Another herd immunity thread - Page 4 - Mothering Forums
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#91 of 113 Old 02-25-2009, 07:37 AM
 
ema-adama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,392
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
I'll address the rest of your post when I have a minute, but the above interested me. First off, I guess we can all agree that there are a large number of people who aren't going to give their children the nutrition that you are talking about. In some circumstances that can be to do with poverty, but I suspect in the UK/US it has more todo with 'choice'.
DS is sleeping and I am ignoring my messy house... but I'll give it a shot. Yes, in the 1st world it is about 'choice' and again, parents not having information.

Quote:
Second of all, is it the case that if your child is well nourished and isn't already sick with something else that these diseases are harmless?
I think we need to understand the word 'harmless'. I take it to mean no lasting problems and no death.

I realise that it might be a copyright problem for me to type up what I have as it is from a book and not an online article.If you really want to read some articles on this, I suggest you track down a book called Just A Little Prick which has a wealth of information on measles and what the personal risk factors are and the best treatment. From medical literature.

Quote:
This seems to be an important question to have a definitive answer to. It clearly isn't true of smallpox for example, is it true of measles. If you infected 100,000 kids (who gave every outward sign of being healthy) with measles, would there be no deaths or serious complications? If this was the case, it would certainly cause me to reconsider my stance a little.
The parameters that I have understood to be important in a positive outcome following a measles infection are the following:
Good nutrition (worth defining, BTW. I have no idea of what your idea of good nutrition is)
Supplementing with vit A when ill with the measles.
A healthy immune system (again, worth defining)
A clean, non-toxic environment (again, this could be different for different people)
Not dosing the fever with paracetamol or other fever surpressors.
Learning the skills to manage a fever.
A doctor who is not running scared when treating measles, but monitoring for any complications and treating them as the need arises.
Parents confident in their ability to take care of a sick child.

Rather utopian. Not easy to find a population like this. And it sounds like an awful lot of hard work for authorities to create a population like this when there is a cheap, easy vaccine. (with unkown risks and no discussion on what those risks might be, how to prevent them, who is at risk and whether vaccine induced immunity is ever going to live up to the expectations)

But we have strayed very far away from herd immunity. And somehow ended up talking about measles. There are many many other vaccines out there.

What is your stance?

Megan, mama to her little boy (Feb2008) and introducing our little girl (Dec 2010)
ema-adama is offline  
#92 of 113 Old 02-25-2009, 09:31 AM - Thread Starter
 
shuttlt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 516
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ema-adama View Post
But we have strayed very far away from herd immunity. And somehow ended up talking about measles. There are many many other vaccines out there.
Yes, I'd like to keep this focused on herd immunity. I keep talking about measles only to restrict the discussion to try to avoid one person talking about herd immunity for flu, while another talks about herd immunity for smallpox. I don't really care about measles, I just thought by trying to understand what people thought about herd immunity for measles and only measles, I would get a clearer understanding without getting bogged down in the specifics of every vaccine on the market. I only chose measles as it is topical, and hopefully sufficiently representative of the argument as a whole.
shuttlt is offline  
#93 of 113 Old 02-25-2009, 09:54 AM - Thread Starter
 
