or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › I'm Not Vaccinating › Less than 1% of children have no vaccines. Really?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Less than 1% of children have no vaccines. Really?

post #1 of 31
Thread Starter 
So this came up in another post, but i find it fascinating. The CDC reports that less than 1% of children have no vaccines.

http://www.cdc.gov/media/pressrel/2010/r100916.htm

Really? I know I live in my own little world, but this seems WAY low. In my DH's family (not crunchy) about half the families are vaxing and half are not at all. At my conservative office, it's much less, but it's way more than 1%. It's about 5-10%, I would guess.

So, do most people think the CDC is right? (on this subject )
post #2 of 31
I just read the first paragraph to my friend (the one who got me thinking twice about vaxxes to begin with, and whose children are 12 and 14 and have not had one shot their entire lives) And HE said he thinks its right. . Im not saying hes god, but hes well read, and has always considred us in a very small minority group.
post #3 of 31
I'm sure it depends on the region. Around here, vaccine-free is not uncommon. In fact I'd say we know maybe one family that fully vaxes, several that don't vax at all, and a few selective/delayed families. But the choice to keep your children vaccine-free is very much respected where I live now and doesn't raise eyebrows at all, as far as I can tell.

But when I lived in New York (NYC and then upstate) we only knew a couple of other vaccine-free families. Most people we met in NY vax to the gills there and don't give it a second thought (and no, I'm NOT saying most vaxers don't think about it--I'm saying the people we knew couldn't tell you what their children were getting or when, or even why, just that it was "time for their shots, so we go", "the doctor says he needs this, so we get it", etc.).
post #4 of 31
I would believe that figure is accurate in my area. Or maybe a little high.
post #5 of 31
Most non-vaxers I know started out as vaxers or selective vaxers, then moved on to not vaxing.
post #6 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emmeline II View Post
Most non-vaxers I know started out as vaxers or selective vaxers, then moved on to not vaxing.
That's what we did with DD.

BUT- we also (since then) opted out of our state's vaccine registry/database/whatever, so they really don't have any clue if my child is still getting vaccinated or not. I think a lot of non-vaxers probably opt out of those systems (if they know about them), so I think the CDC's numbers are probably low because they don't have any way to track those children.
post #7 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emmeline II View Post
Most non-vaxers I know started out as vaxers or selective vaxers, then moved on to not vaxing.


That's been my experience as well. My first was fully vaccinated on schedule until his last WCV when I agreed to the DTaP (which he had a reaction to!) but declined the MMR and Chicken Pox.

My daughter got all her 2-month shots and THEN I started doing my research. She has had one DTaP since then, but unless I see compelling evidence to get them any additional vaxes, those DTaPs will be their last for a very, very long time.
post #8 of 31
My question is are they saying less than 1% of children currently receive no vaccines (which would include both never-vaxed children as well as those whose parents stopped vaxing altogether at some point) or are they talking about only those who NEVER received vaccines? Because I could see the second being a much smaller pool. A lot of non-vaxers I know went that way because their LOs had a reaction, or started out as selective-delayed, or were unsure but were "pushed" into the first set or two before they did enough research to turn them all down. And there are LOADS of selective/delayed vaxers out there...even just getting one vaccine puts someone under selective/delayed.
post #9 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by changingseasons View Post
BUT- we also (since then) opted out of our state's vaccine registry/database/whatever, so they really don't have any clue if my child is still getting vaccinated or not. I think a lot of non-vaxers probably opt out of those systems (if they know about them), so I think the CDC's numbers are probably low because they don't have any way to track those children.
The NIS isn't based on state registries. It's a robo-dialed phone survey with follow-up among participants.
post #10 of 31
Thread Starter 
From the CDC: "Immunization of children aged 19-35 months old against most vaccine-preventable diseases remains high in the United States, with coverage for most of the routine vaccines remaining at or over 90 percent, according to a report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Less than 1 percent of young children got no vaccinations, the CDC report said."

So, less than 1% got no vaccinations.

And, they say that coverage for routine vaccinations is at 90%. So, selective vaxers are at about 9%?

Anyways, I tend to think that since this is a robo-dialed survey, non-vaxers are just less likely to answer.
post #11 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Otto View Post
The NIS isn't based on state registries. It's a robo-dialed phone survey with follow-up among participants.
That wouldn't seem to reflect accurate numbers at all. I know I don't participate in those surveys when Im called and I'd be willing to bet that many non-vaxers steer clear of theses types of "surveys"
post #12 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marnica View Post
That wouldn't seem to reflect accurate numbers at all. I know I don't participate in those surveys when Im called and I'd be willing to bet that many non-vaxers steer clear of theses types of "surveys"
Yeah, but this is basically the anti-Nielsen argument that people make when their favorite shows get canceled. It's possible to do population sampling with well-defined error bounds. This doesn't mean that uncertainties or nonresponse bias don't exist, but that they need to be understood and modeled. It's inherent in any such large-scale sampling, which is by definition an indirect technique.

The NIS methodology and data analysis are thoroughly documented here (the first two under "Methodology" are probably of the broadest interest).
post #13 of 31
That number doesn't seem impossible. I live in a pretty crunchy area, in a country which does not legislate vaxes, and all the babies I know have their shots.
post #14 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xerxella View Post
From the CDC: "Immunization of children aged 19-35 months old against most vaccine-preventable diseases remains high in the United States, with coverage for most of the routine vaccines remaining at or over 90 percent, according to a report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Less than 1 percent of young children got no vaccinations, the CDC report said."

So, less than 1% got no vaccinations.

And, they say that coverage for routine vaccinations is at 90%. So, selective vaxers are at about 9%?

Anyways, I tend to think that since this is a robo-dialed survey, non-vaxers are just less likely to answer.
I agree
http://www.mothering.com/discussions....php?t=1268622
post #15 of 31
I have zero probelms believeing that - and the further explanation of 9% selective, 1% none and 90% full sounds about right to me. My boys are both vax free, but I'm highly well aware they are in the vast vast vast minority!!!
post #16 of 31
So my non-vaxed, UC-d daughter should pretty much not exist, statistically speaking, right? Go figure.
post #17 of 31
then whats the big deal with the 'vaccinators' freaking out about the non vaccinators. shouldnt they feel comfortable with their high amount of vaccination rate? they should have peace of mind, maybe they have a feeling that they are doing the wrong thing so they are pushing the topic hard to hide the truth...
post #18 of 31
In my little area of the world, it's pretty accurate, I'd say. I'm the only person that I know of "in real life" that doesn't vaccinate. I don't even think I know of anyone that selectively vaccinates!
post #19 of 31
If less than one percent of the children have no vaccines, then there is still herd immunity, isn't there? So there is nothing to worry about, so what is the big deal?

The article is trying to marginalise people who do not vaccinate and say that they are a tiny minority.
post #20 of 31
I believe those who choose not to vaccinate still ARE a tiny minority. I think that number would still be accurate if they had polled a larger percentage of the population. It's much easier to go with the flow, believe in your doctor, and be convinced that the way we've been doing things for decades is correct, than it is to stand up against the status quo and question things.

A recent Huggies study indicated that parents that choose cloth diapers are still a huge minority - only 4% in the USA and 8% in Canada. There is little disputing the facts of economic savings, environmental benefits, ease of use and health of baby when it comes to cloth diapers. It seems to me we have a much longer road with regards to vaccines, considering how "commonplace" cloth diapers seem to be for parents like us.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: I'm Not Vaccinating
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › I'm Not Vaccinating › Less than 1% of children have no vaccines. Really?