The Americas Are Now Officially 'Measles-Free' (theverge.com) 249
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: The Americas are now free of measles and we have vaccines to thank, the Pan American Health Organization said earlier this week. This is the first region in the world to be declared measles-free, despite longtime efforts to eliminate the disease entirely. The condition -- which causes flu-like symptoms and a blotchy rash -- is one of the world's most infectious diseases. It's transmitted by airborne particles or direct contact with someone who has the disease and is highly contagious, especially among small children. To be clear, there are still people with measles in the Americas, but the only cases develop from strains picked up overseas. Still, the numbers are going down: in the U.S. this year, there have been 54 cases, down from 667 two years ago. The last case of measles that developed in the Americas was in 2002. (It took such a long time to declare the region measles-free because of various bureaucratic issues.) Health officials say that credit for this victory goes to efforts to vaccinate against the disease. Though the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine is recommended for all children and required by many states, anti-vaxxers have protested it due to since-discredited claims that vaccines can cause autism. NPR interviewed Dr. Seth Berkley, the CEO of GAVI, a Geneva-based nonprofit organization whose mission is to improve and provide vaccine and immunization coverage to children in the world's poorest countries. She says that 90 to 95 percent of people in a given region need to be vaccinated in order to stop transmission in a region. The rate worldwide is about 80 percent for measles, which means that 20 percent of people around the world are not covered.
Weird definition (Score:5, Insightful)
So 54 people in the United States had the measles last year, but we're measles free because those people picked it up elsewhere?
I'm pretty sure some PR person must've come up with this definition...
Re: (Score:2)
So 54 people in the United States had the measles last year, but we're measles free because those people picked it up elsewhere?
It's worse than that. Measles is still being transmitted in the US. It is just not "endemic". [sciencealert.com] The source of the outbreak is someone who contracted the virus outside the country who then goes on to spread it to those who stayed home.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if you've ever been an expert at something, you no doubt use certain words in ways that confuse non-experts, because you have need of more precision than they do.
I have no idea what the technical epidemiological standard is for being something- "free", but it can't be the utter absence of that something (which is the non-specialist's definition) because you can't prove a negative. So there must be some criteria short of absence.
Re:Weird definition (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Weird definition (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not so sure. Measles free would suggest that there is no point in getting the vaccine at all, but with active cases still showing up and threatening to spread among the unvaccinated population (such as the case a few years ago at Disneyland), that seems a little premature.
It could be argued that you've reached that point once the risk of vaccination exceeds the risk of the disease when you stay within the zone declared 'free'. We're not there yet either. It still makes sense to get the vaccine.
I can see how they define it, but given the crazy anti-vaxxers, I don't think declaring the region 'free' of measles is such a great idea.
Re:Weird definition (Score:5, Insightful)
I can see how they define it, but given the crazy anti-vaxxers, I don't think declaring the region 'free' of measles is such a great idea.
I can only see this announcement further emboldening idiots who don't want to vaccinate. I do not see the US remaining measles-free for long. It a shame, because it's another example of stupid winning.
Never was a reasonable conversation (Score:5, Insightful)
Calling people you disagree with "crazy" shuts down any reasonable conversation.
You are presuming the conversation was reasonable to begin with. The anti-vax crowd is not spouting off reasonable viewpoints based on considered evidence. There is nothing reasonable about their viewpoint or what they are saying. They are loudly proclaiming harmful falsehood and putting people in harms way by doing so.. No matter how polite on is, ANY discussion with them is basically an instance of pointing out that they are crazy and dangerous. These are fearful people who are either unwilling or unable to listen to reason and evidence. It never was a reasonable conversation in any meaningful sense.
Re: (Score:2)
You are presuming the conversation was reasonable to begin with. The anti-vax crowd is not spouting off reasonable viewpoints based on considered evidence.
Sometimes people that are anti-vaccination do, but they are then summarily dismissed as "crazy anti-vaxxers", all lumped together and ridiculed for viewpoints that only some of them have.
