Anyone see these new articles about parents delaying or refusing vaxes?

[ZoeyZoo]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/...nes04_ST_N.htm

http://children.webmd.com/vaccines/n...src=RSS_PUBLIC

Warning: Of course there is some of the typical Offit comments, herd immunity, and other common pro-vax points at the end of each article.

[Deborah]

Well, you go against authority, expect to be criticized.

I wonder though, if some people who like vaccines will be skipping the rotavirus for the time being.

[jessafina]

This statement bothers me.
"Some parents feel it's not necessary to vaccinate their child because so many other children are vaccinated. "
Out of all of the non-vaxers I know, this is not their reason. I see this as away to vilify non-vaxers and make us look like we're just riding on her immunity just because we can rather than not vaccinating because we've researched it and made an informed decision not to do so for various reasons.
I know that I do not expect any parent to put their kid in a potentially harmful situation for my benefit. First and foremost do what you feel is right by your children.
The above quote is valid as saying that "some people who vaccinate their children do so to protect her immunity." This may be a bi-product of vaxing their children, but first and foremost they do so because they believe it's the best way to protect their own children.
Same as those who don't.

[Deborah]

There is a hitch for the pro-vaccine argument when they accuse non-vaxing parents of being free-riders on herd immunity.

If vaccination were totally risk free, and completely effective, then it would make no difference if some people didn't vaccinate. It would be like choosing not to use seatbelts--people would make a choice that didn't affect anyone else.

But the accusation admits that vaccines carry a risk and that vaccines are less than 100% effective. Not the message they really want to be spreading, is it?

[makuahine]

Originally Posted by Deborah

There is a hitch for the pro-vaccine argument when they accuse non-vaxing parents of being free-riders on herd immunity.

If vaccination were totally risk free, and completely effective, then it would make no difference if some people didn't vaccinate. It would be like choosing not to use seatbelts--people would make a choice that didn't affect anyone else.

But the accusation admits that vaccines carry a risk and that vaccines are less than 100% effective. Not the message they really want to be spreading, is it?

I think the herd immunity argument only makes sense when you consider how it (if you even believe in herd immunity to begin with which is hard to when there are so many vaccines that may suppress symptoms but not prevent transmission) effects newborns and infants too young to be immunized.

I do sometimes feel guilty that my unvaccinated dd could be endangering someone's newborn- say, for example, if we took a trip to europe where dd picked up measles and inadvertently gave them to the three month old next to us on the plane ride home. That's really unlikely, I know, (are measles even contagious before you have symptoms?), but I still worry about something like this happening.

[oaksie68]

I must be living in la-la land, but the reasons listed for parents delaying/refusing vaccines in the USA Today sidebar seem perfectly reasonable to me - why aren't these issues given more explanation? Yeah, yeah, I know.

And this:

"Even among vaccine refusers, it's not like zero percent believe in vaccination," Rodewald says.

What is he really trying to say? Yet another area that would be facinating to expand upon instead of trying to find ways to make delayers/nonvaxers seem stupid, lazy, or otherwise unable to make "reasonable" decisions.

I reeaallyy need to get out more often

[crunchy_mommy]

Originally Posted by makuahine

I do sometimes feel guilty that my unvaccinated dd could be endangering someone's newborn- say, for example, if we took a trip to europe where dd picked up measles and inadvertently gave them to the three month old next to us on the plane ride home. That's really unlikely, I know, (are measles even contagious before you have symptoms?), but I still worry about something like this happening.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00000359.htm
"This outbreak demonstrates that transmission of measles can occur within a school population with a documented immunization level of 100%."

They attribute it to a "random cluster of vaccine failures" but I suspect perhaps the vax is not as effective at preventing transmission as they think.

I hope that helps you feel less guilty. Even if their "random failures" theory is true, that would mean you could vax your DD (with whatever side effects/consequences that may entail) and she could STILL unwittingly pass measles to a newborn.

[Deborah]

Big outbreaks of mumps, too. In mostly vaccinated populations, where the vaccine seems to be hopping from one vaxed person to the next.

I'll bump up one of the mumps threads for you.

[Romana]

Originally Posted by Deborah

There is a hitch for the pro-vaccine argument when they accuse non-vaxing parents of being free-riders on herd immunity.

If vaccination were totally risk free, and completely effective, then it would make no difference if some people didn't vaccinate. It would be like choosing not to use seatbelts--people would make a choice that didn't affect anyone else.

But the accusation admits that vaccines carry a risk and that vaccines are less than 100% effective. Not the message they really want to be spreading, is it?

