

The devastating impact of vaccine deniers, in one measles chart - dandandan
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/01/22/the-devastating-impact-of-vaccine-deniers-in-one-measles-chart/

======
netcan
This is tangental:

I am getting really sick of the use of the term "denier." It's become cliched
to a point where it become a euphemism intended to heard people into mental
boxes and obscure rather than convey meaning.

I don't have all that much sympathy for people who don't follow the normal
vaccination schedule for their kids. I think it's somewhat complex though. For
example, some vaccines are more for public than private health. I think it's
valid to be weirded out by a strong demand that kids go through a medical
procedure for the good of humanity, rather than their own health.

On one hand I think the work being done by the Gates Foundation on wiping out
Polio is incredible. On the other, how much pressure is reasonable to put on
parents to vaccinate their children against an illness that poses less danger
to them than meteors.

In any case, "denier" has become a term that almost always diminishes nuance
and meaning rather than enhancing it. It ensures an us-and-them format to a
topic. It also has a real nasty connotation (in my mind) to heresy. A heretic
is a denier. In the wake of last week's attacks in Paris, it sounds even worse
to me.

These people may be wrong or misguided. You might disagree with their
assumptions, their conclusions or even their values. But, there is no reason
or utility in this nastiness. There is less chance of convincing anyone with
this language. And to those of us on the opposite side of the debate, it makes
us dumber to allow such mental patterns to dominate our thinking.

~~~
huxley
"On the other, how much pressure is reasonable to put on parents to vaccinate
their children against an illness that poses less danger to them than
meteors."

Lifetime odds of dying from a meteor strike: 1-in-250-million

source: Dr. Sten Odenwald, NIA (National Institute of Aerospace)

[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-sten-odenwald/death-by-
mete...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-sten-odenwald/death-by-
meteorite_b_5416364.html)

~~~
netcan
I was perhaps taking a little license. But as things stand now, I think a
child's chances of contracting polio outside of a handful of remote war torn
areas is in that ballpark.

~~~
huxley
Any thoughts on why their chances are so low?

------
mattlutze
Vaccines are necessary and we shouldn't take the anti-vaccine movement
lightly.

But -- the argument here, and the accompanying chart, make me very
uncomfortable. The author makes the explicit claim that the chart proves
vaccine deniers have caused a massive explosion of measles cases.

The author then offers one opinion poll's number, for a single year.

That's all we have, in this argument, to conclude causation. It's just not
enough.

The trend is not at all clear from the graph -- with every line the same
color, there is no movement, no trend here.

Without a matching history of even that one opinion poll, we can't even make a
statistically inappropriate assumption that there's a correlation between
vaccine opinion and measles cases.

This is a poorly formed argument about a serious topic. These sorts of
misfires are dangerous in that they can add fuel to the non-science-based side
of a debate that threatens lives...

Edit: The author misquoted the actual numbers in the 2014 study he linked
through to -- 53% of respondents were Extremely or Very Confident that
vaccines for children were effective. Another 30% were Somewhat confident.

In all, 83% of respondents were confident enough that they would/would
probably have a vaccine administered.

The WonkBlog has been producing some hit-or-miss content recently. There was
another "Literally every goat in the US" graph they put out that, while
humorous, suggested rounding up to the nearest 500 goats was "literally" every
goat...

------
sharemywin
those damn vaccine deniers like the cdc. [http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-
vac/should-not-vacc.htm](http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/should-not-
vacc.htm)

I'm pointing out that the issue is more complicated than most people make it.

------
pXMzR2A
1\. Everyone has the right to deny being treated without stigmatization or
punishment.

2\. Everything the article depends on in its interpretation of the chart,
mostly summarized by the 2nd paragraph, is based on unwarranted assumptions.

~~~
ubernostrum
_Everyone has the right to deny being treated without stigmatization or
punishment._

The first part of this sentence is OK, the second part is not.

For basically all of history, quarantine -- backed up by the threat of deadly
force if necessary -- has been an accepted feature of civilization, since
allowing an untreated carrier of infectious disease into a population has
impacts beyond just that one person's health.