There are rational viewpoints against vaccination, like that they should be avoided because they are largely effective and safe.
Those who die from the diseases that most vaccinations prevent are generally those with other health problems or immune system deficiencies. When children survive to reproductive age because of va
Re: (Score:3)
I'm interested in reasonable arguments from viewpoints that differ from mine. It helps me learn.
However, you're going to have to provide reasonable arguments if you want to change my mind.
We don't need to cull people out for preventable reasons. It really doesn't matter if someone has a medical issue that can be routinely and effectively dealt with. You seem to just assume that childhood diseases will kill off the genetically weak, without any evidence that this will be a significant effect. That's
Re:Never was a reasonable conversation (Score:5, Insightful)
I simply have the right to decide what I put into my body, regardless of what you think about it.
If you had the magical ability to not spread viruses, I would accept your statement, but you do not. When you have measles, it is exactly the same as walking around town with a handful of hypodermic needles, injecting random passers-by with viruses. You violate everyone else's "right to decide what they put in their bodies."
You live in a society, made of other people. Therefore, you have some responsibility towards the others who you interact with to provide you with food, gasoline, clothing, education, fire protection, etc., etc., etc.
The good news is that vaccines don't need to hit 100% of the population to be effective enough to prevent an outbreak. "Herd immunity" prevents the wide spread of a disease when most of your neighbors are immune. A level somewhere between 80-95% vaccinated is enough to stop an outbreak. But that's a very high level to achieve voluntarily. Vaccines are ineffective in some people. Some people with auto-immune diseases, or undergoing certain therapies, or are just too frail, can't risk taking some vaccines. And some people are so isolated by either geography, finances, or intelligence that they lack the opportunities to learn that they need vaccinations. Between those groups, there is almost no extra safety margin for tolerating people who think they deserve some special exemption because they "believe in" something divine, or think they have some special rights that they themselves violate on a daily basis.
We don't have a special "isolation island" to keep unvaccinated people from putting the rest of us at risk. Instead, we pass laws that enforce schoolchildren to put something in their bodies, or else we deny them schooling. But that's all the control we have, so far. Instead, we have to rely on public health education, and hope people voluntarily comply.
What we really could use would be swift punishment for the anti-vax deniers. Unfortunately, that crosses swords with free speech. So instead, we have to hope we can convince people that anti-vaxxers are stupid, hostile, anti-social jihadist monsters who are trying to destroy humanity with their lies and bioterroristic weapons. It turns out that a disturbingly high number of people are so extremely gullible or stupid that it's not as effective a strategy as we need.
Re: (Score:2)
f you had the magical ability to not spread viruses, I would accept your statement, but you do not. When you have measles, it is exactly the same as walking around town with a handful of hypodermic needles, injecting random passers-by with viruses. You violate everyone else's "right to decide what they put in their bodies."
That only is a problem for those who are not vaccinated. If you're vaccinated, you won't catch measles from random passers-by who aren't vaccinated.
That some choose not to be vaccinated is not a general health problem. It is a problem for those few who cannot get vaccinated but would have if they could. If the risk to them is greater by being vaccinated than not vaccinated, they will have a problem if they encounter someone infectious.
Re: (Score:2)
it is a general health problem because:
a) vaccinations are not 100% proof against catching a disease, and
b) there are those who cannot be vaccinated and thus are dependent on other people, as many as possible, being vaccinated in order to dramatically reduce their personal chance of being infected.
Re: (Score:2)
That is mostly true.
However, vaccines are not 100% effective. If everyone in my neighborhood gets the vaccine, we're basically safe. Anyone who by chance does get it will tend to have a mild form and so others will have little exposure and will most likely be protected by their vaccine.
OTOH, if I alone got my shots, the whole neighborhood will probably end up with more severe cases of the disease and I'll be under constant exposure. If my vaccine is anything less than 100%, I'll get it.
