Are Unvaccinated People Causing the Whooping Cough Epidemics? - Page 2

[rachelsmama]

Originally Posted by WendyAdams 

It's interesting how those who oppose vaccination tend to quickly move to emotive rhethoric.   I would like to see an instance of "vaccine education" money being used to bully parents into vaccinating, if I asked would you supply it?    In New South Wales in Australia they are about to embark on better education for parents as the majority of parents who do not vaccinate do so out of ignorance rather than an objection to vaccination.  It is important that people are armed with the facts, not the misinformation plied by the anti vaccination lobby groups.  People need to understand the real risks and the real benefits, in order to make an informed choice.   The term bullying infers people are forced into decisions and that simply isn't the case.  When I chose not to immunise (the MMR) I was not bullied, or punished, or spoken down to.  I was given the information to further study and that was all. 

Nowhere did I claim to be anti-vax, I simply pointed out the glaring inaccuracies in your post, which sounds like it is being heavily influenced by your grief. We live in different countries, so maybe things are quite different there, but people making uninformed vaccination decisions here are predominantly fully vaxinating, and yes, bully tactics are used; not universally, but they're used.

I am over estimating nothing, the vaccines are effective.  It's my experience that the anti vaccination crowd apply theory that if it isn't 100% effective, it's ineffective and that's not true.  History and current comparison between countries shows us that vaccination is an effective way of minimising the impact of these diseases.    If everyone were vaccinated against whooping cough the disease would have died out, it's the waning vaccination that has allowed the current situation to  occur.  That and the fact that the whooping cough immunisation isn't as effective as the previous one, it was changed because there were too many reactions to it.   Big Pharma changed something to improve safety, that's a concept many will not accept.

You need to be more specific.  Some vaccines are fairly effective, some are less so.  Just because there's a vaccine doesn't mean there's a chance of eliminating the disease; diseases exist because they are adaptable.

Yes, it's tragic that any child has to die due to a vaccine preventable disease in this day and age.  More so for my friend as she believes that she infected her own son on the first day she was allowed to see him out of NICU and she had discussed being vaccinated before he was born and wasn't made aware of the risk, there are too many people out there who minimise or discount the risk.

Yes, it's tragic when a child dies, but unfortunately it happens.  Some children die from diseases for which vaccines exist, some children die from vaccine reactions, some children die because there is no hospital available, some children die because hospitals are a good place to catch a bad infection.  All of those deaths are tragic, and none of those risks can be completely eliminated without raising a different risk.  Many people that you see as minimising a risk simply have a different preference than you about which risk to face. 

[Marnica]

Originally Posted by WendyAdams 

It's interesting how those who oppose vaccination tend to quickly move to emotive rhethoric.   I would like to see an instance of "vaccine education" money being used to bully parents into vaccinating, if I asked would you supply it?    In New South Wales in Australia they are about to embark on better education for parents as the majority of parents who do not vaccinate do so out of ignorance rather than an objection to vaccination.  It is important that people are armed with the facts, not the misinformation plied by the anti vaccination lobby groups.  People need to understand the real risks and the real benefits, in order to make an informed choice.   The term bullying infers people are forced into decisions and that simply isn't the case.  When I chose not to immunise (the MMR) I was not bullied, or punished, or spoken down to.  I was given the information to further study and that was all. 

I am over estimating nothing, the vaccines are effective.  It's my experience that the anti vaccination crowd apply theory that if it isn't 100% effective, it's ineffective and that's not true.  History and current comparison between countries shows us that vaccination is an effective way of minimising the impact of these diseases.    If everyone were vaccinated against whooping cough the disease would have died out, it's the waning vaccination that has allowed the current situation to  occur.  That and the fact that the whooping cough immunisation isn't as effective as the previous one, it was changed because there were too many reactions to it.   Big Pharma changed something to improve safety, that's a concept many will not accept.

Yes, it's tragic that any child has to die due to a vaccine preventable disease in this day and age.  More so for my friend as she believes that she infected her own son on the first day she was allowed to see him out of NICU and she had discussed being vaccinated before he was born and wasn't made aware of the risk, there are too many people out there who minimise or discount the risk.

Here is a newsflash for you. There are many highly informed/ highly educated moms/dads and families that have examined the available data/science and have come to the conclusion that it is better/safer for their child to remain unvaccinated. I am one of those mothers. I am armed with the facts and I do understand the real risks and real benefits and I assure you my choice came after YEARS of research that began YEARS before I even had children. On another thread you said that Kathy's response gave you a lot of information about her personality. Your posts do as well. It is quite clear that you cannot accept that any person who is truly informed would choose not to vaccinate. We all must be getting duped by that pesky misinformation right? WRONG. 

[japonica]

Originally Posted by WendyAdams 

It's interesting how those who oppose vaccination tend to quickly move to emotive rhethoric.   I would like to see an instance of "vaccine education" money being used to bully parents into vaccinating, if I asked would you supply it?    In New South Wales in Australia they are about to embark on better education for parents as the majority of parents who do not vaccinate do so out of ignorance rather than an objection to vaccination.  It is important that people are armed with the facts, not the misinformation plied by the anti vaccination lobby groups.  People need to understand the real risks and the real benefits, in order to make an informed choice.   The term bullying infers people are forced into decisions and that simply isn't the case.  When I chose not to immunise (the MMR) I was not bullied, or punished, or spoken down to.  I was given the information to further study and that was all. 

