Originally Posted by kathymuggle
My stats are fine and you know it. The clarification I posted did indeed back up what I was saying. The measles rate was twice what they exepcted in a vaxxed population. I really have nothing more to say to you on this subject.
Yes, absolutely, the stats in the clarification were fine and did back up what you were saying. They are also the reason why I wrote "Yes, the statistics from that outbreak raised concern over the age the vaccination a those vaccinated younger had a higher attack rate than expected." in my initial post to you since I was already aware of them having posted them a year ago.
But you didn't have those in your initial post. You posted that 52 out of 98 were vaccinated, which did not back up what you were saying at all.
I tried to be careful in my initial posts to keep my criticism focused on the author of the article. It's easy to mix things up in a forum post, most of us our not actually experts, and this i not our life, we are generally researching and posting in the limited time we have while our kids are otherwise distracted, and may be interrupted or distracted at any time (I did not truly appreciate A Room of One's Own until I had kids!) Science writers actually being published and paid should be held to a much higher standard though The author of that article should have known better and should have double checked that the statistics included were actually the right ones to show what was going on, not just the ones that were the most startling.
To me the the 52 out of 98 statistic rings an immediate alarm bell of "warning, warning, incomplete statistics, out of what population" when coupled with discussion of how effective the measles vaccine is because that statistic on its own tells us nothing in regards to that other than that it is not 100%, and thus they are fairly meaningless to me. Obviously they are more meaningful to you though since putting the article URL to the article you got them from in the search box here turns up that it has been posted here seven times, four of those times were from you (incuding this thread) and in three of the four posts you quoted the 52 out of 98 statistic. So I was wondering just what they meant to you, which was all I asked in my first post, and which you still haven't answered.
Originally Posted by kathymuggle
Got it. An asymptomatic non-vaxxer with a VAD is to be vilified for not taking a step (that may or may not have worked, and has risks) to prevent a typically rare or benign diseases - but people who have coughs can wander around in public and that is fine.
Well, in a perfect world, I'd certainly prefer that they stayed home! Alas, who can actually afford to?
How many people have enough sick leave to allow them to stay home every time they or their children get a little bit of a cough? What about single parents, how many have someone wiling to get their groceries and run their errands every time they or their children get a bit of a cough? How many can afford to go to the doctor (especially the uninsured) to find out if they are likely contagious or not every time they or their children have a mild cough?
Our society just isn't designed that way.
It's like driving while exhausted. It kills a lot of people - did you know that it can be nearly as dangerous as driving drunk? The big difference is that you can always choose not to drink when you may have to drive, but you can't just choose not to have the baby wake you up ten times or not to have insomnia. Unless you are fortunate to be able to afford frequent cab fare or are able to take public transportation everywhere, there are only so many times you can call in sick because you are too tired to drive (and how does that go over with your boss) or keep your kids home because you don't feel up to driving them (oh, hello truancy officer), and sometimes you just need groceries and don't have anyone else more awake to go to the store.
Sometimes the safest option just isn't feasible. That's life.
ETA: Also, obviously I believe that vaxing is the right thing to do for anyone for whom it is not medically contradicted, but I also understand that those who are against it feel they have good reasons to be, even if I feel those reasons are misguided, and I challenge you to find one instance where I have demonized them (again, I disagree with a lot of the logic posted against lawsuits in this thread, I do not actually agree with suing people who were just trying to do what they felt was best for everyone). One exception, I may have had some negative words for those who ride herd immunity - people who have said they would likey vax or at least consider vaxing for measles or such if it was still going around, but since it isn't and their kid isn't going to be exposed, they aren't going to, when the only reason it isn't is because other people vax, but even then i think I've tried to keep my words fairly mild. I'm fairy sure I've never posted anything that could be called vilifying someone.
Edited by pers - 7/27/13 at 2:25pm