That in a nutshell i
Re: (Score:2)
Scenario 1: Mandatory vaccination reduces everybody's chance of getting measles. The health risk of being vaccinated, however low, is greater than the risk of the measles, assuming everything works. We no longer vaccinate against smallpox. Everybody takes a slight risk for the greater good. Because this is mandatory, it's incumbent on government to provide the vaccines and take care of anyone with complications from the vaccinations, which works pretty well.
Scenario 2: Voluntary vaccination. As lo
Re: (Score:2)
My 2-month-old grand-daughter is not yet vaccinated. She will be - her parents believe in it. But she's not yet because we can't/don't vaccinate babies in the womb or immediately upon birth. For various good reasons.
Not entirely true. For some diseases, an infant is protected by her mother's resistance for some time after birth. In some cases, if the mother had the disease, immunity can last for several years. TB, for example - I was still reacting strongly to the vaccine at age 12, because my mother had encapsulated TB when I was born.
Re: (Score:2)
How far does that argument extend? Should everyone be required to get all available vaccines, no matter how ineffective and how many risky side effects they have?
The HPV and Varicella (Chickenpox) vaccines now mandated for school children certainly bother me on that front. The first is only a sexually transmitted disease which shouldn't be possible to spread o
Re: (Score:2)
HPV vaccines have to be given before exposure to do any good. You might want to look up stats on when first sexual activity occurs for whatever percentage of the population. It can be frightening.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, you don't have the right to deny your child the chance to be healthy and not suffer preventable diseases for any reason. We are a modern society. This is simple, just take the choice away. A child that medically able to be vaccinated will be, free of charge. Any attempt to interfere with that process is child neglect and will be handled as such.
Also, I want vaccine availability to be a specific line item in foreign aid for countries. I want a consistent vaccine development program at the CDC with prop
Re: (Score:2)
So....you're (Score:2)
Obviously not pro-choice. Cause I thought the whole argument was that one had a right to their own body. Guess I was wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Public health is something you need to get familiar with. This debate was settled, at least in the US, back in the early 1900s. You do NOT have an unfettered right to decide what goes into your body and what you do with it. You CAN be compelled to take medications and be vaccinated. Have you ever heard of quarantine, or Typhoid Mary?
Oh look, another moron who took one bit of history and ran off into left field...
Quarantine is for active cases, buy a clue as to the difference between that and someone who hasn't received a vaccine.
God, people are so fucking stupid, no wonder we have Trump and Clinton as our President choices, bunch of idiots...
Re: (Score:3)
He's not calling them crazy because he disagrees with them, but because they are demonstrably crazy and he disagrees with them. It's all too easy to ignore criticism if you think criticism itself has no place in a discussion.
Re: (Score:2)
I take it you're part of McCarthy's army then? Simply disagreeing with me isn't worthy of the crazy label. Disagreeing with well settled science based on the word of a discredited fraud in the face of overwhelming evidence gets that label.
I don't seem to remember sneaking up behind you and giving you (or anyone else) a vaccination. When was it you say that happened?
And there was much rejoicing! (Score:2)
Re:And there was much rejoicing! (Score:5, Informative)
Thank God now all we have to worry about is Zika, Cickengunya and Dengue Fever! With an occasional bout of Ebola thrown in for good measure!
For most people, Zika and Dengue are so mild that many don't even realize they are sick. Ebola can be stopped dead in its track with soap. Measles is a far more serious disease than any of these.
Re: (Score:2)
Ebola is nastier thatn that. People profoundly ill with it _bleed_, and get it on the medical personnel and even the caregivers who who try to wash the housing and bedding of the sufferers. The time and resources to apply and keep applying the soap, antiseptics, and sterilization of instruments can consume any hospital's budget and supplies in a very short local outbreak.
Re: (Score:2)
Ebola is nastier thatn that. People profoundly ill with it _bleed_
It doesn't matter if a disease is "nasty" if your chance of getting it is at or near zero. Ebola gained a temporary foothold in Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone. These are three of the most backward, illiterate, and poorly governed countries on earth. It never got a foothold in countries like Ghana or Nigeria, where people have access to soap and can read.