shuttlt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 516
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ema-adama View Post
DS is sleeping and I am ignoring my messy house... but I'll give it a shot. Yes, in the 1st world it is about 'choice' and again, parents not having information.
I take it you mean, not enough information, in the sense that better nutrition isn't talked about in the context of vaccination? It certainly is talked about and encouraged outside of this context.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ema-adama View Post
I think we need to understand the word 'harmless'. I take it to mean no lasting problems and no death.
I'm happy with that definition.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ema-adama View Post
I realise that it might be a copyright problem for me to type up what I have as it is from a book and not an online article.
Copyright wise, depending on how much you quote, you'd probably be fine. This forum may have rules over and above that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ema-adama View Post
If you really want to read some articles on this, I suggest you track down a book called Just A Little Prick which has a wealth of information on measles and what the personal risk factors are and the best treatment. From medical literature.
I may well do that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ema-adama View Post
The parameters that I have understood to be important in a positive outcome following a measles infection are the following:
Good nutrition (worth defining, BTW. I have no idea of what your idea of good nutrition is)
Supplementing with vit A when ill with the measles.
A healthy immune system (again, worth defining)
A clean, non-toxic environment (again, this could be different for different people)
Not dosing the fever with paracetamol or other fever surpressors.
Learning the skills to manage a fever.
A doctor who is not running scared when treating measles, but monitoring for any complications and treating them as the need arises.
Parents confident in their ability to take care of a sick child.
All good things, which I am sure will result in more positive outcomes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ema-adama View Post
Rather utopian. Not easy to find a population like this. And it sounds like an awful lot of hard work for authorities to create a population like this when there is a cheap, easy vaccine. (with unkown risks and no discussion on what those risks might be, how to prevent them, who is at risk and whether vaccine induced immunity is ever going to live up to the expectations)
I think a lot of people would choose cheap vaccines over making lifestyle choices. Some people choose to eat McDonalds and do no exercise, I'm not sure how one can deal with this and respect their choice. I would definately agree with you utopian criticism.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ema-adama View Post
But we have strayed very far away from herd immunity. And somehow ended up talking about measles. There are many many other vaccines out there.

What is your stance?
Well, this stuff is relevant to herd immunity in as much as I thought you were offering it as an alternative. I had understood your case to be that herd immunity wasn't necessary in the developed world because, so long as people were healthy and well nourished, all doctors had to do was refocus on supporting people though childhood illness and nobody would be harmed. As you admit, it is unlikely that everybody in the population will be healthy and well nourished. I'm interested in your claim that healthy people (can we define that as people who appear healthy and who are well nourished) do not suffer perminant damage from common childhood illnesses.
shuttlt is offline  
#94 of 113 Old 02-25-2009, 10:03 AM
 
ema-adama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,392
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I don't want to monopolize the thread.

Perhaps it will help to discuss whether life long immunity is indeed relevant to herd immunity and also to discuss which vaccines could or could not contribute to herd immunity, and why. (as I do no think that measles and the measles vaccine can be representative of the herd immunity argument for any other disease or vaccine other than measles itself).

Megan, mama to her little boy (Feb2008) and introducing our little girl (Dec 2010)
ema-adama is offline  
#95 of 113 Old 02-25-2009, 10:20 AM
 
carriebft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 6,947
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I think it is impossible to talk about herd immunity without breaking it down into which vaccines work for herd immunity, which are SUPPOSE to (and perhaps argue why they do or don't-- think varicella) and those that cannot create herd immunity.

I suppose I would add another category of those that create herd immunity but have trouble when immunity wanes-- mumps? rubella? I would have to look at the evidence.


Also we can look at hib and prevnar as vaccines in the transmission/herd immunity argument. IMO, these are like measles but with their own unique issues (serotype replacement)

"Parents are simply trustees; they do not own the bodies of their children"-Norm Cohen  Martial arts instructor intactlact.gifhomebirth.jpgnak.gif and mom to 4: DD1 (1/05) DS (7/06) DD2 (5/08) DD3 (2/11)
carriebft is offline  
#96 of 113 Old 02-25-2009, 10:25 AM - Thread Starter
 
shuttlt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 516
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ema-adama View Post
I don't want to monopolize the thread.
OK. I realize we all either have jobs to do, and/or children to look after. I've been enjoying your posts, so I hope you're not going to back away completely.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ema-adama View Post
Perhaps it will help to discuss whether life long immunity is indeed relevant to herd immunity and also to discuss which vaccines could or could not contribute to herd immunity, and why.
Hopefully, I've answered that now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ema-adama View Post
(as I do no think that measles and the measles vaccine can be representative of the herd immunity argument for any other disease or vaccine other than measles itself).
Perhaps not. My fear is that if it becomes about all vaccines, one ends up with all people are unique, every vaccine is different and it becomes much harder to pin it down to numbers so that people (myself included) are actually forced to be specific and concrete about what they mean.
shuttlt is offline  
#97 of 113 Old 02-25-2009, 11:48 AM
 
alegna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 44,408
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
Is there any evidence that this is the case for stuff we vaccinate against? How man people might be effected if this is true? What chronic conditions are measles and mumps felt to protect against? Could you point me in the direction of information on this.
I don't have the links marked, but there is some interesting research out there. Measles I know has been linked with something- can't remember what for the life of me right now Hopefully someone will be along with a link.

