I need quick comebacks for the "herd immunity" arguement - Page 4

[ema-adama]

Originally Posted by carriebft

I think also there are the points that not all immunity is waning from vaccines and not all adults skip boosters.

I do not know any adults up to date with boosters. (and I worked in a hospital - I only needed to be up to date with Hep B)

Which immunity is not waning?

(sorry so blunt )

[carriebft]

It depends on the vaccine. about 60% or a bit higher of adults are getting vaccinated against flu and pneumococcal. Only a very small percentage are getting vaccinated against shingles.

As the population shifts, more adults are vaccinated because they were required to for college, as one example. So, before meningitis vaccine requirements at colleges, you had low uptake of the vaccine for the 19-49 bracket, but now we see more adults who have had that shot because of the requirement. That is just one small example for vaccine coverage in adults.

Hep A was not on the recommended childhood schedule before recently. So you have a group of adults who are not vaccinated right now. But as the population gets older and the children who were vaccinated grow up, you will see a shift in the recommended schedule for adults because another Hep A will not be necessary. But right now it is, according to the CDC, because not many adults living right now have had the vaccine as it was not recommended in their childhood.

Some vaccines seem to wane in immunity (but not in all cases), an example is P portion of pertussis.

Other vaccines do not seem to wane such as rubella.

[Super Glue Mommy]

they jsut keep adding more and more vaccines to the list, probably because their vaccines have mutated older diseases making them stronger and creating the "need" for more and more vaccines. I have family in Ireland and Canada, they have a very different vaccine schedules over there, and are just as healthy if not more healthy. Of the more "advanced" societys around the world, ours seems to be more lacking in health then others. While we have "superior healthcare" we sure have a lot of uynhealthy people!

[PaigeC]

Originally Posted by carriebft

it is not. And I do not buy the "we all have subclinical measles instead" as reasoning. It is usually what people say to attempt to counter the idea that measles cases are near zero and all due to importation.

Measles is the poster child for NOT creating immunity.

Detection of measles vaccine in the throat of a vaccinated child.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...t=AbstractPlus

Fever occurring subsequent to measles vaccination is related to the replication of the live attenuated vaccine virus. In the case presented here, the vaccine virus was isolated in the throat, showing that subcutaneous injection of an attenuated measles strain can result in respiratory excretion of this virus.

Detection of measles virus RNA in urine specimens from vaccine recipients.
P A Rota, A S Khan, E Durigon, T Yuran, Y S Villamarzo, and W J Bellini
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/pic...9&blobtype=pdf

The changing epidemiology of measles, in the form of mild
measles cases in previously vaccinated individuals (1, 11, 20),
suggests that more asymptomatic or subclinical cases might be
occurring. ... In one previous
study, urine samples from 5 of 12 measles case contacts
were positive for measles virus antigen even though only 1 of
these 5 contacts developed clinical signs

[Super Glue Mommy]

the only person I know with boosters is my dad, he had to get them for his job. other then that, I know no one with them. Most parents I knew when I was growing up even slacked off on the childhood boosters...

[Mirzam]

Originally Posted by carriebft

Other vaccines do not seem to wane such as rubella.

Tell that to the women who have had two, three, or more rubella shots because they show no detectable antibodies.

[carriebft]

that is more likely to mean they never developed immunity and not that the immunity waned.

[Super Glue Mommy]

because the vaccine doesnt (even in theory) work for everyone :P which is just another risk you take when vaccinating. i may hurt my child all for the sake of nothing!

[carriebft]

Originally Posted by PaigeC

Measles is the poster child for NOT creating immunity.

Detection of measles vaccine in the throat of a vaccinated child.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...t=AbstractPlus


Detection of measles virus RNA in urine specimens from vaccine recipients.
P A Rota, A S Khan, E Durigon, T Yuran, Y S Villamarzo, and W J Bellini
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/pic...9&blobtype=pdf

I disagree and gave given many reasons here and in the s/d thread-- I can't even keep them straight anymore but, I disagree that a source showing measles in a vaccinated child/shedding means that the vaccine is not effective in creating immunity to measles.

But, like I said, even if I believed that we all now have subclinical measles, the result is still the same: near eradication of measles in this country and transmission of (as is the nature of subclinical infections- they are much less likely to transmit based on load). But, like I said, I don't buy the subclinical argument as an overall argument to support the 'measles vaccine is not effective'.

[Mirzam]

Originally Posted by carriebft

that is more likely to mean they never developed immunity and not that the immunity waned.

How can you be sure of that. For the most part no one bothers to check titres after a child has been vaccinated to see the uptake. Regardless, just another not so stellar vaccine.

[carriebft]

Of course I cannot be sure, all I can do is cite the evidence we have for the length of rubella immunity but if our threshold is 100% certain, I don't think any of us will win that argument

[Super Glue Mommy]

but that was happening with measles BEFORE the vaccine was invented. why does the vaccine get credit for something that happened before it was invented?

and really, dont understand why the measles becomes such a huge issue when you can just get it naturally and be naturally immune for life. to be honest, if that had invented the vaccine for measles earlier it might have been more compelling, but considering they made it when they did I dont really understand why they felt it was an important vaccine to make.

[PaigeC]

Originally Posted by carriebft

I disagree that a source showing measles in a vaccinated child/shedding means that the vaccine is not effective in creating immunity to measles.

I don't understand this. If vaccinated kids are either a) getting measles or b) transmitting it to others how is that immunity? And how is that "eradicating" measles? What does it mean for a vaccine to "work"? This is the definition of NOT working to me.