The time and resources to apply and keep applying the soap, antiseptics, and sterilization of instruments can consume any hospital's budget and supplies in a very short local outbreak.
Hospitals, doctors, and medical treatment all had a negligible effect on the ebola epidemic. It was stopped by public health measures such as distribu
Re: (Score:2)
Ebola can be stopped dead in its track with soap.
Do you have a citation?
In epidemiology, the most important number is the Basic Reproduction Number [wikipedia.org], or "R0", which is the average number of future cases directly caused by each current case. If R0>1 the infection will spread, and if R0<1 it till die out. Ebola has a R0 far less than 1.0 in any environment where soap is generally available. In 2015, a few case happened in soap using countries, but they soon fizzled out. Ebola also died out in areas where people were given soap, and told how to use it. In Guinea, where
Measles isn't a trivial disease, if you get it. (Score:2)
For every thousand people that catch it, the more serious symptoms during the course of the infection are:
60 people with pneumonia, probably requiring hospital treatment.
6 people having seizures.
2 dying.
(rarer complications include SSPE - where your brain shuts down for no well understood reason and you die 1-7 years later, at a rate of about 20 per 100000 cases).
Measles during pregnancy leads to a higher risk of spontaneous abortion.
In the last large outbreak in the USA, 11000 were hospitalised, and 123 di
Re: guess again (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah, if only they bothered to do routine medical checks and give people vaccines.
Oh wait. [whitehouse.gov]
You want to do something? Bitch about the sex trade or something useful, not your usual shit.
Re: guess again (Score:5, Funny)
"The Americas" includes Mexico.
Re: (Score:2)
no youre racist for not acknowledging that net immigration has been 0 across the mexican border for 3 years running now, and for not acknowledging that the majority of undocumented immigrants enter the country via its airports and then overstaying their visa.
Re:guess again (Score:5, Informative)
And don't forget: Three of the four presidential candidates are anti-vaxxers.
https://twitter.com/realdonald... [twitter.com]
https://twitter.com/govgaryjoh... [twitter.com]
http://www.salon.com/2016/08/0... [salon.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
And even that is not quite right. She is on record as supporting vaccines. She is simply questioning the FDA in general (honestly, it's track record in recent years gives her very good reason for that). Mostly from the standpoint that it's crappy track record for objectivity in recent years is being used as an excuse by the anti-vaxers.
Re: (Score:2)
She came out and said she supports vaccination. She just believes (correctly, IMHO) that the FDA has fallen into disrepute and so is contributing to the anti-vaxer problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, characterizing Stein as anti-vax or pandering to the anti-vaxers is over the top. There is a HUGE difference between questioning the FDA's effectiveness and being anti-vax, particularly when it comes to the old and well proven vaccines. She is on record as supporting vaccination.
Since the Salon article only pointed to Snopes' home page rather than providing a useful link, I'll supply it here [snopes.com].
Johnson predictably says no to any government mandatory anything. That's not a proper anti-vax stance since
Re: (Score:3)
Diseases can never be eliminated with non-mandatory vaccines -- you can't reach 95% that way, it's hard enough to with mandatory vaccines. And of course without that group immunity the people who really can't use the vaccine due to an allergy are left unprotected. If you're against mandatory vaccines, you're bad for other people.
Hmm... (Score:2)
Who can't use the vaccines due to allergies. The whole argument you folks make is that vaccines are safe and there are no problems.
Re: (Score:2)
No. The argument is that vaccines are generally very safe, not completely safe, but the risks of too few people being vaccinated are much greater. You're projecting your own lack of rational thinking.
Rights vs consequences (Score:5, Insightful)
Your right to be protected against disease does not override my right to decide what to put into my body.
Yes you have that right. HOWEVER that does not mean the rest of us have to accommodate you and the threat you present in society consequence free since you have chosen of your own free will (and delusions) to be a potential disease vector. Your unvaccinated children should not be allowed to attend school. You should not be allowed to have a job where you interact with people. Go ahead and stay unvaccinated and I'll defend your right to do so. But I also will insist that you remain in quarantine until it is safe to be around you.