-Angela
alegna is offline  
#98 of 113 Old 02-25-2009, 12:04 PM
 
ema-adama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,392
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
I take it you mean, not enough information, in the sense that better nutrition isn't talked about in the context of vaccination? It certainly is talked about and encouraged outside of this context.
Nope, I meant that there are a variety of understandings as to what constitutes good nutrition. It means very different things to different people.


Quote:
I think a lot of people would choose cheap vaccines over making lifestyle choices. Some people choose to eat McDonalds and do no exercise, I'm not sure how one can deal with this and respect their choice. I would definately agree with you utopian criticism.
But would they choose the said vaccine if they knew exactly what the risks were and knew if their child was at risk and if the child was at risk, what would minimize that risk?

Quote:
Well, this stuff is relevant to herd immunity in as much as I thought you were offering it as an alternative. I had understood your case to be that herd immunity wasn't necessary in the developed world because, so long as people were healthy and well nourished, all doctors had to do was refocus on supporting people though childhood illness and nobody would be harmed. As you admit, it is unlikely that everybody in the population will be healthy and well nourished. I'm interested in your claim that healthy people (can we define that as people who appear healthy and who are well nourished) do not suffer perminant damage from common childhood illnesses.
I don't think I ever said herd immunity was not necessary in the developed world. I have said that I do not know how beneficial vaccine induced herd immunity would be, taking waning immunity into consideration, and that not all vaccines are even capable of creating herd immunity. Naturally acquired immunity in childhood would provide herd immunity, theoretically anyway.
And this takes us back to the idea that the whole population recquires vaccination to protect malnourished and sickly children.

Quote:
Originally Posted by carriebft View Post
I think it is impossible to talk about herd immunity without breaking it down into which vaccines work for herd immunity, which are SUPPOSE to (and perhaps argue why they do or don't-- think varicella) and those that cannot create herd immunity.

I suppose I would add another category of those that create herd immunity but have trouble when immunity wanes-- mumps? rubella? I would have to look at the evidence.


Also we can look at hib and prevnar as vaccines in the transmission/herd immunity argument. IMO, these are like measles but with their own unique issues (serotype replacement)
All good points. I have been thinking about hib and prevnar, and with the numbers of children being affected from menigitis not really changing, it's a kind of herd immunity, but one that doesn't mean anything in real life, and only makes things more complicated and possibly even dangerous.

Quote:
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
OK. I realize we all either have jobs to do, and/or children to look after. I've been enjoying your posts, so I hope you're not going to back away completely.
If the dog stays quiet and DS keeps sleeping, I might actually get this post done. I've also been enjoying your posts and I think this thread is very interesting.

I am still curious as to why you think life long immunity is not essential to herd immunity.

Quote:
Perhaps not. My fear is that if it becomes about all vaccines, one ends up with all people are unique, every vaccine is different and it becomes much harder to pin it down to numbers so that people (myself included) are actually forced to be specific and concrete about what they mean.
I can see your point. However, as carriebft pointed out, you just cannot discuss herd immunity from vaccinations without going into each disease and the vaccine as they are unique. And 'unfortunatly' all people are unique. The only thing I think you can discuss without going into specifics is why herd immunity would work with anything less than life long immunity.

Megan, mama to her little boy (Feb2008) and introducing our little girl (Dec 2010)
ema-adama is offline  
#99 of 113 Old 02-25-2009, 12:23 PM
 
Ophelia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: MinneSNOWta
Posts: 2,445
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by alegna View Post
I don't have the links marked, but there is some interesting research out there. Measles I know has been linked with something- can't remember what for the life of me right now Hopefully someone will be along with a link.

