Vaccination & epidemic

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

If it is as you say, then the numbers should have already begun reversing themselves following the loud and continued discrediting of that study, and all should return to normal in a few years. That would make the NYTimes article little more than gloating. "Ha ha, those fools got what's coming to them."

On the other hand, if vaccination uptake rates continue dropping, one has to ask why. There's only so many times they can say the study has been discredited, and only so long they can point to one "scare" from 15 years ago as being the sole impetus for people's decisions today.

Or worse yet, what if vaccination uptake does return to previous levels, but the disease rate continues rising? At some point in the next couple of decades the narrative will be updated, and we all have our guesses about which way it will go. It's my personal belief that this particular medical policy aims to circumvent biology in the name of a disease-free utopia that can never be achieved, that's all.

It may have been one study 15 years ago, but the press here and over there have played their part in making sure it remained current in people's minds for much longer. There was a broad consensus on vaccination. The last 15 years of fear mongering press reports have played their part in breaking that consensus.

Anyway: I don't necessarily disagree with your last point. I get where you're coming from on that now. But..I don't think it's a diseasefree utopia they're aiming for. I think they just wanted to cut the high numbers of infant deaths to a handful of common childhood diseases,

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by DanaC

But..I don't think it's a diseasefree utopia they're aiming for. I think they just wanted to cut the high numbers of infant deaths to a handful of common childhood diseases,

But then why vaccinate for diseases that have never killed anyone in the Western world, like rotavirus, strep throat, etc.? I can see the purpose of the rotavirus vaccine in Africa, where babies do die from dehydration because there really isn't any clean water to give them, but to my knowledge rotavirus has never killed a single child in the developed world. It just gives you a little diarrhea, and then you're fine. But once they developed it, it's as if they decided, well, why the hell not? Just add it to the growing list of infant shots (I don't know what the schedule is in the UK, but in the US it is now 36 shots before the age of 2. Far more than a handful of diseases.) Sometimes they give a shot even when there's no risk to the baby at all, just because it's easy. All babies in the US get a Hepatitis B shot on the day they're born. It's a sexually-transmitted disease, and the only way a baby could get it is if the mother is currently infected, and breastfeeds. They could just as easily test the mothers and ferret out the .01% who have the disease, but instead they give a preventative shot to 100% of babies just hours after birth, when all experts agree that their immune system hasn't even begun to fully function yet.

The program began as a way to reduce death/crippling from a small number of horrible childhood diseases, I agree. But the evidence says to me that in its current incarnation, it's spiraled out of control.

[Griff]

I'll state the obvious:
Follow the money.

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by Griff

I'll state the obvious:
Follow the money.

Preventative immunizations are now free (ObamaCare)

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

But then why vaccinate for diseases
that have never killed anyone in the Western world, like rotavirus, strep throat, etc.?
I can see the purpose of the rotavirus vaccine in Africa, where babies do die from dehydration
because there really isn't any clean water to give them,
but to my knowledge rotavirus has never killed a single child in the developed world.
It just gives you a little diarrhea, and then you're fine.
<snip>

Ummm... are you sure ?
I'm not, but maybe we're talking about two different viruses

emedicinehealth.com
Rotavirus Infection Overview

Rotavirus infection is the number one cause of severe viral
gastroenteritis (vomiting and diarrhea) in the world.
Primary rotavirus infection is particularly common in children 6 months to 2 years of age.
Annual estimates indicate that, worldwide, approximately 130 million infants and children
develop this infection, resulting in 600,000-800,000 deaths per year.

The most recent data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) indicate
that the burden of morbidity (illness) and mortality in the United States is not trivial.
Each year, approximately 2.7 million American children sustain a rotavirus infection,
resulting in 500,000 office visits.
Between 300-400 American children die annually, while approximately 200,000 hospitalizations
occur each year due to rotavirus infection.
The federal government estimates the direct medical cost of rotavirus disease to be $1 billion annually.
This direct cost does not take into consideration the broader financial impact (loss of productivity and wages, etc.).

[Clodfobble]

That just means someone else is paying for them, they're not free.

[Clodfobble]

Ah, 300-400 per year. I stand corrected. Important followup questions that are now needed: How many annual American rotavirus deaths were occurring before introduction of the vaccine? How many of the 300-400 who died in America last year had had the vaccine, but got the disease anyway? How many had complicating conditions, like when your bedridden 90 year old granny is finally pushed over the edge by a small infection?

You can't eliminate every death from everything. "Falling out of bed" kills 450 people annually.