You do realize... (Score:2)
That if vaccines are effective, and your child is immunized, than there really is no issue.
You also realize the effect of many vaccines fades. When is the last time you had an MMR? In fact, a great many adults can be carriers. The vaccine may give them enough protection but they carry the vaccine. So you're concern of a 1% versus a large percentage of society being potential carriers is rather silly.
I realize that you are wrong. (Score:2)
There IS still an issue if your child is immunized AND vaccines are effective.
1) Vaccines are rarely 100% effective. So something like 5% of people vaccinated can still get sick. Furthermore, in the case of measles, which is highly contagious, >~5% vulnerability in the population to measles is enough to support an epidemic. ~5% vulnerability means that measles doesn't get the chance to spread and is incapable of becoming epidemic.
2) It's an issue for ME anyway, if people who are immunocompromised an
Re:Rights vs consequences (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah, no.
You have the right to remain unvaccinated but we have the right to exclude you from our spaces in order to protect ourselves from your stupid decision. It's actually a form of self defence.
Re: (Score:2)
Libertarians: people who want all of society's benefits when it suits them, and none of its requirements when it doesnt.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's like guns. I respect Second Amendment rights, but that doesn't mean I like someone shooting wildly in a crowded area. My right to not be shot trumps the rights of others to shoot. Same thing here. You choose, seemingly out of sheer spite, to be a disease vector, fair enough, just never do it around the rest of society. If your right to not put something that, in the vast majority of cases, is negligable into your body overrides my right to not get sick and possibly die, fine then, my right to not
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
again: libertarian stupidity at its finest
Re: (Score:3)
The vaccines aren't mandatory per se, they are mandatory if you want your kids to mix with all of the other kids who don't have parents who aren't complete fuckwads.
Go ahead and homeschool your frail little sunflowers, but don't expect that the rest of us want them to join the herd hoping that OUR vaccinations were enough to protect them.
Right... (Score:2)
Except in many states, home schooling is not easily allowed. And in many states there are mandated school attendance or parents are charged and arrested.
Re: (Score:2)
"When the unvaccinated population rises too high, outbreaks become possible again"
Not really, outbreaks only are potential for those who are unvaccinated. If 5% are unvaccinated, and 95% are vaccinated. Even if an outbreak happens in the 5%, most all of the 95% who were vaccinated should be safe. Yes, there may be a few exceptions. But very few.
Want to know the real cause of the outbreaks. The ones the media blamed on unvaccinated, most eventually determined those who were infected were ALL vaccinated. Th
Re: (Score:2)
Vaccinations are not perfectly effective, and some people can't be vaccinated. Losing herd immunity hits those people very hard.
Which outbreaks are you talking about, that were among vaccinated people? The ones I've seen involved a significant number of people who weren't vaccinated.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for injecting (ha ha) some insight. Governments, however benign and well-intentioned, can't be trusted to look after *our* interests. They can only be trusted to look after *their* interests.
Re: (Score:2)
Vote your own goddam interests, and get your friends and associates to do the same. What ultimately decides an election is voting, not money. If you're too stupid or gullible to make up your mind while ignoring the content-free advertising, you deserve a government that doesn't care about you.
Re:There's a bigger issue here (Score:5, Informative)
Your right of self-determination ends where it becomes a liability to the rest of society. If you are a selfish enough asshole that you don't give a shit about the rest of society, get the fuck out of it!
Re: (Score:2)
If you are a selfish enough asshole that you don't give a shit about the rest of society, get the fuck out of it!
I am sure many people would love to "get the fuck out of it"; however, there is nowhere to go that is not claimed by one society or another. Your solution for dealing with an individual's unhappiness with society is therefore unworkable.
Even worse is that when we follow your line of reasoning that the importance of society outweighs individual freedoms, we end up in a very nasty place where whole sections of society can be "eliminated" for the good of the whole. Defining which sections and what is good can
Re: (Score:2)
The whole point is not eliminating "whole sections of society". That's exactly what this is about. If we refuse to vaccinate, we endanger those that cannot be vaccinated. Because the same group also cannot participate in a potential cure, for exactly the same reasons.
