S/o lying - Page 3

[slmommy]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

Yes, they do, but it's still true to say that if vaccination rates were high enough pertussis would die off.  Lots of things were epidemic that are now unheard of thanks to vaccines. Therefore, it is still around because of unvaccinated children. 

No. Many of the vax for which vpds are no longer around are much more effective than the pertussis vaccine. Pertussis is still around because the vax is so ineffective.

The first CHOP page implies transmission goes unvaxed kid - unvaxed kid - unvaxed kid, and infecting unvaxed infants along the way.

Second CHOP page says adults and teens (most previously vaxed) get pertussis and spread it around.

[Rrrrrachel]

Ok, well, I don't think it implies that.  I think it says the disease persists because of the unvaccinated population.  This is true, although you disagree.  I explained how these two statements were not in conflict.  You choose to keep interpreting them as such.  Oh well.

[slmommy]

It is stating that the disease ONLY persists because of unvaxed kids. That is untrue. There is no other info on that page about the teen/adult info that is found on the other page. The 2nd page states that "Pertussis is unusual in that most children catch the disease from adults and not other children." 

I am guessing the discrepancy is because the 2nd page is pushing for adult Tdap boosters as well.

Unvaxed children are not the ONLY reason pertussis is around, which is clearly what the first page implies.

[rachelsmama]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

Pertussis is able to persist because vaccination rates aren't high enough to wipe it out (to be fair it would take extremely high vaccination rates for something like pertussis). So it's true that it's still around because of unvaccinated children, even though transmission is usually adult to child. 

If there was a 100% vaccination rate, the failure rate would just slowly get larger and larger as pertussis adapted. 

[Rrrrrachel]

Pertussis adapts very slowly.  It is possible it could be eradicated before it had a chance to adapt.

[rachelsmama]

Sure, anything's possible, but if we were betting, my money would be on the pertussis.

[purslaine]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

Kathymuggle: a large group of unvaccinated children, particularly preschool aged, are not the children of educated parents who have made a concious and informed decision not to vaccinate. They are the children of poor and uneducated parents who either haven't bothered, didn't know enough to, or couldn't for a variety of reasons get them routine health care in the form of well child visits and vaccines. This population would absolutely be impacted by removal of school entry requirements. For some it is the only thing that forces their parents to get off their butt and get it taken care of. 

 

 

I think this is partly true.

Most under-vaccinated kids have poorer, less educated parents - and have failed to receive immunisation for the reasons you stated.

I would pull out those who are deliberately selective and delayed from this group - I bet they look more like vaxxers or non-vaxxer than the under-immunised.

Non-vaccinated children tend to have older, well-off, college educated mothers.

I have seen several sources for this - here is one:

http://www.pedsforparents.com/articles/2787.shtml

Even if we agreed kids should see health care providers for well baby and well child visits (and not everyone here agrees with that, btw) I am not sure we should use vaccines to force their hand.  I am not sure we should use anything to force their hand.  Not going to a health care provider (unless a child is sick, of course) is not child abuse, and it is questionable whether it is neglectful.  

Another, somewhat OT example:  I have been in a number of discussions over the years on whether schools should insist parents of young children fill out reading log books.  Some people always say yes - the reading log may force parents who do not read to their children to read to their children.  Others say no - I should not have to fill out a reading log on a nightly basis because some parents aren't reading to their children.  I tend to agree with the latter group.

I am uncomfortable with the masses being forced (or facing stiff consequences) for doing or not doing something to catch the few genuinely irresponsible people.

At the end of the day, I want parents to vaccinate, sel/del or not vaccinate because they feel it is the best decision.  I do not want them to do anything because they felt their hands were tied around school and work decisions.  

[purslaine]

This article (mainstream source) seems to point to the fact that exemption programs do not heavily influence vaccine rates - at least in Canada.

84-92% of Ontario school children have vaccinate records on file, while Alberta reports 90% of school kids are vaccinated.

Ontario insists on exemptions or vaccination for school, Alberta does not.

http://www.cmaj.ca/content/183/16/E1165

[Rrrrrachel]

I agree that people who deliberately non vax are probably not that different than vaxxers when it comes to income and education, but I also think they are not the majority of the non Vaxing population. I think people who make an informed and educated choice not to vaccinate are probably a fraction of the total non-vaccinating population, at least for preschool aged kids.

If you make a deliberate decision not to do well child care and feel like you are capable of catching various developmental problems I have no beef with you.  I hardy ever go to the doctor and I can remember going only a handful of times growing up.  However, that is, again, a different case than a parent who doesn't go because they can't or just don't care enough too.  Because of the public health issue that I addressed earlier I think it's appropriate for schools to "force parents hands" on that issue.

Not getting routine check ups is certainly not child abuse or neglect, but there are a lot of children who don't get routine check ups that are abused or neglected.

[slmommy]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

I agree that people who deliberately non vax are probably not that different than vaxxers when it comes to income and education, but I also think they are not the majority of the non Vaxing population. I think people who make an informed and educated choice not to vaccinate are probably a fraction of the total non-vaccinating population, at least for preschool aged kids.
If you make a deliberate decision not to do well child care and feel like you are capable of catching various developmental problems I have no beef with you.  I hardy ever go to the doctor and I can remember going only a handful of times growing up.  However, that is, again, a different case than a parent who doesn't go because they can't or just don't care enough too.  Because of the public health issue that I addressed earlier I think it's appropriate for schools to "force parents hands" on that issue.
Not getting routine check ups is certainly not child abuse or neglect, but there are a lot of children who don't get routine check ups that are abused or neglected.

