Six Reason to Question Vaccinations

[Larry Bud]

They are a public health issue.

No, they are an individual health issue.

If you get a vaccination, then it shouldn't matter to your health whether or not your neighbor gets his vaccination.

 

[Larry Bud]

They are a public health issue.

No, they are an individual health issue.

If you get a vaccination, then it shouldn't matter to your health whether or not your neighbor gets his vaccination.

 

[Ziggurat]

If you get a vaccination, then it shouldn't matter to your health whether or not your neighbor gets his vaccination.

It can matter to the health of those who are not yet vaccinated, such as infants. And no, you can't just vaccinate them as soon as they pop out. You can't brush the public health issue under the rug so easily.

 

[shadron]

I gave a hepatitis B vaccination today and the recipient was incredibly anxious, not because of a needle phobia, but because she was afraid the vaccine was dangerous. This is a woman who wanted the vaccine. She is a student in an acupuncture and oriental medicine college. The students pay for their own vaccinations. No one makes them get the shots.

I was amazed at the anxiety she had over getting the vaccine.

She ended up getting the shot and was not anxious an hour later when I saw her again. To fear a vaccine as a risky thing to get is mind boggling to me.

I agree with the spirit here, but just one, small caveat comes to mind. There is a definite, usually very small, chance that a vaccination can go wrong, usually by stirring up some sort of nascent allergic reaction. Vaccines are, by necessity, very complex organic molecules, and those that are created naturally (as with chicken eggs) rather than synthesized do contain lots of other proteins in microscopic amounts, so there is always the chance of a reaction. The winning rationale is that the mortality rates of those things which the vaccine conquers always are higher. Getting a vaccination is always a high-stakes, low-probability gamble. As stated above, the real target of a vaccine program is the general public, not any one individual.

You are instructed to observe a vaccinated person for allergic reaction for a short period afterwards, are you not?

Vaccination programs are wonderful things, and are generally always worth the gamble; just look at what they've done for the spectre of smallpox. But always be aware.

 

[shadron]

No, they are an individual health issue.

If you get a vaccination, then it shouldn't matter to your health whether or not your neighbor gets his vaccination.

Incorrect. Each person in which the infection fails due to a timely immune system reaction represents one more person who does not pass the disease along to others. Such a passing is a statistical event, and the math of probabilities says that the chances of someone in the population being exposed to the diseases very much lessens as the infectable population is reduced. When that probability gets low enough, such that an infected person does not pass the infection to at least one additional person on the average, the disease cannot propagate to infectable members; the epidemic dies. That is the difference between a "virgin field" and resistant population.

In addition, as mentioned above, vaccines are not absolute protection. For various reasons they may or may not trigger the desired immune system reaction, and the individual only has a statistical probability of having individual protection.

 

[MRC_Hans]

No, they are an individual health issue.

If you get a vaccination, then it shouldn't matter to your health whether or not your neighbor gets his vaccination.

Nonsense. It is a public health issue to try to curb contagious diseases. Don't you think it matters to a society if dangerous epidemics are allowed to spread?

Hans

 

[fls]

No, they are an individual health issue.

If you get a vaccination, then it shouldn't matter to your health whether or not your neighbor gets his vaccination.

This area is pretty much the very definition of public health. Some diseases are better tackled by treating the community than by treating individuals. Contagious diseases are more effectively treated by constraining the contagion than by considering the individual in isolation.

If your neighbour does not get her/his vaccination, it may be almost pointless for you to get yours. This may be counter-intuitive, but a vaccinated person living within an unvaccinated population can be thousands of times more likely to get the disease than an unvaccinated person living within a vaccinated population. The person in the first group will surely be exposed and if the vaccine is 90% effective, there is a 10% chance they will be unprotected and acquire the disease. The person in the second group may surely get the disease if they are exposed, but the chance of exposure may be one in a million.

Linda

 

[sophia8]

No, they are an individual health issue.

If you get a vaccination, then it shouldn't matter to your health whether or not your neighbor gets his vaccination.

Whether or not your neighbours and their kids are vaccinated or not would most certainly matter to you if you were HIV+, or receiving cancer treatment, or had some other condition that compromised your immune system.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

If you thought that was nuts, you should try this site:

http://www.whale.to/

It's the only site the main people on the JABS forum refer to when you ask them for evidence. Below is a typical page on vaccination.

http://www.whale.to/b/hoax1.html

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

The way vaccination is sold to individuals at the moment is often by misleading them into thinking being vaccinated will protect them directly by a significant amount.