Or, more simply: sure, you can have a right to refuse treatment. And everyone
else can have a basic right to defend themselves from you when that refusal
poses a threat to their own health.

~~~
transfire
Quarantine is only accepted under he most dire circumstances. Hell, they
didn't even quarantine people with AIDS and how many did that epidemic kill,
millions?

It is the acceptance of corporate tyranny, that seems to becoming the norm in
first world nations, which is truly alarming. Do people really understand what
it would mean to have mandatory vaccinations? Not only would it not stop all
cases of any of these diseases, but pharmaceutical companies would be falling
over themselves to create more and more marginally effective vaccines to add
to an already large list. And prices would go through the roof. Be careful not
to make the prefect the enemy of the good.

~~~
EliRivers
_Hell, they didn 't even quarantine people with AIDS and how many did that
epidemic kill, millions?_

Exceptionally bad comparison. If I have measles, I can infect dozens of other
people in a matter of days without realising it, by walking around, in places
and situations in which these people have every expectation of not being at
increased risk. Once I know I have measles, I know I am a walking dispensary
of disease and can expect to infect other people just be walking around near
them, sneezing and coughing and touching things. If I get quarantined (and
don't die), a week or so later I'm clean.

If I have HIV, I cannot infect dozens of people by walking around with it.
Other people would have to be exceptionally unlucky to catch it from me, or be
deliberating engaging in known unsafe practices. If I know I have it, I could
take a few extra precautions myself and have every expectation of never
infecting anyone. If I get quarantined, I'm there until I die. Decades maybe.
That's not quarantine; that's life without parole.

------
crispy2000
Kinda over the top, dontcha think? I had measles as a child, and it was
_hardly_ "devastating". Chart seems to be missing any indication of the
percentage of people vaccinated, so that one can at least see a correlation,
let alone infer causation, or "impact"! And since Disneyland is a tourist
spot, isn't it at least possible that some of the guests could be people from
countries which don't vaccinate for measles? That is assuming that the strain
of the current measles outbreak is the same one prevented by the vaccine.

~~~
transfire
I agree. Where is the proof that the increase in cases is directly related to
fewer vaccinations? I recently read a study out of South Korea that showed
despite a 97% vaccination rate against chickenpox, the number of cases
continue to rise.

The most fundamental problem with our healthcare system is that we all know
that pharmaceutical companies primary goal is to make bank, so we can't trust
them.

~~~
EliRivers
_The most fundamental problem with EVERY FUCKING PRIVATE COMPANY THERE IS is
that we all know that their primary goal is to make bank, so we can 't trust
them._

Do you grow your own food? Make your own clothes? Did you assemble your car
yourself from materials you created using your own steel mill and other such
basic materials manufacturing plants? You trust private companies every day,
every one of which happily states that they want to make money. What's so
special about medicines?

~~~
transfire
Yes I do grow some food. I also eat as much organic food as I can. I also am a
thoughtful and careful buyer of all things. But medicine stands out above all
other industries b/c it has extreme life-and-death consequences. For the
companies involved, to make money there is a strong perverse incentive to have
sick people. Compare it for instance to the police. How do you think we'd fair
if the police were all run by private corporations and you had to pay them for
service and protection?

~~~
imakesnowflakes
>Yes I do grow some food. I also eat as much organic food as I can.

This is something I use to wonder about. Isn't it more important that the food
we eat be free of harmful toxins (like pesticides or harmful fertilizers?),
but there is no agency that is responsible for checking the quality of
vegetables or meat (At least here in India). There was an big issue with
pesticides (Endosulfan)[1], in my state some time back. But still no
government agency bothers to check for vegetables that are being sold to the
public. No one bothers to check meat and fish for harmful levels of
antibiotics or harmful chemicals.

So my question is, why are not governments spending any effort on this
regards, while spending so much money of immunization. Combine with the fact
that there is rampant corruption in every level of government, general poor
quality of drugs sold in India, past proven incidents with pharmaceutical
companies malpractices like faking results of medicine trials, is it too much
if I think twice about giving an immunization drug to my kids?

[1][http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/1189820/revea...](http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/1189820/revealed_the_child_victims_of_pesticide_poisoning_in_india.html)