You are perpetuating Bad Mommy Myths about non/sel/del vaxers - That we are conspiracy theorists who don't understand science and listen to Jenny McCarthy. 

And I don't know exactly what you are trying to say here at the end, but it's getting pretty close to the old non-vax = child abuse implication.

In the US, CDC's Vaccines For Children program provides free/extremely discounted vaccines for underinsured/uninsured/medicaid.

[SweetSilver]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

I agree that people who deliberately non vax are probably not that different than vaxxers when it comes to income and education, but I also think they are not the majority of the non Vaxing population. I think people who make an informed and educated choice not to vaccinate are probably a fraction of the total non-vaccinating population, at least for preschool aged kids.
 

I would believe this only if you have some sources to back this up.  I would tend to think those populations in question (not deliberate, philisophical non-vaxers) would have spotty vax records, rather than no vax records.  Low income families are probably eligible for Medicaid for their kids, and are made aware of this if they apply for other assistance, like food stamps and the like.  I have nothing to back my impressions up, they are just that.  I'd like to hear more specifics to support your assumption.

[Rrrrrachel]

Just off the top of my head, research shows that the non-vaccinated population has parents that are poorer and less educated than the vaccinated population.  As I already stated, I think if you looked at the deliberate-informed non-vaccinating population they wouldn't appear that different than the vaxxed population on these two measures.  From that I can only conclude that they are the minority of the non-vaxxed population and therefore not well represented by the statistics.  This is only my impression, hence my use of the word "think."  I'll see if I can't come up with something to back it up, but you're welcome to take it fwiw.

I am not AT ALL intending to perpetuate the bad mommy myth of say anything at all about jenny mccarthy.  You are putting words in my mouth.  I am making a distinction between people who intentionally don't vaccinate based on research they've done and their conclusions about vaccine safety and/or effectiveness and people who don't vaccinate for reasons that are more about poverty and health care access.  

I don't know how it can be getting "pretty close" to that when I specifically said that it wasn't child abuse?

[AbbyGrant]

Compares fully vaccinated, undervaccinated, and unvaccinated children in the US. It's not super current but still has some interesting info. 

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/114/1/187.full
 

[Rrrrrachel]

I was just coming to post that, Abby!  That study is described here: http://www.immunizationinfo.org/science/demographics-unvaccinated-children

It looks like the population I"m thinking of is more undervaccinated than totally unvaccinated, which makes sense.  The stupid thing doesn't like to let me copy and paste, sorry.

[Rrrrrachel]

Very interesting is that only 5% of undervaccinated children's parents expressed concerns about vaccine safety.

[Rrrrrachel]

The full text does a good comparison of vaccination rates vs. state exemptions:

"Using data collected between 1995 and 2001, Fig 2 presents estimated rates of unvaccinated children per 100 000 children 19 to 35 months of age according to state, as well as the District of Columbia. Estimated rates ranged from a low of 60 per 100 000 (Rhode Island) to 1125 per 100 000 (Utah). Among the 10 states with the highest estimated rates per 100 000 children 19 to 35 months of age, 7 were western states (Utah, Montana, Oregon, Colorado, Washington, Alaska, and Idaho). Figure 3 shows that states that allowed philosophical exemptions to laws mandating vaccinations for children as they entered school had significantly higher estimated rates of unvaccinated children 19 to 35 months of age (P < .05)."

[Rrrrrachel]

Always worth mentioning, IMO:

"Results from that study showed that exemptors were 22 times more likely to contract measles and 6 times more likely to contract pertussis than were vaccinated persons. Also, the majority of recent tetanus cases have occurred been among unvaccinated children.²⁹ In a measles outbreak among the Amish in 1987, the attack rate was 1.7% among vaccinated individuals and 73.8% among unvaccinated individuals.^30"

^"In states with loosely enforced state immunization laws, higher measles incidences have been observed.^34–37 A mathematical model constructed using recent data from California indicated that the incidence of acquiring measles increased from 5.5% to 30.8% as the probability of contact between nonexemptors and exemptors increased from 20% to 60%.^38"

[purslaine]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

Always worth mentioning, IMO:

 Also, the majority of recent tetanus cases have occurred been among unvaccinated children.²⁹ 

Huh.  Most sources I have looked at tend to say this, which contradicts what you wrote:

In the United States, tetanus occurs most often in older people. Also at risk for tetanus are farm workers and heroin users. Almost all tetanus cases occur in people who have not been adequately vaccinated against tetanus.

http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/html/imm/immtet.shtml

Was the source the immunization.org link?

[Rrrrrachel]

It's from the pediatrics link that abby posted, which is linked to and summarized at the immunizationinfo.org link.

I think they are saying that most of the cases among the children in the study were in unvaccinated children, not most cases in general.

[AbbyGrant]

I think they meant in cases among children since their study was about children and this is the study they footnoted.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/109/1/e2.full