-Angela
This?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...?dopt=Abstract

Quote:
There are data to suggest that measles, hepatitis A, and Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection in early life may prevent the subsequent development of atopic diseases

DS 2006 nocirc.gif DiaperFreeBaby angel1.gif March 2010, DD 2011

Ophelia is offline  
#100 of 113 Old 02-25-2009, 12:48 PM - Thread Starter
 
shuttlt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 516
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ema-adama View Post
Nope, I meant that there are a variety of understandings as to what constitutes good nutrition. It means very different things to different people.
What do you mean by it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ema-adama View Post
But would they choose the said vaccine if they knew exactly what the risks were and knew if their child was at risk and if the child was at risk, what would minimize that risk?
It probably depends how you ask the question. People still feed their children junk even though they have been told the harm it does. I don't see that they would necessarily behave differently. Also, the issue is complicated and a lot of people are not going to want to bother. I've put quite a few hours into this, and I'm in no position to make an informed judgement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ema-adama View Post
I don't think I ever said herd immunity was not necessary in the developed world.
Sorry. I'll take down the straw mother

Quote:
Originally Posted by ema-adama View Post
I have said that I do not know how beneficial vaccine induced herd immunity would be, taking waning immunity into consideration, and that not all vaccines are even capable of creating herd immunity.
By waning immunity, do you mean something todo with people who are immune because they caught the virus in the wild are more immune than people who have been vaccinated, hence waning immunity as fewer and fewer people encounter it. Or, do you mean something else? In my ignorance I am unsure.

As for not all vaccines being considered capable of herd immunity. Presumably that is an accepted fact that even the WHO would fully support.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ema-adama View Post
Naturally acquired immunity in childhood would provide herd immunity, theoretically anyway.
That is a totally different kind of herd immunity. In that herd immunity you have continuously circulating illnesses and epidemics.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ema-adama View Post
And this takes us back to the idea that the whole population recquires vaccination to protect malnourished and sickly children.
Which is true, but I have yet to be convinced that it is only children that you know are sick who are at risk. Viruses are like vaccines in this respect. In either case there is a very small risk of something bad happening. It will always be the case that that bad thing happened for a reason, whether it is a Mitochondrial problem, or malnutrition. The question is whether these things are identifiable ahead of time. Every single measles death that there has ever been is because the person who died was weaker in some respect than others who lived, unless you are able to identify these people ahead of time that does you no good. The number of people who would get infected if you stopped vaccinating is so huge that you are bound to find people who are weak in some respect without anybody knowing. What you need to do it quantify it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ema-adama View Post
I am still curious as to why you think life long immunity is not essential to herd immunity.
Anything less than lifelong immunity has the effect of reducing the percentage of people in the population who are immune. If that number is reduced past the percentage you need for herd immunity, it's a problem and you need a booster, if not it's not a problem.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ema-adama View Post
I can see your point. However, as carriebft pointed out, you just cannot discuss herd immunity from vaccinations without going into each disease and the vaccine as they are unique. And 'unfortunatly' all people are unique. The only thing I think you can discuss without going into specifics is why herd immunity would work with anything less than life long immunity.
But many people on the forum seem to reject herd immunity out of hand. Have they considered it and found different reasons for every vaccine, is there really no general argument against herd immunity? Do we all agree that herd immunity for some stuff we vaccinate for works and is a good thing? Must we discuss every disease that we vaccinate against in order to discuss herd immunity?

As for all people being unique, sure we are unique, but on a bell curve. There is a lot we have in common, a lot that we can say in general and bounds on our uniqueness.
shuttlt is offline  
#101 of 113 Old 02-25-2009, 02:28 PM
 
mamakay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in la la land, or so they say...
Posts: 8,995
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ophelia View Post
There's also this:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1030143318.htm


Quote:
In the 1970s, measles infections were observed to cause regression of pre-existing cancer tumors in children. This information was noted, but nothing was done to study this phenomenon until the late 1990s, when under the direction of Stephen Russell, M.D., Ph.D., Mayo Clinic Cancer Center's Molecular Medicine Program began looking into it, resulting in the current study and other related projects
mamakay is offline  
#102 of 113 Old 02-25-2009, 02:37 PM
 
mamakay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in la la land, or so they say...
Posts: 8,995
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
And this:

http://www.latimes.com/features/heal...ck=1&cset=true

Quote:
IN the 1890s, a New York surgeon named William Coley tested a radical cancer treatment. He took a hypodermic needle teeming with bacteria and plunged it into the flesh of patients.
After suffering through weeks of chills and fevers, many showed significant regression of their tumors, but even Coley himself could not explain the phenomenon.

