A measles outbreak is occurring in the Northwest in localities with lower-than-average vaccination rates (1 Viewer)

superchuck500

tiny changes
VIP Subscribing Member
VIP Contributor
Diamond VIP Contributor
Joined
Aug 9, 2004
Messages
44,578
Reaction score
58,143
Location
Mt. Pleasant, SC
Online
Sticky Post
Go figure. Washington state governor has declared a state of emergency over an outbreak that is centered in Clark County - where almost 25% of children are unvaccinated. According to health officials, most of the 55 cases are among unvaccinated children.

Amber Gorrow is afraid to leave her house with her infant son because she lives at the epicenter of Washington state’s worst measles outbreak in more than two decades. Born eight weeks ago, Leon is too young to get his first measles shot, putting him at risk for the highly contagious respiratory virus, which can be fatal in small children.

Gorrow also lives in a community where she said being anti-vaccine is as acceptable as being vegan or going gluten free. Almost a quarter of kids in Clark County, Wash., a suburb of Portland, Ore., go to school without measles, mumps and rubella immunizations, and Washington Gov. Jay Inslee (D) recently declared a state of emergency amid concern that things could rapidly spin out of control.

Measles outbreaks have sprung up in nine other states this winter, but officials are particularly alarmed about the one in Clark County because of its potential to go very big, very quickly.

The Pacific Northwest is home to some of the nation’s most vocal andorganized anti-vaccination activists. That movement has helped drive down child immunizations in Washington, as well as in neighboring Oregon and Idaho, to some of the lowest rates in the country, with as many as 10.5 percent of kindergartners statewide in Idaho unvaccinated for measles. That is almost double the median rate nationally.

Libertarian-leaning lawmakers, meanwhile, have bowed to public pressure to relax state laws to exempt virtually any child from state vaccination requirements whose parents object. Three states allow only medical exemptions; most others also permit religious exemptions. And 17,including Washington, Oregon and Idaho, allow what they call “philosophical” exemptions, meaning virtually anyone can opt out of the requirements.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/it-will-take-off-like-a-wildfire-the-unique-dangers-of-the-washington-state-measles-outbreak/2019/02/06/cfd5088a-28fa-11e9-b011-d8500644dc98_story.html?utm_term=.61ca4eb8327e
 

mt15

Subscribing Member
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Subscribing Member
Platinum VIP Contributor
Joined
Mar 14, 2006
Messages
12,382
Reaction score
16,403
Offline
Herd immunity isn’t to protect the vaccinated. They are protected (with rare exceptions). Herd immunity is to protect those people who cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons. I apologize if you understood this, but reading your post made me think you may not.

So sure, if 95% of people are vaccinated, you could still have an outbreak, but it would be limited to the 5%. And it wouldn’t approach epidemic levels.
 

saintmdterps

Well now take a look at that
VIP Subscribing Member
VIP Contributor
Gold VIP Contributor
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
14,580
Reaction score
13,619
Age
58
Location
Salisbury, Maryland
Offline
This might be one of the few "both sides" issues we can talk about.
Clark county is where I live and I can say the anti-vaxers are about equal parts liberal vegan, gluten-free yahoos and conservative nothing-from-the-gubment yokels.
I can also report that a lot of kids are investigating how they can get themselves vaccinated without alerting their parents.
Same demographics here. Absolutely crazy, we are back in pre-Edward Jenner times.

Many studies show that middle-aged Americans are the most disease resistant because we got vaccinated and played outside in the dirt, thus further innoculating ourselves.
 
OP
OP
superchuck500

superchuck500

tiny changes
VIP Subscribing Member
VIP Contributor
Diamond VIP Contributor
Joined
Aug 9, 2004
Messages
44,578
Reaction score
58,143
Location
Mt. Pleasant, SC
Online
The anti-vaccine crowd is real and they’re passionate. It shows why “just make it mandatory” is easier said than done.

OLYMPIA, Wash. — Anti-vaccine activists packed a public hearing Friday to oppose a bill that would make it harder for families to opt out of vaccination requirements for measles, mumps and rubella amid the state’s worst measles outbreak in more than two decades.

An estimated 700 people, most of them opposed to stricter requirements, lined up before dawn in the cold, toting strollers and hand-lettered signs, to sit in the hearing, which was so crowded that staff opened up additional rooms to accommodate the crowd. Many gathered outside afterward for a rally.

Anti-vaccine activists, including Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a prominent vaccine conspiracy theorist, claimed that health officials are covering up vaccine dangers. Some said their children had been injured or sickened by immunizations. One falsely said the majority of people diagnosed with measles have been vaccinated.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2019/02/08/washington-measles-outbreak-draws-crowd-hearing-vaccine-law/
 

Goatman Saint

Subscribing Member
VIP Subscribing Member
VIP Contributor
Platinum VIP Contributor
Joined
Apr 18, 1999
Messages
20,163
Reaction score
16,387
Age
47
Location
Between here and there
Online

Attachments

Arathrael

Pro-Bowler
Joined
Apr 23, 2014
Messages
804
Reaction score
2,094
Location
Warrington, UK
Offline
Well, I know how this will go but what the hell.
Well, I'd hate to disappoint.