[Lamplighter]

International Journal of Epidemiology 39:56-162
The effect of rotavirus vaccine on diarrhoea mortality

Background
<snip>
Results
We identified six papers for abstraction, reporting results from four studies.
No studies reported diarrhoea or rotavirus deaths, but all studies showed
reductions in hospitalizations due to rotavirus or diarrhoea of any aetiology,
severe and any rotavirus infections and diarrhoea episodes of any aetiology
in children who received rotavirus vaccine compared with placebo.

Effectiveness against very severe rotavirus infection best approximated
effectiveness against the fraction of diarrhoea deaths attributable to rotavirus,
and was estimated to be 74% (95% confidence interval: 35–90%).

Again, I know of few things in life that is perfect.
I suspect answers to all of your questions are available, and they
overwhelmingly support the safety and efficacy of CDC-recommended
vaccines in use today.

OTOH while death is an easy endpoint to measure,
it is certainly not the be-all, end-all justification for public health.
There are always trade-offs to be made, sometimes they are
balanced to achieve the most good for the most people.

[Griff]

To me, the concern is that like Wall Street and big agriculture, the pharmaceutical industry writes its own rules and regulations so at some point we cross the line from public health to public purse with little regard for unexpected consequences (like maybe increasing rates of autoimmune disease) which the Feds will indemnify them for anyway. Its corporate capitalism at its finest. The balance may not be as clear as individual vs group. It may be individual vs industry vs group. That extra component may have little to do with public health.

[Lamplighter]

Griff, I absolutely agree with your opening remark.

The rules in Medicare Part D (drugs) are a big culprit because Medicare
is prohibited from negotiating $ with the drug companies.
The other parts of Medicare and governmental agencies
are allowed to "controll" cost via negotiation of purchase price,
or by the amounts the feds reimburse to hospitals and physicians.

As an example, ObamaCare requires preventative immunizations to be free.
Except..., the immunization for shingles (varicella-zoster by Merck)
is exempted for large insurance plans, and the "co-pay" is passed along to the patient.
My co-pay was $70, and RiteAide starts the bidding at $200
It's additionally frustrating because the Merck vaccine is only 50% effective.

If you want the costs of drugs to go down, get your State's Senators
and Representatives to change this aspect of Part D.

Hint: For the other parts of health care costs.
When you get a survey about how satisfied you are
with your recent visit at a hospital/clinic,
answer it carefully because negative replies weigh heavily
in the future towards the rate of reimbursements for that health provider.

Wait-times in the ER Waiting Room don't count
because there are no standards to be met.

[anonymous]

strep throat is just the most common result of streptococcus infection, more severe are rheumatic fever, necrotizing fasciitis or flesh-eating bacteria, toxic shock syndrome and PANDAS

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by anonymous

strep throat is just the most common result of streptococcus infection, more severe are rheumatic fever, necrotizing fasciitis or flesh-eating bacteria, toxic shock syndrome and PANDAS

And yet, despite receiving two Prevnar shots with a total of (I believe) fourteen strep species in the vaccinations, my son later had intractable S. pyogenes necessitating tonsillectomy and adenoidectomy, in addition to PANDAS. Sometimes there are things to blame other than noncompliant "scared" parents.

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

No studies reported diarrhoea or rotavirus deaths, but all studies showed reductions in hospitalizations...

...OTOH while death is an easy endpoint to measure,
it is certainly not the be-all, end-all justification for public health.

Here, Dana, you can see an example of someone who is interested in more than just reducing a tragic death rate in a handful of diseases. I find Adam Corolla's "slippery slope" mock-up video as hilarious the next guy, but I am nonetheless very wary of people who are unable to draw a line somewhere. Your (universal your) line may be different than mine, fine, but "no line" is not a good basis for public policy.

[anonymous]

prevnar addresses S. pneumoniae. does not address S. pyogenes. i am very sorry to hear about your son.

[Clodfobble]

Right, and thus does not address...

Originally Posted by anonymous

rheumatic fever, necrotizing fasciitis or flesh-eating bacteria, toxic shock syndrome and PANDAS

There are 90 strains of pneumonia-causing strep alone. The current shots cover 80-90% of those cases, but they are trying to add more. Because of course as we vaccinate for the primary species, the lesser strains will simply rise to prominence in the niche we created for them.

Then after that, how many other new shots will it take to cover all the other strains of all the other strep diseases? How long before there is a 91st strain of S. pneumoniae? It's a losing battle. We will always have horrible diseases. The herd will always get thinned, one way or another.

[Happy Monkey]

Don't vaccinate for anything if you can't vaccinate for everything?