His experiments were sparked by the observation that certain cancer patients improved after contracting infections. One patient experienced regression in a tumor in her arm after developing Saint Anthony's fire, a streptococcus skin infection.
None of this is really an argument against vaccination in general, but simply a signal that perhaps we are specifically adapted to our environment, and any radical changes to this environment should be undertaken with a certain amount of caution.
mamakay is offline  
#103 of 113 Old 02-25-2009, 02:46 PM
 
mamakay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in la la land, or so they say...
Posts: 8,995
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Natural is not always better. Botulism toxin is natural, but if there's an argument that preventing foodborn botulism has some secret "hidden cost", I've never heard it.
But on the flipside, when the use of formula became widespread in the US, no one had any idea about what we were losing. There were hidden costs there, and that's one of those cases where natural IS better.

So...you just never know. I believe in progress, but in also proceeding with caution.
mamakay is offline  
#104 of 113 Old 02-25-2009, 03:16 PM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 6,254
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 62 Post(s)
If we call progress "change" then we'll have a better sense of how it actually plays out.

England in the late 18th and early 19th century underwent a phenomena called the industrial revolution. One part of this was that millions of people moved from villages in the countryside into cities, where they lived in unbelievably horrid slums. Infectious disease epidemics killed huge numbers of people.

Did these people die because they didn't have vaccines? Did they die because they were living in filthy, overcrowded conditions? Did they die because they were malnourished and overworked? Did they die because they had grown up in isolated villages where they had limited exposure to infectious illnesses?

The industrial revolution was progress. It also had a lot of problems. Change is risky.

My concern with vaccines, looking at the big picture, is the insane optimism with which vaccines are added to the schedule. Possible problems and unforseen results are not considered.

Mumps is a perfect example of insane optimism. The death rate from mumps is so low as to be almost impossible to calculate. One article I saw projected millions of cases and 11 deaths. Unless a vaccine is totally risk free, this doesn't make sense, honest!

Or the shingles/chickenpox problem.
Deborah is online now  
#105 of 113 Old 02-25-2009, 03:53 PM
 
ema-adama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,392
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ophelia View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
What do you mean by it?
Freshly prepared food made from organic mineral rich food. Little to no processed sugar. Whole foods. Baked and steamed foods.

Quote:
It probably depends how you ask the question. People still feed their children junk even though they have been told the harm it does. I don't see that they would necessarily behave differently. Also, the issue is complicated and a lot of people are not going to want to bother. I've put quite a few hours into this, and I'm in no position to make an informed judgement.
I've put more than a year every day and I am nowhere near making an informed decision. It would be much easier if you didn't need to ferrit the information out of mountains of information that doesn't really mean anything.

Quote:
By waning immunity, do you mean something todo with people who are immune because they caught the virus in the wild are more immune than people who have been vaccinated, hence waning immunity as fewer and fewer people encounter it. Or, do you mean something else? In my ignorance I am unsure.
No. Waning immunity as in the vaccinated person's immunity disappears. Although immunity might not be the right word. Antibody titres disappear.
Quote:
As for not all vaccines being considered capable of herd immunity. Presumably that is an accepted fact that even the WHO would fully support.
I understand that this is not an idea you are comfortable with. At the risk of completley derailing the thread, I would recommend you do some reading yourself to look into just which vaccines can theoretically contribute to herd immunity and which can't. No, it is not common knowledge. That does not make it less accurate.
Quote:
That is a totally different kind of herd immunity. In that herd immunity you have continuously circulating illnesses and epidemics.
What makes you think vaccination can stop the disease circulating?


