Statistics on VPD outbreaks and vaccination status - Mothering Forums
Forum Jump: 
 19Likes
  • 1 Post By monkeyscience
  • 3 Post By Turquesa
  • 1 Post By monkeyscience
  • 1 Post By Serenity Now
  • 2 Post By Turquesa
  • 3 Post By applejuice
  • 3 Post By monkeyscience
  • 2 Post By serenbat
  • 2 Post By kathymuggle
  • 1 Post By samaxtics
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 14 Old 06-10-2014, 06:43 PM - Thread Starter
 
monkeyscience's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Bismarck, ND
Posts: 2,129
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 33 Post(s)
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.)
applejuice likes this.

Monkey (30) + Pirate (28) = a forever family (5/10) - Baby Bird (8/12), our long-awaited first, and one (9/13 @ 7w 6d); PCOS
*4***8***12***16***20***24***28**32***36***40** Oct 2014 it's a
monkeyscience is online now  
#2 of 14 Old 06-11-2014, 04:10 PM
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,050
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 29 Post(s)
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?
Turquesa is offline  
#3 of 14 Old 06-11-2014, 05:07 PM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,282
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 139 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by monkeyscience View Post
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 :


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#4 of 14 Old 06-11-2014, 06:47 PM - Thread Starter
 
monkeyscience's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Bismarck, ND
Posts: 2,129
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 33 Post(s)
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".
applejuice likes this.

Monkey (30) + Pirate (28) = a forever family (5/10) - Baby Bird (8/12), our long-awaited first, and one (9/13 @ 7w 6d); PCOS
*4***8***12***16***20***24***28**32***36***40** Oct 2014 it's a
monkeyscience is online now  
#5 of 14 Old 06-11-2014, 07:44 PM
 
Serenity Now's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Free and easy wandering.
Posts: 357
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
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.
Serenity Now is offline  
#6 of 14 Old 06-11-2014, 09:13 PM - Thread Starter
 
monkeyscience's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Bismarck, ND
Posts: 2,129
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 33 Post(s)
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
monkeyscience is online now  
#7 of 14 Old 06-11-2014, 10:08 PM
 
Serenity Now's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Free and easy wandering.
Posts: 357
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
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.
AAK likes this.
Serenity Now is offline  
#8 of 14 Old 06-13-2014, 02:37 PM
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,050
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 29 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by monkeyscience View Post
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 and Deborah like this.

In God we trust; all others must show data. selectivevax.gifsurf.gifteapot2.GIFintactivist.gif
Turquesa is offline  
#9 of 14 Old 06-13-2014, 03:27 PM
 
applejuice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: hunting the wild aebelskiever
Posts: 18,605
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
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.
Deborah, serenbat and Taximom5 like this.
applejuice is offline  
#10 of 14 Old 06-13-2014, 07:50 PM - Thread Starter
 
monkeyscience's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Bismarck, ND
Posts: 2,129
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 33 Post(s)
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.
applejuice, Deborah and serenbat like this.
monkeyscience is online now  
#11 of 14 Old 06-14-2014, 11:44 PM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,706
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 62 Post(s)
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/
prosciencemum is online now  
#12 of 14 Old 06-16-2014, 04:20 AM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,102
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 33 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post
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" -
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%!!!!! just keeps getting more and more desperate on one side doesn't it?
fruitfulmomma and applejuice like this.

 

 pro-transparency advocate

&

lurk.gif  PROUD member of the .3% club!

 

Want to join? Just ask me!

 

"You know, in my day we used to sit on our ass smoking Parliaments for nine months.

Today, you have one piece of Brie and everybody goes berserk."      ROTFLMAO.gif 

serenbat is offline  
#13 of 14 Old 06-16-2014, 06:34 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,872
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 91 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post
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.
applejuice and rachelsmama like this.

There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...


Last edited by kathymuggle; 06-16-2014 at 10:35 AM. Reason: thou shalt not do math pre-caffeine
kathymuggle is offline  
#14 of 14 Old 06-16-2014, 10:19 AM
 
samaxtics's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 335
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 38 Post(s)
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.
applejuice likes this.
samaxtics is online now  
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