It displays a certain level of contempt for people to think they are too selfish and/or stupid to be persuaded by an honest argument for vaccination, which would highlight the benefits to the community over the individual.

 

[quixotecoyote]

Well, with the rising number of anti-vaxxers around, the direct benefits are getting higher every day.

 

[Cuddles]

The way vaccination is sold to individuals at the moment is often by misleading them into thinking being vaccinated will protect them directly by a significant amount.

It will. I am pretty much guaranteed never to get measles or polio or several other diseases. It's not 100%, but it's certainly close enough to qualify as a "significant amount".

It displays a certain level of contempt for people to think they are too selfish and/or stupid to be persuaded by an honest argument for vaccination, which would highlight the benefits to the community over the individual.

And yet here we are with barely 80% of people currently being vaccinated against measles.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

It will. I am pretty much guaranteed never to get measles or polio or several other diseases. It's not 100%, but it's certainly close enough to qualify as a "significant amount".

If only one person has been vaccinated in a population, anything less than 100% immunity merely extends the expected time before they get infected.

Realistically, vaccination only "works" if enough of the population get vaccinated. The lower the efficacy of the vaccine, the more people in the population need to be vaccinated for it to have a significant effect.

Then there are those vaccines that are pretty useless for prevention, such as the BCG, though supposedly this does reduce the risk of complications if you do contract TB.

And yet here we are with barely 80% of people currently being vaccinated against measles.

So the two alternatives are:

a) Apply sanctions to parents and/or their children to coerce them to be vaccinated.

b) Address the reasons why parents are not having their children vaccinated, preferably without invoking irrational fear.

 

[kellyb]

If only one person has been vaccinated in a population, anything less than 100% immunity merely extends the expected time before they get infected.

What do you mean?
If you're the only vaccinated person in a population with an endemic disease, you'll probably eventually run into the pathogen, but as a general rule, the exposure to the pathogen will serve as a booster to your vaccination. So if everything goes just right, (and most of the time it does, for some of the vaccines, at least) you'll just be really, really immune, and you got to miss out on the "getting sick" part.

Realistically, vaccination only "works" if enough of the population get vaccinated.

No, most of them provide individual protection. The chickenpox vaccine (for example)actually works best for an individual when used only on some people and not everyone.

The lower the efficacy of the vaccine, the more people in the population need to be vaccinated for it to have a significant effect.

Sort of. It's really complicated, though.
Different vaccines all work differently, and the epidemiology of various diseases is all different from disease to disease. You have to look at each disease separately.
Back to the chickenpox vaccine, in Japan (where the vaccine was used sparingly) it looked (or was) over 90% effective with a single dose, and immunity lasted over 30 years.
In the US where it was used universally, the effectiveness dropped and vaccine immunity wanes more quickly. Because the vaccine works just well enough to slow down spread of the virus, but then you get something called "secondary vaccine failure"...where the immunity wanes because people aren't getting their immunity boosted by exposure to the wild virus.
But what's true for chickenpox isn't necessarily true for measles, or pertussis, etc. They're all different.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

What do you mean?

What I said

Read Linda's post for a more detailed explanation.

If you're the only vaccinated person in a population with an endemic disease, you'll probably eventually run into the pathogen, but as a general rule, the exposure to the pathogen will serve as a booster to your vaccination. So if everything goes just right, (and most of the time it does, for some of the vaccines, at least) you'll just be really, really immune, and you got to miss out on the "getting sick" part.

No, most of them provide individual protection. The chickenpox vaccine (for example)actually works best for an individual when used only on some people and not everyone.

That's why I put "works" in quotes. This page explains what I was thinking about. I was considering the number of cases in the population, as opposed to a vaccination providing immunity for a particular individual.

Sort of. It's really complicated, though.
Different vaccines all work differently, and the epidemiology of various diseases is all different from disease to disease. You have to look at each disease separately.
Back to the chickenpox vaccine, in Japan (where the vaccine was used sparingly) it looked (or was) over 90% effective with a single dose, and immunity lasted over 30 years.
In the US where it was used universally, the effectiveness dropped and vaccine immunity wanes more quickly. Because the vaccine works just well enough to slow down spread of the virus, but then you get something called "secondary vaccine failure"...where the immunity wanes because people aren't getting their immunity boosted by exposure to the wild virus.
But what's true for chickenpox isn't necessarily true for measles, or pertussis, etc. They're all different.