If these people could only endanger themselves, I'd say more power to them. Don't get vaccinated, but at least then have the decency to die peacefully when you get infected. If that was the whole story, I would not mind it. Not one bit. I'm all
Re: (Score:2)
This is called the slippery slope fallacy.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you stupid or high?
Re: (Score:2)
Have you stopped beating your wife?
Re: (Score:2)
and that is bad for both OP *and* the rest of society
The rest of the world with functioning governments disagree.
Re: (Score:2)
> It's right and proper that people be given the freedom to act in manners injurious to society.
Then it is right and proper that all people can freely inhibit other people's freedoms, including members of a society banding together for protection from from people who injure or endanger other members of that society. Anarchy s a philosophically attractive ideal. But it breaks down _very quickly_ when people willing to interfere even more grossly with the freedom of others are free to apply that interferen
Re: (Score:2)
No problem there. Get the fuck out of society if you aren't willing to do your share.
Your forced labor example falls flat considering that the main reason people are unemployed is that there simply is no work to be done.
Re: (Score:2)
Your forced labor example falls flat considering that the main reason people are unemployed is that there simply is no work to be done.
This is, bar none, the dumbest thing I've ever seen from you.
There is no end of work to be done. The main reason people are unemployed is that the rich are not the job creators. Demand creates jobs. The rich can only profit from that demand by paying someone to do them. They can also create their own demand for jobs, like Elon Musk — he personally demands a route to Mars, so he's creating jobs to serve that demand.
We have crumbling infrastructure across our country. We have fruit going unpicked becaus
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, lemme rephrase that: There's a shortage of work that would be paying a wage.
And yes, you're absolutely right. Demand creates jobs. I've been saying this for ages, and every single time without fail I get shouted down that jobs are created by employers. But to employers, the job he creates is the necessary evil he would gladly go without if he could. Because "creating" a job means expense for him, not revenue.
I create a job if I want to buy apples. I create that job for the guy picking them. I create a j
Re: (Score:2)
You might also remember that people got lynched in the wild west for no crime other than being the "wrong" person at the wrong place at the wrong time. What about their freedom?
Freedom is something earned by responsibility. That part is one that people easily forget.
Re: (Score:2)
I am not talking with selfish assholes who cannot accept their responsibility to society.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you honestly comparing vaccination with enforced sterilization? What the fuck?
Civil rights vs cultural consequences (Score:2)
As I said, I believe in and support vaccination. However, I cannot in good conscience support forcing people who don't believe in it to be vaccinated.
I would support their choice to not be vaccinated as long under the condition that if they decide not to be vaccinated after receiving education about the consequences of not vacinnating that they remain in some form of quarantine. Is this stance coercive? Yes it is. But when you present a clear and present danger to those around you by your irrational unwillingness to submit to a treatment that is demonstrably safe because of your ignorance I don't see any credible alternative. I would have no problem
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to think, without any justification that I can tell, that allowing governments to mandate vaccinations, or restrict the non-vaccinated, is tantamount to allowing governments to haul dissenters off the streets. Do you realize that there's a large gap there? That it's easy to keep as a gap?
Treatment of the mentally ill is the real problem here, since involuntary commitment is awful close to locking up dissenters. Mandatory vaccination is not a blip on the radar compared to this.
Re: (Score:2)
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/o... [go.com]
The US will deal with such news by making the decades of very good public health and epidemiology political.
Infections and contagious conditions entering into the USA will just be a very hard to treat "rash".
Computer entry and collection of any such data will never make it out to the regional or national media.
Enforcement changes can also be seen in the lack of reporting on infectious like syphil
Re: (Score:2)
Leprosy isn't nearly the problem it was in Biblical times. It is hard to catch and easy to cure. Some even question if what we now call leprosy is even the same disease.
