time I checked: 1 in 2000 or so. … with that small number, an epidemic caused by a breakdown in herd immunity would be quite deadly

When I was a kid many decades ago (and got measles thrice) it was still next to unheard of for anyone to incur blindness or deafness from the disease let alone die from it. How long has the MMR vaccine been around? The 1:2000 number IS the herd immunity for all practical purposes WITHOUT the vaccination.

BTW: that number seems extraordinarily high. According to the WHO, “In 2006, it was estimated that there were 242,000 measles deaths globally” — which is generously closer to 1:12000 assuming only HALF the world is at risk — and “The overwhelming majority (more than 95%) of measles deaths occur in countries with per capita Gross National Income of less than US$ 1000 and weak health infrastructure.” So, the incidence of death in the U.S. must be much much lower than the 1:2000 — WITHOUT the vaccine it seems.

If only I had used Courier New!