Quote:
Which is true, but I have yet to be convinced that it is only children that you know are sick who are at risk.
I hope you can find the information that will convince you either way.

Quote:
Viruses are like vaccines in this respect. In either case there is a very small risk of something bad happening.
I am not sure we agree here. I think we know a lot more about just how risky the virus can be and not a whole lot on just how risky the vaccine can be. I would not choose to compare them when it comes to taking a risk.

Quote:
It will always be the case that that bad thing happened for a reason, whether it is a Mitochondrial problem, or malnutrition. The question is whether these things are identifiable ahead of time.
Of course. Again, we know more about how to predict who is at risk for the disease than we know how to predict who is at risk for the vaccine.

Quote:
Every single measles death that there has ever been is because the person who died was weaker in some respect than others who lived, unless you are able to identify these people ahead of time that does you no good.
What makes you think you cannot identify these people ahead of time?

Quote:
The number of people who would get infected if you stopped vaccinating is so huge that you are bound to find people who are weak in some respect without anybody knowing. What you need to do it quantify it.
I do not think anyone seriously would propose stopping vaccinating overnight. Of course the segments of the population who are risk would need to be identifiable. I think they have been identified. Again, this is all very theoretical.
This made me think of a project in South Africa where Australian gum trees were brought in to dry up swamps. But then the gum trees starting to take over the indiginous vegetation and it just created a mess. Until 'they' discovered another use for them - that they hold together eroding soil, preventing donga's (mini ravines). But they did have to import a type of wasp that prevented fertilization of the gum trees, which caused it's own problems, I can't remember what.
I'm am writing this down, as I think it has relevance when assessing the vaccine induced immunity. We do not know what we are introducing and we do not know what the long term effects will be. We very well could end up with unforeseen problems and a bit of a mess.
Quote:
Anything less than lifelong immunity has the effect of reducing the percentage of people in the population who are immune. If that number is reduced past the percentage you need for herd immunity, it's a problem and you need a booster, if not it's not a problem.
Very simple. But why would I want boosters when I can do without them? (and all the extras that come with each shot - extras that they have no idea what the safe amount is and have never done any real studies to determine just what they do in the body). And who in the adult population is up to date with their boosters (outside hospital staff?)

Quote:
But many people on the forum seem to reject herd immunity out of hand. Have they considered it and found different reasons for every vaccine, is there really no general argument against herd immunity?
The most compelling argument that I know of is the life long immunity one. And that not all vaccines create herd immunity.

Quote:
Do we all agree that herd immunity for some stuff we vaccinate for works and is a good thing?
In the case of measles I think it could work, but I am not sure. I do not think it is a good thing, because of shifting epidemiology. And not knowing just how this will all pan out. We do not know what we do not know.

Quote:
Must we discuss every disease that we vaccinate against in order to discuss herd immunity?
In order to establish if there is any merit to the argument the vaccine does indeed contribute to herd immunity, yes. It is a gross assumption to believe all vaccines create herd immunity.

Quote:
As for all people being unique, sure we are unique, but on a bell curve. There is a lot we have in common, a lot that we can say in general and bounds on our uniqueness.
Are you not curious about what unique factors you have that would make you safer or more at risk for the disease and the vaccine? Or am I missing something.

Megan, mama to her little boy (Feb2008) and introducing our little girl (Dec 2010)
ema-adama is offline  
#106 of 113 Old 02-25-2009, 04:01 PM
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Not in a bubble!
Posts: 1,875
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deborah View Post
If we call progress "change" then we'll have a better sense of how it actually plays out.

England in the late 18th and early 19th century underwent a phenomena called the industrial revolution. One part of this was that millions of people moved from villages in the countryside into cities, where they lived in unbelievably horrid slums. Infectious disease epidemics killed huge numbers of people.

Did these people die because they didn't have vaccines? Did they die because they were living in filthy, overcrowded conditions? Did they die because they were malnourished and overworked? Did they die because they had grown up in isolated villages where they had limited exposure to infectious illnesses?

The industrial revolution was progress. It also had a lot of problems. Change is risky.

