80% of those with mumps in recent "outbreak" had some or all of their shots

317 Views 7 Replies 7 Participants Last post by simonee, Apr 3, 2006

pumpkinsmama

Discussion Starter · Mar 30, 2006

Check this article out, it was posted in Vaccination forum by Dmitrizmom http://www.mothering.com/discussions...d.php?t=429967

the article itself: http://www.qctimes.net/articles/2006...5291198319.txt

I found it quite amusing! It is easy to leave comments, it takes about a day to show up. ETA article link... oops!

See less See more

Save

1 - 8 of 8 Posts

Anuska

· #2 · Mar 30, 2006

That's a point I make when signing exemptions from Vax's for my kids.

Save

tboroson

· #3 · Mar 30, 2006

Wow...

Ok, I'm all for not vaxxing (or at least for delaying vax for MMR until very, very late because the disease does become more dangerous as the person gets older).

But, to be fair, I have one point to make - the interpretation of statistics that the comments were using was incorrect. The article didn't state what percentage of the state population was immunized. But, if 98% of the population is immunized, and 95% of those immunizations are successful, then 4.9 out of 100 people were immunized yet still susceptible. 2 out of that same 100 were never immunized. So, let's say that fifty percent of all susceptible kids got the mumps in an outbreak. That means one unvaccinated kid would get it. 2.245 vaccinated kids would get it. Looks like "more" vaccinated people got it than non-vaccinated? After all, 69% of the population who actually has the disease were immunized for it. But, no, actually only 2.3% of the vaccinated population got the disease, while fifty percent of the unvaccinated population got it.

See less See more

Save

Kia

· #4 · Mar 30, 2006

reading the pp's words made me think that I was listening to my husband, a statistician. Are you sure you are not my husband?

See less See more

Save

BabyOsMommy

· #5 · Mar 30, 2006

In Canada they give a second dose of MMR at 18mo now because 10% of the population never develops immunity with the first dose at 13mo. So everyone gets 2 doses because of 10%... which I have a huge problem with, but I'm preaching to the choir here.

Save

DaryLLL

· #6 · Apr 3, 2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by tboroson
Wow...

Ok, I'm all for not vaxxing (or at least for delaying vax for MMR until very, very late because the disease does become more dangerous as the person gets older).

But, to be fair, I have one point to make - the interpretation of statistics that the comments were using was incorrect. The article didn't state what percentage of the state population was immunized. But, if 98% of the population is immunized, and 95% of those immunizations are successful, then 4.9 out of 100 people were immunized yet still susceptible. 2 out of that same 100 were never immunized. So, let's say that fifty percent of all susceptible kids got the mumps in an outbreak. That means one unvaccinated kid would get it. 2.245 vaccinated kids would get it. Looks like "more" vaccinated people got it than non-vaccinated? After all, 69% of the population who actually has the disease were immunized for it. But, no, actually only 2.3% of the vaccinated population got the disease, while fifty percent of the unvaccinated population got it.

But nobody is saying 50% of the unvaxed kids got it. And anyway, my research tells me that unvaxed people can have such strong (healthy, well fed) immune systems they can get such mild forms of diseases often no one even knows that have it.

See less See more

Save

tboroson

· #7 · Apr 3, 2006

You're right. Nobody's saying that 50% of the unvaxed kids get it. Maybe it's 20%. Maybe it's 90%. I don't know. All I was saying was, the statistics don't neccisarily say that a higher percentage of vaccinated people got the disease than unvaccinated people, as was implied by some PPs. I was giving an example, using "for example" numbers, to show how that could work. Yes, of the population that acually got the disease, there were more vaccinated people than unvaxed. Since the vast majority of the population is vaxed and the rate of failure of that vaccine is known, it's very understandable why that would be. It *doesn't* mean that you had a higher risk of getting the disease if you were vaccinated than if you weren't.

Save

simonee

· #8 · Apr 3, 2006

If the vax is 95% effective and 2% is unvaxed, this means that 5+2=7% of the total population (of which about 2/3 vaxed) would be susceptible according to manufacturers' logic. This means that of 3 people who get mumps, 2 would be vaxed, so that's the 65% they talk about.

But there's no way in hell that 98% of the people is fully vaxed. There are more hippies, fundies, christian scientists, junkies, forgetful and poor parents, and just smart parents than that, even in the Midwest

See less See more

Save

1 - 8 of 8 Posts

Top Contributors this Month