Re: (Score:2)
Most Armadillos are carriers of the leprosy virus. And yes, they can spread it to humans. Could wipe out all leprosy from humans and it still find it's way back to us.
Re: (Score:2)
> was in the text obviously a physical manifestation of a persons spiritual status;
I'm afraid to say that I'm stunned by the foolishness of this answer. The earliest proof of leprosy is over 4000 years old (http://www.livescience.com/5456-earliest-case-leprosy-unearthed.html). It's certainly existed for millennia.
We hear the like of this "it's a spiritual problem, not a physical one" today in claiming that AIDS is God's punishment of homosexuality, and that the millions of cases suffered by infants and
Re: (Score:2)
I'm afraid to say that I'm stunned by the foolishness of this answer.
You shouldn't be. It's an answer that has been filtered through faith. It has to be read in that context.
Looking for truth in an answer filtered through faith is like looking for sugar in water having been filtered through a foot of sand.
Re: (Score:2)
a) not hundreds of thousands
b) they are screened
c) they are vaccinated if not already
Re: (Score:2)
Because they're loud, obnoxious, smelly and expensive.
Next question?
Re: (Score:2)
Stop talking about me!
Re: (Score:3)
I've some background here, and I'd be...generally skeptical since about the only thing I can think of is that maybe we're talking about autoimmune diseases and honestly that seems more a reason to avoid vaccines for diseases that aren't that much of a problem. The immune system can be pretty accurately thought of as being a bored two-year-old, though we've only particularly lately realized that a germ-free environment would actually be pretty horrible.
However, honestly I'd expect just being relaxed about a
Re: (Score:2)
He may be talking about Varicella. IIRC, the immunity from the vaccine doesn't last as long as the immunity conferred by actually having the disease. Wouldn't that potentially protect from the disease in the very young where it is rarely a problem and then leave you vulnerable just when it starts to become more risky (potentially a net harm)? Meanwhile, (also IIRC), occasional exposure as a naturally immune adult is thought to act as a sort of booster to prevent shingles later in life.
The case is pretty str
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. It wasn't worth the hype, but they did flog the hell out of those shots.
Re: (Score:2)
He may be talking about Varicella. IIRC, the immunity from the vaccine doesn't last as long as the immunity conferred by actually having the disease. Wouldn't that potentially protect from the disease in the very young where it is rarely a problem and then leave you vulnerable just when it starts to become more risky (potentially a net harm)? Meanwhile, (also IIRC), occasional exposure as a naturally immune adult is thought to act as a sort of booster to prevent shingles later in life.
Your memory is weird: A quick check confirms that the Varicella vaccine is a live, weak virus one--and the sole reason I needed to check is because practically all the vaccines of that age are either that or dead virus...and a few take a mixed-approach by using one for the vaccine and another for the booster. (When I say some background, I mean "I have less than somebody who went for immunology as their specialty."
The shot for shingles--herpes zoraster--is pretty much nothing but a variant on the Varicella
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, looking it up my memory is correct. Immunity from actually having chickenpox is acknowledged to last much longer than from the vaccine, and will be lifelong in most cases, particularly if you are occasionally re-exposed to chickenpox (for example, by being around a child that has it). The duration for the vaccine is thought to be about 20 years.
A quick check confirms that the Varicella vaccine is a live, weak virus one
I'm pretty sure I could get the study proposal through the ethics board, there's nothing unethical here and it's an important enough question. I just doubt anybody will consent to being deliberately given a virus that inserts itself into their genome, just to see if their immune system still will recognize the virus and produce antibodies to it.
Based on the two quotes above, I'd say they were already given a virus that inserts itself into their genome albeit a weakened one. It would be their paren
Re: (Score:2)
I saw range listed as debated on the vaccine with no range but 'probably lifelong but weaker,' and I'd be rather less skeptical of the '20 years' number if there was a push to get people to get boosters--which can extend the length and strength of protection--as adults, since you can catch Varicella as an adult, and it's both significantly worse, enough to send somebody to a hospital, and significantly different. (It just happened to be rare, originally, because it required you pull off the astonishing fea
Re: (Score:2)
On the flu shot, though--I've heard reports that some people have found it to be effective for multiple years,
The fact is that about half the time, they target the wrong flu strain, and the flu vaccine is utterly and completely useless. In those years, anyone who thinks the flu strain kept them from getting flu is total a fucking moron who is operating on confirmation bias.