I disagree. Any reputable vaccine expert will tell you straight up that vaccines aren't 100% effective - and that's why herd immunity is so important. When you vaccinate a large enough contingent of the population, the herd immunity protects those for whom the vaccine was ineffective, as well as those who can't take it for some reason.

You can take issue with the theory or the reasoning or the evidence, but it really has not been my experience that pro-vaccine experts insist vaccines are 100% effective. The whole reason they push high vaccination rates (in large part) is because it's well known that vaccines aren't 100% effective and below a certain threshold, epidemic outbreaks are far more likely in communities.

I think this has been at least partially borne out by measles outbreaks in the past 10-15 years. Lower immunization rates do make such outbreaks more likely, and because vaccination isn't effective for everyone, you see immunized children as well as unvaccinated children contracting the disease. Likely a much higher number of vaccinated children are exposed than those who were not vaccinated (because the community itself is mostly vaccinated; say 90% or so), but only a few of those experience a failure of immunity and contract the disease, while a much higher proportion of the unvaccinated children contract the disease.

I would agree that you have to push them to admit that vaccination carries risk. You usually first get "vaccination is safe" and then "vaccination is so low-risk that there isn't any reason not to do it" and you have to keep pushing if you want something more accurate/specific.

[heathergirl67]

I don't think I've ever heard anyone claim that vaccines are 100% effective.

[ema-adama]

Originally Posted by heathergirl67

I don't think I've ever heard anyone claim that vaccines are 100% effective.

Neither have I.

However, I have heard nurses and doctors saying "now it's time for you shot. This will protect you against X"

Which could be interpreted as "you are protected", as in there is a 100% chance that you will never get this disease now that you have had the vaccine.

But, no, I have never heard a knowledgeable provaccine person claim that vaccines are 100% effective.

[Deborah]

Sorry, my argument was misunderstood, I'll try to lay it out again.

Debates occur online.

Parents are accused of "taking advantage" of herd immunity.

Now, it would be impossible to take advantage of herd immunity if vaccines were totally safe, because in that case there would be no added risk to those who vaccinate.

So this argument is admitting that there is a danger in having your child vaccinated.

That is point one, which is, I think, not an argument that the vaccine enthusiasts actually want to emphasize, so it is sometimes sort of half there, half hidden. No one ever comes out and says, "your child may die or be permanently injured as a result of being vaccinated but you are willing to take this risk to maintain herd immunity, aren't you?"

The other point is even better hidden and indirect. The argument that everyone has to be vaccinated is because vaccines sometimes don't work. Only when you trot in to the doctor to get the vaccines, the doctor isn't going to tell you, vaccine by vaccine, exactly what the likelihood is that that particular vaccine won't work with your child. They won't tell you how likely it is that the vaccine will simply delay the illness (see mumps and chickenpox) and give your kid the opportunity to have this sickness in their teens or as an adult, when it is more dangerous and that you are committing your childhood to lifelong vaccinations for a whole slew of childhood illnesses.

The herd immunity argument is a way to blame parents who turn down vaccinations. The blame includes skipping acknowledging the risks of vaccines while simultaneously attacking parents for refusing to take this risk, AND blaming parents for outbreaks of vaccine related illnesses which may be due to vaccine failure, not to vaccine refusal.

Argh! I still don't think I've managed to make this clear.

But I tried.

[heathergirl67]

Originally Posted by Deborah

Now, it would be impossible to take advantage of herd immunity if vaccines were totally safe, because in that case there would be no added risk to those who vaccinate.

So this argument is admitting that there is a danger in having your child vaccinated.

I've read it a couple of times and I don't get what you're trying to say here. I'm sure it's my fault because sometimes it's like my brain is on delay or something. But would you mind explaining that statement to me? I don't see how the safety of the vaccines has anything to do with herd immunity. Of course I agree that it's an important thing to consider in general! I just don't get how it affects the herd immunity. For example:

Let's say that out of a group of 100 people 93 are immunized against Disease X. Disease X is effective and immunizes just about as well as one would expect. Theoretically that means that Disease X wouldn't last long. So the 7 unvaxed would be "taking advantage of" the 93 that were vaxed because the spread of Disease X has been halted.

Let's say that a side effect of the vax is paralysis and it happens every time. Terrible side effect, obviously, but that wouldn't change the efficacy of the vax. So the vax would still halt Disease X. Of course you'd have to consider the cost/benefit analysis, but whatever harmful side effects are there wouldn't impact the herd's immunity to Disease X.

Like I said, I'm probably just being slow on the uptake here. But would you mind clarifying?