Interesting stuff, which indicates that vaccination programs are generally implemented not because of the individual benefits for those vaccinated, but for the entire community.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

From the link in my previous post:

SUMMARY
Life-long protection from disease through immunization can be accomplished through individual or community protection. Individual protection is the goal for vaccination against diseases that have inanimate or animal reservoirs or that pose risks for certain populations. Community protection is the goal for vaccination against diseases that are transmitted only from human to human. Community protection afforded by childhood vaccines has been highly successful against measles, rubella, mumps, and polio. However, outbreaks of measles, rubella, and mumps continue to occur, primarily because of inadequate immunization of children under age 2. Simplification of vaccination regimens, provision of incentives to care providers and parents, and increased access to care should improve vaccination rates in the United States. Better protection requires better use of available vaccines. Eradication of disease through vaccination is the ultimate goal of community protection. Elimination of the infectious agent is the most effective means of achieving life-long protection. The World Health Organization's (WHO) smallpox eradication campaign eliminated a serious disease as well as the need for a vaccine with frequent and severe adverse reactions. The discontinuation of smallpox vaccination in the United States has produced a savings of over $3 billion. Polio has been targeted by WHO for eradication by the year 2000. The eradication of polio and the elimination of the need for polio vaccination in the United States should result in a savings of $110 million per year in vaccine costs alone. Strong United States support is crucial for WHO to reach its goal. Any of the vaccine-preventable childhood virus diseases could be eradicated with sufficient national and international will. Measles and hepatitis B should be high priorities. The ultimate goal of vaccination is life-long protection of all individuals. Any disease of sufficient public health importance to warrant routine vaccination is of sufficient importance to warrant eradication wherever judged to be possible.

 

[Cuddles]

If only one person has been vaccinated in a population, anything less than 100% immunity merely extends the expected time before they get infected.

No. When we say the vaccine works less than 100%, it means that you have, say, a 99% chance of the vaccine making you 100% immune, not that it has a 100% chance of making you 99% immune. Even if your interpretation were correct, your conclusion is still wrong, or at least misleading. If being vaccinated means it will take an average of 200 years of exposure to infected people to catch it myself, instead of 5 years without the vaccination, how can you possibly argue that is not protection? The simple fact is, if you are vaccinated, you are almost certain never to catch the thing you are vaccinated against, regardless of who else has been vaccinated.

Realistically, vaccination only "works" if enough of the population get vaccinated. The lower the efficacy of the vaccine, the more people in the population need to be vaccinated for it to have a significant effect.

This is called herd immunity. It only applies to populations, not individuals. A certain proportion of people need to be vaccinated to prevent epidemics occuring, with the resultant cost to society and individuals. It does not affect the chance of a vaccinated person contracting the disease.

Then there are those vaccines that are pretty useless for prevention, such as the BCG, though supposedly this does reduce the risk of complications if you do contract TB.

The BCG vaccine has between 70-80% effectiveness and lasts for around 15 years. Please actually do some research and stop coming out with such nonsense.

So the two alternatives are:

a) Apply sanctions to parents and/or their children to coerce them to be vaccinated.

b) Address the reasons why parents are not having their children vaccinated, preferably without invoking irrational fear.

Drink driving kills other people, so we force people not to do it. Not having your children vaccinated kills other people, so why shouldn't we force people to do it? In any case, you still haven't actually given any evidence of irrational fears being invoked by anyone other than the anti-vaxers.

 

[Beth]

Drink driving kills other people, so we force people not to do it.

No, drunk driving doesn't always kill other people; it has a higher risk of killing other people than driving sober does. The increase in risk to other people is enough to make the act illegal.

Not having your children vaccinated kills other people, so why shouldn't we force people to do it?

Because the increase is risk to other people is pretty small. There's an increase in risk to other people when the speed limit is set at 70 rather than 55 and way more than if it were set at 10 mph. Everything is a trade off. Our society is willing to accept some risks because the benefits are considered sufficient to offset the risk.