Vaccination is a legitimate practice, but the flu shot is utterly and totally useless about half the time. They know well before they are administering the shots whether there is actually any point to doing so, by monitoring the spread of various
Re: (Score:2)
On the flu shot, though--I've heard reports that some people have found it to be effective for multiple years,
The fact is that about half the time, they target the wrong flu strain, and the flu vaccine is utterly and completely useless. In those years, anyone who thinks the flu strain kept them from getting flu is total a fucking moron who is operating on confirmation bias.
Actually, in this case the question is the more important one of how long and how broad the immunity provided against the flu by that particular vaccine are--which has all sorts of implications.
Vaccination is a legitimate practice, but the flu shot is utterly and totally useless about half the time. They know well before they are administering the shots whether there is actually any point to doing so, by monitoring the spread of various flu strains, but they will never, ever put that information out there to potential customers. That job is always left to the media, most of which couldn't care less. Anti-vaxxers are loud, but there's not enough of them to sell papers to for them to jump on that grenade, so they just ignore it and Americans waste millions on pointless flu shots.
And then people wonder why there are people who mistrust vaccines, because they are dumb shits too.
Well, the media also tends to be ignorant of its own ignorance, and I'd certainly not expect them to grasp that the flu is pretty rapidly-mutating--to the point that if you actually get more than a flu season's worth of immunity from the flu shot, the better strategy would be to either go with a big expensive broad-s
Re: (Score:2)
I and perhaps getting vaccinated isn't quite so black-and-white.
I'm not conversant with either position, and was wondering if anyone with actual knowledge (and not echo-chamber retelling of conventional wisdom) could comment on this.
Do vaccinated children catch other diseases more easily?
Just asking questions are we. I imagine you already have your opinion. Nobody here is going to convince you otherwise.
Amazes me that after eradication of smallpox, victories against polio, typhus, measles, mumps, fucks knows what else, there are always people trying to drag us back to the stone age.
Re: (Score:2)
Amazes me that after eradication of smallpox, victories against polio, typhus, measles, mumps, fucks knows what else, there are always people trying to drag us back to the stone age.
You're amazed because you can't see past your own nose...
I don't doubt the effectiveness of vaccines... I just expect the choice of what to put into my body and frankly I don't trust any government to be honest about these things...
Re: (Score:2)
Re:herd immunity is lame (Score:5, Funny)
Hurd immunity? You must be GNU here.
Re: (Score:2)
Where's a fucking modpoint when you need one?
BTW, you owe me a new keyboard.
Re: (Score:2)
If there was a justice, anti-vaccers would not be protected by herd immunity.
Re: (Score:3)
A few notes (to waste on an AC thread):
The population of the Americas is now 1Bn but wasn't so 40 years ago. The reduction in number of cases to what the Americas have now is significant also because there are more people that could have been affected and are not, thanks to the efforts in eradicating the disease. A more useful measure would probably be morbidity in % of population, to show clearly how big the overall problem was then and is now.
I point out "morbidity" because death is not the only possible
Re: (Score:2)
You're right. Measles, small pox, etc, etc,... they just decided they didn't like infecting people any more and want to die out. If had nothing to do with vaccinations.
The fact that people with vaccinations DON'T catch the disease they are vaccinated against is just a huge coincidence. We should be applauding Measles and Small Pox for voluntarily dying out all on their own without vaccines working.
I, for one, would like to give a big hearty thank you to Small Pox for voluntarily stop spreading itself. D
Re: (Score:2)
Sickle cell is genetic, rthe only way to get rid of that is to prevent the gene carriers from reproducing. And be because most carriers are niggers that seems unprobable without the use of deadly force.