...NO, that's not an answer to my question. First of all, simply being symptomatic isn't "devastating' by any normal definition of the word. Second of all, your apparently assuming a 100% rate of infection or something.
Woah. A chance of missing a week of school???
That's real devastating sounding there.
Actually, I was first looking for an estimate on chance of death. You're the one who brought "devastation" into the picture when you were unable to come up with odds of a risk of death.
I see that your misunderstanding began way back here:
Originally Posted by kellyb
All factors considered, (incidence, case/fatality, complications, etc) measles is probably the "deadliest" of the diseases we vaccinate for. The only situation in which one can say the individual benefit is definitely higher for the non-vaccinated is an unvaccinated individual in a community with a high level of immunity. What's a lot more complicated are diseases like Hepatitis A, (mandatory in many US states). HepA is usually completely asymptomatic in toddlers, but we vaccinate them to protect adults, since toddlers are considered the "spreaders". And HepA isn't even usually very serious in adults, either, unless you're in end-stage renal failure already when you catch it.
If you only count fatalities Hep A accounts for a small number every year. But if you consider other consequences such as 6 months off work recuperating, then hep A can be a devastating disease.
Nowhere in that statement did I say the disease was fatal in children. Nor did I say it was devastating directly to children. I did, however, give additional measures of morbidity besides a simple mortality count. And I have listed a number of reasons why vaccinating children for hepatitis A has a clear benefit.
Continuing the exchange in the next post,
kellyb said:
Originally Posted by skeptigirl
If you only count fatalities Hep A accounts for a small number every year. But if you consider other consequences such as 6 months off work recuperating, then hep A can be a devastating disease.
What are the chances that the toddler being vaccinated will be devestated by hepA, though? The chances are one in ____?
Your question is a non sequitur. The reasons I stated for vaccinating children against hep A do not include the toddler being "devastated" by the disease. I said
the disease could be devastating, not that it would devastate toddlers who are the target of vaccination.
Despite your argument the vaccine offers no direct benefit to the vaccinated child, there are benefits you are ignoring. I will repeat them for the third time. Contrary to your confusion over my statement, the reasons do not include "devastating" disease in toddlers.
1) The vaccinated toddler is protected from a future risk to the toddler. You and Ivor have claimed we only vaccinate the children to protect the adults. We also vaccinate children at one age in order to protect them at another age. The kids are more available, there is additional benefits protecting others and most importantly, there is no reason not to.
2) Beginning at a young age, (the data noted 30% of very young children were symptomatic and that less than that had jaundice), children experience moderately severe disease in an increasing percentage, (again the data noted 70% of older children).
When I say severe, it is severe compared to a cold or other minor childhood infections. Jaundice represents severe liver impairment. So at a minimum you have some kids who are very ill during the acute phase. I'm sure a lot of people don't realize that given most people fully recover from hepatitis A. Also, once the liver recovers, the patient feels a lot better, but the jaundice takes a bit longer to resolve. So people may occasionally see a jaundiced child who doesn't appear very ill. They were.
3) With your sarcasm about the child missing a week of school due to hep A, you again overlook the whole picture and cherry pick a single and somewhat incorrect aspect of the harm. You minimized it to a single week when in reality some cases last much longer. Even when a child feels better, they may be excluded from school if they appear jaundiced. And missing school puts a hardship on many parents who have to miss work to stay home with the ill child. Staying home from school might not be serious. Missing a couple weeks of work to care for a sick child can be
devastating to some families.
4) I also noted that for some kids, the adult they might infect with hep A could be someone in their own family. In fact, that is quite likely since household spread is common. So indirectly, if adults have a risk of serious disease from hep A, protecting the adult by vaccinating the child also protects the child's caregivers and significant others. That indirectly directly benefits the child you are vaccinating.
So if you only look at a single reason to vaccinate a child, preventing disease in that child during its childhood, you aren't evaluating the full risks and benefits of the decision to vaccinate someone.
Now, were I to take your approach, perhaps it would make the point more clear...
Woah! Vaccinating a child because it reduces disease in the community, what a concept! Giving a child a vaccine that is safe for a disease that doesn't
kill children, what were we thinking? Preventing an economic burden from time lost from work by using a vaccine that, OMG, you inject into a child! How immoral!
But I won't. Instead I'll give you some actual data on the serious consequences in children that I went and dug up after all. In the next post. This one is too long already.
) than having them vaccinated.