My concern with vaccines, looking at the big picture, is the insane optimism with which vaccines are added to the schedule. Possible problems and unforseen results are not considered.

Mumps is a perfect example of insane optimism. The death rate from mumps is so low as to be almost impossible to calculate. One article I saw projected millions of cases and 11 deaths. Unless a vaccine is totally risk free, this doesn't make sense, honest!

Or the shingles/chickenpox problem.
I think that this is a great post that needs to be repeated!
ParisApril is offline  
#107 of 113 Old 02-25-2009, 04:18 PM
 
ema-adama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,392
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deborah View Post
If we call progress "change" then we'll have a better sense of how it actually plays out.

England in the late 18th and early 19th century underwent a phenomena called the industrial revolution. One part of this was that millions of people moved from villages in the countryside into cities, where they lived in unbelievably horrid slums. Infectious disease epidemics killed huge numbers of people.

Did these people die because they didn't have vaccines? Did they die because they were living in filthy, overcrowded conditions? Did they die because they were malnourished and overworked? Did they die because they had grown up in isolated villages where they had limited exposure to infectious illnesses?

The industrial revolution was progress. It also had a lot of problems. Change is risky.

My concern with vaccines, looking at the big picture, is the insane optimism with which vaccines are added to the schedule. Possible problems and unforseen results are not considered.

Mumps is a perfect example of insane optimism. The death rate from mumps is so low as to be almost impossible to calculate. One article I saw projected millions of cases and 11 deaths. Unless a vaccine is totally risk free, this doesn't make sense, honest!

Or the shingles/chickenpox problem.
:

Megan, mama to her little boy (Feb2008) and introducing our little girl (Dec 2010)
ema-adama is offline  
#108 of 113 Old 02-25-2009, 04:37 PM
 
Proverbs31's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 602
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
What do you mean by it?
Viruses are like vaccines in this respect. In either case there is a very small risk of something bad happening.
Perhaps in the short-term, but the long-term effects of vaccination are not yet known (or are at least kept on the quite). Shoot, look at SV40!
Proverbs31 is offline  
#109 of 113 Old 02-26-2009, 10:58 PM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 6,254
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 62 Post(s)
I think vaccination is a wonderful example of the wrong solution to the wrong problem way too late.

Childhood epidemics used to kill a lot of babies and children. High infant mortality was a huge problem. By the time vaccines had been developed and came into common use, in developed countries, infant and child mortality had gone down by a huge amount. I won't say that vaccines had no effect at all, but the effect was marginal. I'm going to leave polio out of this discussion for the moment, because there are factors in this case that make it a poor fit for the general concept.

The problem was no longer a large number of deaths. Some diseases had almost vanished. Other diseases were still common, but fatalities had dropped to the point where death was a rare consequence of the illness. The question was not: "will we save many thousands of lives by vaccinating", but "will we reduce or eliminate this particular childhood illness by vaccinating."

At that point, the wrong question was asked. The question which should have been addressed was why did some children have terrible complications and die of what was generally a minor childhood rite of passage. This would have been an immensely helpful path of research and would have boosted the general health of the population enormously.

But instead they went the route of trying to eliminate some of the childhood illnesses. So far, not a single one has been eliminated. Smallpox was never limited to childhood, so it doesn't really enter into this debate.

Anyway, that is my take on the problem, for what it is worth.
Deborah is online now  
#110 of 113 Old 02-27-2009, 01:20 PM
 
ema-adama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,392
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deborah View Post
At that point, the wrong question was asked. The question which should have been addressed was why did some children have terrible complications and die of what was generally a minor childhood rite of passage. This would have been an immensely helpful path of research and would have boosted the general health of the population enormously.

But instead they went the route of trying to eliminate some of the childhood illnesses.
So far, not a single one has been eliminated. Smallpox was never limited to childhood, so it doesn't really enter into this debate.

Anyway, that is my take on the problem, for what it is worth.
Yup. This makes lots of sense to me.