Neither of my children are vaccinated yet. We've been discussing a very select few vaccines with our GP. I've never relied on any so called anti-vax lobby group for my information. I'm perfectly capable of finding the published, peer-reviewed studies on line. I'm also completely capable of bringing said studies to my GP to discuss. I think many people give internet groups way too much credibility for supposedly swaying the thinking of questioning parents. In my circle, I've yet to meet one person who confesses that their children are unvaccinated solely because the AVN or NVIC told them to withhold vaccines.

It's important the facts get out on both sides. There's also a myth perpetuated in the media here in Australia that unless your kids are brought up to date, they cannot receive the Family Tax Benefit. This gets spouted in all the pro-immunisation stories. Yet, CO forms are still accepted and families can still receive the FTB if there is a CO in place. Same with the old chestnut about school. An ER physician once threatened me with: "Your children will never be able to attend school anywhere in this state without being up to date!" Hmph. They've been enrolled in three schools, only with a CO form, without any problem.

As for the point of whooping cough and vaccination, it's n=1 and completely anecdotal, but in our family, it was my husband (up-to-date with boosters) whose nagging atypical cough turned out to be pertussis. He passed it along to DS (then 23 months old), and at the first whoop, I knew then what we were dealing with. DS recovered faster than my husband did and did not suffer any complications. Our GP knows this and knows that we will never consent to a pertussis vaccine that seems to give someone with a clinical case a milder, atypical cough that means he goes around spreading it far and wide. 

[Turquesa]

Originally Posted by WendyAdams 

Actually, your statements are incorrect.  Unvaccinated people are most definitely responsible for the whooping cough epidemics.

Actually, my statements are correct. They come straight from the mouths of infectious disease specialists at the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. If you take issue with their science and data, I suggest you take it up directly with them.

By the by, last year in the US, there was a pertussis outbreak in Long Island, NY. 100% were vaccinated. I can't C & P but look it up.

[prosciencemum]

13 children in Smithtown, NY had pertussis in June 2011. Reportedly they were all vaccinated. http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/06/21/suffolk-county-officials-report-whooping-cough-outbreak-in-smithtown/

[prosciencemum]

Although huffington post reports 38 cases in what looks like the same outbreak. No comment on vaccination status

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/30/whooping-cough-new-york_n_887798.html

[prosciencemum]

Oh, and this article from June 2011 on CBS says it was at least 40 people affected. How come the anti-vaccination sites only mention 13 vaccinated children?

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/06/29/long-island-officials-warn-of-rapidly-spreading-whooping-cough-virus/

[kathymuggle]

Originally Posted by prosciencemum 

Oh, and this article from June 2011 on CBS says it was at least 40 people affected. How come the anti-vaccination sites only mention 13 vaccinated children?
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/06/29/long-island-officials-warn-of-rapidly-spreading-whooping-cough-virus/

Are you saying cbslocal is antivax?  That is the link you gave that is associated with the 13 cases.  I read it, and it did not seem anti vax at all  (in fact, there was the usual dribble about how their cases were milder because they were vaxxed)

[prosciencemum]

Originally Posted by kathymuggle 


Are you saying cbslocal is antivax?  That is the link you gave that is associated with the 13 cases.  I read it, and it did not seem anti vax at all  (in fact, there was the usual dribble about how their cases were milder because they were vaxxed)

No not at all. You can also find the "information" reported lots of other places online I chose not to link. Google them. I just think the CBS article was an early report and the first confirmed cases happened to be vaccinated.

We've talked before about how with relatively high vaccination rates, when there is an outbreak it can easily be dominated by vaccinated people, and thats not inconsistent with vaccinated people still being less likely to catch the disease. 8-23 times less likely are the numbers I know for pertussis (from a range of studies previously linked on other threads).

[kathymuggle]

Originally Posted by prosciencemum 


No not at all. You can also find the "information" reported lots of other places online I chose not to link. Google them. I just think the CBS article was an early report and the first confirmed cases happened to be vaccinated.
We've talked before about how with relatively high vaccination rates, when there is an outbreak it can easily be dominated by vaccinated people, and thats not inconsistent with vaccinated people still being less likely to catch the disease. 8-23 times less likely are the numbers I know for pertussis (from a range of studies previously linked on other threads).

8 is the number given by the CDC.

23 is some number Rachel pulled out of a small study, and she has never given any other proof for that number as far as I know.

Per the bolded, I agree.  I have never disagreed.  The math is on your side in this case.

I am not going to bother looking up the 13 cases elsewhere.  I don't disbelief you.  That being said, you were the one making the point, so I think the onus is on you to provide the links if you feel it is worth it.  

Edited by kathymuggle - 12/28/12 at 2:44pm

[Rrrrrachel]

Uh, define "very small"

[kathymuggle]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

Uh, define "very small"

 You yourself admitted it was a small study.  "Very" is a subjective word.  I will edit it out, and we can leave it rachel linked one small study (which you did)

[Rrrrrachel]

Small is not the same as meaningless. Especially when studying something that isn't rare. I provided evidence for the 23 number. No one is claiming that's the only estimate around.