[PaigeC]

I just wanted to say too that this is a great discussion and it is remaining mature and friendly! Kudos to us

[Deborah]

On the adult need for boosters and all that--

I think this is actually a great demo of how unconsciously vaccines play out.

I'm old enough to remember the days when almost all children had mumps, measles, rubella and chickenpox when they were children. All of these illnesses lead to lifelong immunity in the majority of people (if they survive these devastating illnesses, of course <sarcasm>).

So, when the vaccines were introduced, there was no need to vaccinate adults, who were 95% or more immune already and contributing to herd immunity quite generously.

Three generations later (for measles), whatever adults under the age of 45 have in the way of immunity is a relic of their childhood vaccinations. Many are not immune and they certainly are not contributing to herd immunity.

But the legal and medical and social attitudes haven't adjusted, so adults are given a free ride on vaccinations, but every newborn is under constant threat of the needle, and this threat continues until they reach age 18 or so.

Let's not pretend that this is rational, nor that it is effective public health policy.

Finally, when it comes to Hep A, the situation is truly bizarre. This is a very mild illness for children and a serious illness for adults. So we vaccinate the children, putting them at risk of vaccine reactions to protect adults. This is insane and also immoral.

[Super Glue Mommy]

you worded that beautifully and accurately Deborah

[claddaghmom]

So, after reading the variety of response to on this thread, I think a good/quick comeback would be:

"Did you know that less than 1/3 of our population is fully vaccinated?"

I do still think adults being unvaccinated is relevant to the issue, so I would probably ask:

"Are YOU up to date on your vaccines?"

Of course, the one that I would personally use is:

"Why does my child have to protect your child? Didn't you already vaccinate him/her?"

[ema-adama]

Originally Posted by Deborah

On the adult need for boosters and all that--

I think this is actually a great demo of how unconsciously vaccines play out.

I'm old enough to remember the days when almost all children had mumps, measles, rubella and chickenpox when they were children. All of these illnesses lead to lifelong immunity in the majority of people (if they survive these devastating illnesses, of course <sarcasm>).

So, when the vaccines were introduced, there was no need to vaccinate adults, who were 95% or more immune already and contributing to herd immunity quite generously.

Ah ha.... maybe this explains why people think that adults have done their bit from a social perspective.

Three generations later (for measles), whatever adults under the age of 45 have in the way of immunity is a relic of their childhood vaccinations. Many are not immune and they certainly are not contributing to herd immunity.

Yes! But this is just not a relevant issue somehow.

But the legal and medical and social attitudes haven't adjusted, so adults are given a free ride on vaccinations, but every newborn is under constant threat of the needle, and this threat continues until they reach age 18 or so.

This is so frustrating for me. The whole use herd immunity to intimidate parents to vaccinate is frustrating. And yet people continue to feel very strongly that parents who do not vaccinate their children are the only source for bringing down the threshold immunity in the population. And words like 'free riders' and even 'parasites' are thrown around.

Let's not pretend that this is rational, nor that it is effective public health policy.

: Public health is relying an awful lot on vaccination to create a healthy society, ie prevent death and disability from illness. I can think of a couple of other ways to go about it.... but not quite so straight forward as an injection.

Finally, when it comes to Hep A, the situation is truly bizarre. This is a very mild illness for children and a serious illness for adults. So we vaccinate the children, putting them at risk of vaccine reactions to protect adults. This is insane and also immoral.

Well, I guess the people who decided to vaccinate children for Hep A didn't think much further than developing the vaccine. Not the first time this has happened..... I know you know that.

[carriebft]

Finally, when it comes to Hep A, the situation is truly bizarre. This is a very mild illness for children and a serious illness for adults. So we vaccinate the children, putting them at risk of vaccine reactions to protect adults. This is insane and also immoral.

I think that is a matter of opinion. Children who get Hep A and are symptomatic are much more likely to relapse than adults. And it is not always a mild illness for children. They may not even begin to feel better for three weeks and the illness lingers beyond that time for many. People like to say it's 'like food poisoning' but this does not seem to stand up to the evidence I have looked at when children become Hep A with symptoms.

[Super Glue Mommy]

what are your sources Carrie. can you provide JUST the statistics and leave the opinions of pro-vaccine community out of it so it can be looked at objectively. do your sources differentiate between healthy and immune compromised children? do your sources differentiate between well nourished and malnourished? do your sources differentiate between a clean health home and impoverty? do your sources differentiate between parents who have hep a and dont? do your sources differentiate between advanced societies and 3rd world countries? have you seen this information broken down to make you think that a healthy, well nourished child living in an advanced society is likely to have such adverse reactions to the point the risk of the vaccine is incomparable to the risk of Hep A? The definite risk you take by injecting the vaccine, versus the possible risk of the child even getting Hep A from a statistical point of view, speculation aside?

"the evidence you have looked at" but so far all I see is you taking the word of people who market the drug. I haven't seen you post any sources, or look at any information objectively. I haven't seen you post information that focuses on numbers, and you analyzing the numbers as the sources will skew them to support their cause. You can't take everything at face value, especially when you are relying heavily on the people turning profit from you doing so.

As I see it, if they were able to prove the vaccine was safe (and by prove, I mean do a REAL safety study - not the studies they do now, that even the CDC admits themselves are misleading? that if another drug company did those studies they would be laughed at by even the mildest of critics) and in addition to "proving" it was safe in that way, and also proving that is works in that way, then this is a vaccine I would support for those who need it. but not every child needs this vaccine, and it hasn't been proven safe (again I mean by the same standards every other marketed drug has to prove they are safe).