Mothering Forums

Mothering Forums (http://www.mothering.com/forum/)
-   Vaccinations (http://www.mothering.com/forum/47-vaccinations/)
-   -   Statistics on VPD outbreaks and vaccination status (http://www.mothering.com/forum/47-vaccinations/1422873-statistics-vpd-outbreaks-vaccination-status.html)

monkeyscience 06-10-2014 06:43 PM

Statistics on VPD outbreaks and vaccination status
 
Does anyone know if there are good statistics on the vaccination status of individuals who have been part of "outbreaks" of vaccine-preventable diseases and if there are, where to find them? Either for specific outbreaks, or in general? I'm very curious if data indicates that outbreaks are more common among the vaccinated or the unvaccinated, or if it depends on the particular illness.

I know many people would say this is a stupid question, that outbreaks are undoubtedly more common among the unvaccinated, but I know I've seen reports about outbreaks in which the majority of the infected had actually been vaccinated. (And, of course, outbreaks where the converse is true.)

Turquesa 06-11-2014 04:10 PM

I was delaying a response hoping that someone more knowledgeable would chime in first. Of course most people in outbreaks will be vaccinated. What concerns me is that a *disproportionate* amount, (i.e. one that is not in line with a given vaccine's stated effectiveness), of vaccinated people may be getting VTDs.

I know for sure that getting the data you're seeking can be a tooth-pulling endeavor. The folks at Indiana Coalition for Vaccine Choice call the health department for every VTD outbreak asking for vax-vs. non-vax figures. How readily your health dept coughs up that data, if you'll forgive the word choice, may depend on where you live.

Does anyone know if the CDC consistently aggregates this data for public viewing?

teacozy 06-11-2014 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by monkeyscience (Post 17685569)
Does anyone know if there are good statistics on the vaccination status of individuals who have been part of "outbreaks" of vaccine-preventable diseases and if there are, where to find them? Either for specific outbreaks, or in general? I'm very curious if data indicates that outbreaks are more common among the vaccinated or the unvaccinated, or if it depends on the particular illness.

I know many people would say this is a stupid question, that outbreaks are undoubtedly more common among the unvaccinated, but I know I've seen reports about outbreaks in which the majority of the infected had actually been vaccinated. (And, of course, outbreaks where the converse is true.)

A quick search came up with these stats for the 2014 measles outbreak.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwr...cid=mm6322a4_w

"Most of the 288 measles cases reported this year have been in persons who were unvaccinated (200 [69%]) or who had an unknown vaccination status (58 [20%]); 30 (10%) were in persons who were vaccinated. Among the 195 U.S. residents who had measles and were unvaccinated, 165 (85%) declined vaccination because of religious, philosophical, or personal objections, 11 (6%) were missed opportunities for vaccination, and10 (5%) were too young to receive vaccination (Figure)."

Fun info graphic :

https://scontent-a-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/...45493464_n.png

monkeyscience 06-11-2014 06:47 PM

I know the measles outbreak in Texas this year (or was it last year? time is fuzzy for my preggo brain) was primarily (solely?) among the unvaccinated, mostly at one particular church. But there was another outbreak (I want to say mumps in Ohio, but that could be utter nonsense) that was primarily among vaccinated individuals.

So thus far, it's seeming like, no, no one is aggregating this data.

And interesting point, too, Turquesa, about whether rates in the vaccinated are out of line with the known vaccine effectiveness. I don't have particular doubts about quoted effectiveness rates of vaccines, so I guess I hadn't really thought of it that way. I was more interested because of the people who talk about not wanting their kid to the one who spreads disease far and wide. So I'm curious, percentage-wise, how man vaccinated vs unvaccinated individuals are "spreading the plague". ;)

Serenity Now 06-11-2014 07:44 PM

The CDC does keep this data, but there is so much info on their website that I find it hard to navigate and find. I did find rates on their website for pertussis, measles, and pneumococcal pneumonia. I know they track the data, but I'm not sure how they publish it.

monkeyscience 06-11-2014 09:13 PM

I've had similar experiences with the CDC website. :(

Also, I really wish I'd taken statistics instead of advanced calculus when I got my degree. I think it would have been much more useful. :P

Serenity Now 06-11-2014 10:08 PM

I took 3 college semesters of statistics, and I don't feel like it was enough, lol. The more education I got, the more I realized that I don't really know anything.

Turquesa 06-13-2014 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by monkeyscience (Post 17688945)
I know the measles outbreak in Texas this year (or was it last year? time is fuzzy for my preggo brain) was primarily (solely?) among the unvaccinated, mostly at one particular church. But there was another outbreak (I want to say mumps in Ohio, but that could be utter nonsense) that was primarily among vaccinated individuals.

So thus far, it's seeming like, no, no one is aggregating this data.

And interesting point, too, Turquesa, about whether rates in the vaccinated are out of line with the known vaccine effectiveness. I don't have particular doubts about quoted effectiveness rates of vaccines, so I guess I hadn't really thought of it that way. I was more interested because of the people who talk about not wanting their kid to the one who spreads disease far and wide. So I'm curious, percentage-wise, how man vaccinated vs unvaccinated individuals are "spreading the plague". ;)

That's a good point that I shouldn't assume that everyone shares my skepticism, (cynicism, perhaps), about stated effectiveness. I know that Patient Zero in the 2011 measles outbreak was vaccinated, and Patient Zero in the recent Ohio mumps outbreak was vaccinated. I know that two virologists employed by Merck are suing the corporations for misrepresenting (i.e. exaggerating), the effectiveness of the mumps vaccine. I know that nationally, vaccination rates are at their zenith, and we're still seeing these and other VTD outbreaks in highly vaccinated populations. (I can plug in links later to right when I'm off my mobile, if you'd like and if someone doesn't beat me to it).