Megan, mama to her little boy (Feb2008) and introducing our little girl (Dec 2010)
ema-adama is offline  
#111 of 113 Old 02-28-2009, 01:00 PM
 
Marnica's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 5,585
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by carriebft View Post
I don't know about your school, but the college I went to required an MMR booster if you had only had one dose or had no vaccination record.
So the lifetime immunity assumptions is based on 2 doses?

I just found my childhood vax record and I have to say it makes NO sense to me.

I was born in July of 1972. I had a series of DTP in 1973 Another in August of 1976 and another in July of 1986
I had the Polio vax series (3 in all) in 1973. Then another in August of 1976

The MMR I didn't have at all until 1989 for the first time??? and then again in 1991 when enetring college?
WTH???
Oh something else very interesting is that the lot numbers, manufacterer columns etc are blank...what a suprise!

If the people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." Thomas Jefferson.

Marnica is offline  
#112 of 113 Old 03-19-2009, 05:45 AM
 
ema-adama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,392
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I've been thinking about this. I had understood herd immunity to be a % of the overall population that has to be immune in order to prevent the spread of infectious disease.

ShuttIt has defined it as a fire break that becomes more effective with a higher number of people being immune. That it is about local groups and their level of immunity (through vaccination or exposure to illness)

Can you have herd immunity without the threshhold percentage? Is the threshold percentage the percentage needed to remove the illness from circulation altogether?

I'm having a hard time figuring out what threshhold % has to do with the fire break effect.

Perhaps I am overly confusing myself

Megan, mama to her little boy (Feb2008) and introducing our little girl (Dec 2010)
ema-adama is offline  
#113 of 113 Old 03-19-2009, 07:09 AM - Thread Starter
 
shuttlt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 516
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ema-adama View Post
I've been thinking about this. I had understood herd immunity to be a % of the overall population that has to be immune in order to prevent the spread of infectious disease.

ShuttIt has defined it as a fire break that becomes more effective with a higher number of people being immune. That it is about local groups and their level of immunity (through vaccination or exposure to illness)

Can you have herd immunity without the threshhold percentage? Is the threshold percentage the percentage needed to remove the illness from circulation altogether?

I'm having a hard time figuring out what threshhold % has to do with the fire break effect.

Perhaps I am overly confusing myself
I hope I didn't confuse things. A lot of what I posted was me thinking out loud. Perhaps I should clarify my current thinking.....

As I understand it, you need a population of a couple of hundred thousand, plus or minus a bit, depending on the disease and the specifics of the population to allow for continuous circulation within the population. To take an extreme case, if nobody in Manhattan vaccinated, it doesn't matter that New York state might be above the herd immunity threshold, you will still have continuously circulating disease in New York State. Conversely, you could have herd immunity within Manhattan, but not for New York State as a whole, infectious diseases would circulate continuously within the state, but not the Manhattan.

All the herd immunity threshold tells you is that IF immunity is uniformly distributed through the population then all outbreaks, given sufficient time, will die out. Lower levels of immunity will, I assume, just slow down the rate at which the outbreak spreads.

As for whether you can have herd immunity while being below the herd immunity threshold. Technically, probably not. Having said that, any population less than a couple of hundred thousand people is too small to have continuously circulating infectious disease.

In the context of local groups of less than 200,000 people, all outbreaks will come from outside the group (or from vaccines). Herd immunity, as I understand it, in this context will dictate the rate at which a given outbreak will die out.

Another point is that herd immunity thresholds are based on assumptions about the infectiousness of a given disease. That is hugely impacted by living conditions. If you live in a big city you will probably have the opportunity to infect many more people than if you live on a farm and your neighbour lives a mile away. I would have thought that this would act to reduce the herd immunity threshold that you need to cause all outbreaks to die out.

Finally, as to whether the threshold percentage is percentage needed to remove the illness from circulation altogether, I would say NO. It is the level of immunity required to guarantee any given outbreak will come to an end. In the manhattan/New York State example, you will continually be getting new infections coming in from outside. Vaccination also complicated things as, as we all know, vaccines can in and of themselves cause new outbreaks.

Remember though, I'm making this up as I go. The above is just a bunch of stuff that seems plausible to me.
shuttlt is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off