If we force people to vaccinate their children, we decrease the risk of disease, but the cost is a loss of freedom of choice in making minor medical decisions for yourself and your children.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

No. When we say the vaccine works less than 100%, it means that you have, say, a 99% chance of the vaccine making you 100% immune, not that it has a 100% chance of making you 99% immune. Even if your interpretation were correct, your conclusion is still wrong, or at least misleading. If being vaccinated means it will take an average of 200 years of exposure to infected people to catch it myself, instead of 5 years without the vaccination, how can you possibly argue that is not protection? The simple fact is, if you are vaccinated, you are almost certain never to catch the thing you are vaccinated against, regardless of who else has been vaccinated.

Except if you do. There are really good vaccines and there are not so good vaccines. There is more than one way to look at the protection being vaccinated gives an individual. You can look at the relative risk reduction, or you can look at the absolute risk reduction. The latter figure often looks a lot less impressive than the former.

This is called herd immunity. It only applies to populations, not individuals. A certain proportion of people need to be vaccinated to prevent epidemics occuring, with the resultant cost to society and individuals. It does not affect the chance of a vaccinated person contracting the disease.

Yes, it does. Only if the vaccination leads to 100% immunity does the incidence of the disease become irrelavent.

The BCG vaccine has between 70-80% effectiveness and lasts for around 15 years. Please actually do some research and stop coming out with such nonsense.

Nonsense? Really?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8309034&dopt=AbstractPlus

OBJECTIVE--To quantify the efficacy of BCG vaccine against tuberculosis (TB). DATA SOURCES--MEDLINE with index terms BCG vaccine, tuberculosis, and human. Experts from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization, among others, provided lists of all known studies. STUDY SELECTION--A total of 1264 articles or abstracts were reviewed for details on BCG vaccination, concurrent vaccinated and unvaccinated groups, and TB outcome; 70 articles were reviewed in depth for method of vaccine allocation used to create comparable groups, equal surveillance and follow-up for recipient and concurrent control groups, and outcome measures of TB cases and/or deaths. Fourteen prospective trials and 12 case-control studies were included in the analysis. DATA EXTRACTION--We recorded study design, age range of study population, number of patients enrolled, efficacy of vaccine, and items to assess the potential for bias in study design and diagnosis. At least two readers independently extracted data and evaluated validity. DATA SYNTHESIS--The relative risk (RR) or odds ratio (OR) of TB provided the measure of vaccine efficacy that we analyzed. The protective effect was then computed by 1-RR or 1-OR. A random-effects model estimated a weighted average RR or OR from those provided by the trials or case-control studies. In the trials, the RR of TB was 0.49 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.34 to 0.70) for vaccine recipients compared with nonrecipients (protective effect of 51%). In the case-control studies, the OR for TB was 0.50 (95% CI, 0.39 to 0.64), or a 50% protective effect. Seven trials reporting tuberculous deaths showed a protective effect from BCG vaccine of 71% (RR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.16 to 0.53), and five studies reporting on meningitis showed a protective effect from BCG vaccine of 64% (OR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.18 to 0.70). Geographic latitude of the study site and study validity score explained 66% of the heterogeneity among trials in a random-effects regression model. CONCLUSION--On average, BCG vaccine significantly reduces the risk of TB by 50%. Protection is observed across many populations, study designs, and forms of TB. Age at vaccination did not enhance predictiveness of BCG efficacy. Protection against tuberculous death, meningitis, and disseminated disease is higher than for total TB cases, although this result may reflect reduced error in disease classification rather than greater BCG efficacy.

A figure of 50% on average does not seem very effective at preventing TB.

Drink driving kills other people, so we force people not to do it. Not having your children vaccinated kills other people, so why shouldn't we force people to do it? In any case, you still haven't actually given any evidence of irrational fears being invoked by anyone other than the anti-vaxers.

Drink driving is something you do that risks other people's safety. Not having your children vaccinated is something you do not do that risks other people's safety. Laws are usually worded in such a way that you are prohibited from doing something, not forced to do it.

The "unvaccinated kids are dangerous" argument is not a very strong one for compulsory vaccination in the developed world. A better one is the public health agenda to rid the world of a disease so vaccination is no longer required for it.

 

[kellyb]

If only one person has been vaccinated in a population, anything less than 100% immunity merely extends the expected time before they get infected.

What do you mean?

What I said

Read Linda's post for a more detailed explanation.

I'm still not seeing it.

That's why I put "works" in quotes. This page explains what I was thinking about. I was considering the number of cases in the population, as opposed to a vaccination providing immunity for a particular individual.

I guess if you're defining "works" only as complete elimination or eradicaton of a pathogen in a community.