[Deborah]

Okay. So you are seeing that the advantage of herd immunity is that it makes it less likely that your child will get the illness.

I've been hanging out on this board too long. Most of the moms here don't mind if their kids get mumps, chickenpox, etc.

Moms who see it like that don't see the vaccine as an advantage to their child because they would prefer the kid get the illness in childhood and develop lifelong immunity (where applicable) rather than delay the illness and develop lifelong dependence on vaccines.

You raise another interesting question: whether kids who have a bad reaction to the vaccine will also develop immunity to the disease. This hasn't been studied, as far as I know, which is a huge gap in the science. I have heard of parents who say that their child who ended up chronically ill after vaccination doesn't show titers to the vaccine illnesses. But I don't think this question has been studied.

The core problem is that parents are supposed to protect their children. Doctors, ideally, are supposed to take care of the patient right in front of them. But when it comes to vaccines, doctors are encouraged to consider "herd immunity" over the interests of the individual child, to the point of giving several vaccines at one time to a child who is ill or on antibiotics.

[ema-adama]

Theoretically that means that Disease X wouldn't last long.

As in eliminate the disease from circulation?

[an_domhan]

Originally Posted by heathergirl67

So the 7 unvaxed would be "taking advantage of" the 93 that were vaxed because the spread of Disease X has been halted.

Or the vaxxed are not presenting the correct symptoms to Disease X because of the vaccine (that typically allows for mild or no symptoms... doesn't mean they aren't spreading disease). The unvaxxed showing proper symptoms will always be readily identified where their vaxxed contemporaries just fly under the radar.

Of course you'd have to consider the cost/benefit analysis, but whatever harmful side effects are there wouldn't impact the herd's immunity to Disease X.

You are assuming proper response has occurred, and that the herd will actually resist the disease when it tries to propagate. Efficacy studies are not direct infection studies, and since outbreaks can and do occur in fully vaccinated populations of the herd, this tells us that serological immunity is probably flawed if you are discussing it in terms of herd immunity. Not to mention, that dealing with, and overcoming disease challenges also strengthens the herd. People that extrapolate extreme circumstances from disease encounters as a means to persuade others to vaccinate, are using anecdotes that don't apply to everyone. Just like when a person talks about the tragic death of a child from a DPT shot... they say that this is an extreme circumstance and shouldn't be applied to everyone. The problem, is that they are usually talking out of both sides of their mouths.

[EviesMom]

The bizarre thing to me is that they're talking about both vaccines that are not required anywhere in the US (to my knowledge), like rotavirus as equivalent to long-required vaxes like polio.

Different doctors recommend different vaxes in my experience (like my last one was big on Hep A but the current one has never mentioned it even to full-vaxing friends), so if you do everything your doctor ever mentions you're "compliant" but otherwise you're "refusing" or "delaying?" Doesn't make sense to me!

Then they're talking about "delay" to mean both delaying MMR until age 5 AND putting off a vax for a month when a kid is already ill or even more ridiculous, a vax is "delayed" if you ever have to reschedule an appointment?!?! I really wonder what the rates would be if they didn't include all of these ridiculous and unrelated things together?

I know total full-on vaxing families who would put off a vax for a high fever or would need to reschedule an appointment that they made a year before. What baffles me is why including these two facts didn't make it 100% of parents. Who did their survey and was able to say they never had to reschedule a doctors appointment for any reason?

[heathergirl67]

Originally Posted by ema-adama

As in eliminate the disease from circulation?

Yes. Those who were vaxed have a bit of immunity to the disease. They may still get the disease and have milder symptoms, which would just boost their immunity. So eventually when the disease came around again it wouldn't affect them because they're immune. Same with the unvaxed. If the disease got to them they would catch the disease and then be fully immune. So when it came around again they wouldn't catch it. So in a very short period of time nobody would be passing on the disease because everyone would be immune to it.

[heathergirl67]

Originally Posted by an_domhan

Not to mention, that dealing with, and overcoming disease challenges also strengthens the herd.

How so?

[heathergirl67]

Originally Posted by Deborah

The core problem is that parents are supposed to protect their children. Doctors, ideally, are supposed to take care of the patient right in front of them. But when it comes to vaccines, doctors are encouraged to consider "herd immunity" over the interests of the individual child, to the point of giving several vaccines at one time to a child who is ill or on antibiotics.

Unless you consider that docs feel that the possible side effects of the vaxes are far less scary than the possible side effects of the diseases. And by vaxing hopefully the diseases can be eradicated, which will help every child, including the patient in front of them.