So yes, I have questions about vaccine effectiveness.

applejuice 06-13-2014 03:27 PM

I do not know if what I have to offer here is pertinent, but during the measles outbreak of the early 1990s, both my niece and my youngest were too young for the MMR and they both got a mild case of measles. The young interns who examined them were too inexperienced to know what measles looked like, so they did NOT properly identify and diagnose the case of measles that was presented to them. The older more experienced doctor did diagnose my child and my niece, at long last.

I wonder how often young doctors do NOT diagnose diseases properly and therefore the incidence reports from the health departments are wrong.

I do know that young adults diagnosed with chronic bronchitis most probably are misdiagnosed and have pertussis. Nine babies died in Northern CA when the ERs and urgent cares they were brought to did NOT properly nor in a timely manner diagnose them with pertussis in time to be properly treated. The babies were too young for the vaccine. So the answer is to vaccinate the mothers before they are born? No one knows if this will work. There is no evidence that this will help prevent pertussis. Australia has abandoned the coccooning protocol to prevent pertussis because it does not work.

monkeyscience 06-13-2014 07:50 PM

OT, but that was something I liked about our old pediatrician - he was old enough he had SEEN measles cases, and certainly seen a ton of chickenpox. So I felt confident if my son got those illnesses, he would know what it was. I also took his concern about delaying measles vaccination more seriously because he'd actually been up close and in person with measles patients, not just read about it in a book.

prosciencemum 06-14-2014 11:44 PM

Thought this post on the maths of vaccine and outbreak statistics did a good job of explaining why in a highly vaccinated population you often see more cases in vaccinated individuals than unvaccinated even while it's still the case that for a given individual they're less likely to get sick if vaccinated than not.

http://www.redwineandapplesauce.com/...tious-disease/

serenbat 06-16-2014 04:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by prosciencemum (Post 17697970)
Thought this post on the maths of vaccine and outbreak statistics did a good job of explaining why in a highly vaccinated population you often see more cases in vaccinated individuals than unvaccinated even while it's still the case that for a given individual they're less likely to get sick if vaccinated than not.

http://www.redwineandapplesauce.com/...tious-disease/

I read your link - it's laughable IMO

Somehow all those in Ohio or Wales are a result of those who "might have" traveled to India or Southern California?? I know one can spin things and this was pure spin - and this must count as "science" - :laugh
I have asked before but I don't even see the "science" on how many are immune compromised are un-vaccinated and we do know about the .3% yet somehow you must base your "science" on all the .3%!!!!!:lol just keeps getting more and more desperate on one side doesn't it?

kathymuggle 06-16-2014 06:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by prosciencemum (Post 17697970)
Thought this post on the maths of vaccine and outbreak statistics did a good job of explaining why in a highly vaccinated population you often see more cases in vaccinated individuals than unvaccinated even while it's still the case that for a given individual they're less likely to get sick if vaccinated than not.

http://www.redwineandapplesauce.com/...tious-disease/

Your first paragraph is true.

Disease xyz has a vaccine that is 80% effective. 90% of the unvaxxed get the disease if exposed and 20% of the vaxxed population gets xyz if exposed.

room has 1000 people - 950 vaxxed, 50 unvaxxed.
190 vaxxed would get xyz
45 unvaxxed would get xyz.

So. yes…if the vaccination rates are high, the statment "more vaxxed got it than unvaxxed" by itself does not mean a whole lot.

What I do think is relevent is when the efficacy rate that is sold to the public does not line up with what is happening. If we know the population base and the vaccination and unvaxxed rate, we can calculate how many in each category should get the disease. When numbers are consistantly off, that shows a problem.

Mumps is a great example. We have had numerous mumps outbreaks in schools/camps. Schools and camps are lovely populations to study -as they give us solid numbers to analyse. The number of fully vaccinated people who got mumps in recent outbreaks has been higher than it should be.


I don't like the redwine article. The tone is over the top and places the blame on the small amount of unvaccinated people. You are never going to convince all the people to vaccinate - some people cannot vaccinate - building more effective vaccines needs to be the focus (not poo throwing at those who don't). As expected, the article did not touch on those who were hurt by vaccines - only that not-vaccinating puts others at risk. Only those who could be hurt VADs count. One-sided blech.

samaxtics 06-16-2014 10:19 AM

So the author of the article that was linked to believes that anti-vaxxers (whatever that's supposed to mean) don't care at all about immunocompromised children?

That's the problem with these vaccine promoting articles. So many of them are full of ridiculous generalizations, how can they be taken seriously? Especially when, with exception of the live virus vaccines (and even then it is recommended not to get them during treatments), many immunocompromised individuals are encouraged to get the vaccines.

I don't think I've ever come across an article that deals only with the facts at hand; most employ these emotive, erroneous bashings of people who challenge the status quo.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:20 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Resources saved on this page: MySQL 7.14%
vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.