People have different sensitivities to things but there is no interest in the small % injured by this particular medical procedure.
Untrue. Vaccines are continually assessed for safety. For example, in the US you have the Vaccine Safety Datalink - https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/ensuringsafety/monitoring/vsd/index.html - which exists specifically 'to monitor safety of vaccines and conduct studies about rare and serious adverse events following immunization.'

This is considered a small price to pay. Those impacted should deal with it and don't spook anyone else.
It's considered to be substantially less risk than the diseases being vaccinated against. Which it is.

But in general with the view of effectiveness, what kind of product is so great when you get it and it only works if 99% of everyone else gets it too?
The kind that wiped out smallpox.

Your second and third links are both the same paper, and I'm unclear as to what it is you think those all show, or who it is other than medical researchers who should be showing interest in it? Could you elaborate?
 

guidomerkinsrules

W H A T E V I R
VIP Contributor
Joined
Apr 30, 2007
Messages
48,519
Reaction score
73,504
Location
by the cemeteries
Offline
Well, I know how this will go but what the hell.

I vaccinated my child but did so on a schedule and carefully to observe for reactions. I absolutely didn't do multiple in a day because if there was a reaction how would I know which particular one was the source? I have seen them happen to people I know. Seizures.

People have different sensitivities to things but there is no interest in the small % injured by this particular medical procedure. This is considered a small price to pay. Those impacted should deal with it and don't spook anyone else.

But in general with the view of effectiveness, what kind of product is so great when you get it and it only works if 99% of everyone else gets it too?

If you're protected...you're protected? or not?

It doesn't take much effort to find many cases of outbreaks in populations where vaccination rates meet the criteria for herd immunity but there is little interest in this except for the medical researchers to study.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/67/wr/mm6742a4.htm

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1646939/

https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.77.4.434

https://academic.oup.com/aje/article-abstract/129/1/173/58793

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/04/measles-outbreak-traced-fully-vaccinated-patient-first-time?r3f_986=https://www.google.com/

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022347605807267

Flame away.

I'm vaccinating but with informed consent and reading the inserts and asking questions.
We were similar with our first
Spaced out the schedule- declumped the shots when we could
Tried to pay more attention to the specifics of our kid vs the avg of all kids
With the second we were like ‘whatever, poke away’
 

blackadder

...from a chicken, bugwit
VIP Contributor
Joined
Nov 8, 2003
Messages
26,511
Reaction score
17,105
Online
Well, I'd hate to disappoint.


Untrue. Vaccines are continually assessed for safety. For example, in the US you have the Vaccine Safety Datalink - https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/ensuringsafety/monitoring/vsd/index.html - which exists specifically 'to monitor safety of vaccines and conduct studies about rare and serious adverse events following immunization.'


It's considered to be substantially less risk than the diseases being vaccinated against. Which it is.


The kind that wiped out smallpox.


Your second and third links are both the same paper, and I'm unclear as to what it is you think those all show, or who it is other than medical researchers who should be showing interest in it? Could you elaborate?
It shows that there continue to be outbreaks of measles or other diseases in highly vaccinated populations that meet the threshold of herd immunity.

Vaccines are an industrially produced product sold by a profit making business and are not perfect. Vaccination is a medical procedure with risk and you need to assess the risk like anything else. Reaction rates and serious complications are low but they happen.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/whats-behind-the-2016-mumps-spike-in-the-u-s/

As far as testing they test each individual vaccine and they test the vaccine combinations designed to be formulated and administered in combination as a hexavalent or pentavalent etc. But I have looked but can not find any confirmation that there is any substantial testing of the multitude of combinations that different vaccine products can be administered at once in practice out in the real world. MMR + hep A + pneumococcal plus plus in one visit.

Different people do have different sensitivities and different reactions to these products and the things that are put in them to enable mass production, distribution and shelf life and although the serious events are rare, they do happen. I don't approach any medical procedure without some caution. But the posture from the medical industry seems to be not emphasize maybe a consultation in advance to assess potential allergic reactions, family history, or to give much thought to this at all, rather the procedure is just pushed and if there is reaction or serious outcome..."ooops". Vaccines are right there with unicorns and rainbows.

Penicillin is in use still and can cause serious complications. I know personally of two cases. Someone I work with was treated with penicillin and had a severe anaphylactic reaction and nearly died. My mother, who died when I was infant, died of an anaphylactic reaction to penicillin treatment after having her tonsils out. My wife is going in for an outpatient scoping of the knee tomorrow and we are asked to bring along her living will/advanced directive because she will be anesthetized and, rarely, healthy people never wake up from anesthesia.

Due diligence and informed consent, with anything that someone is going to inject into you. Once it's in you, there's no going back...
 
Last edited:

Arathrael

Pro-Bowler
Joined
Apr 23, 2014
Messages
804
Reaction score
2,094
Location
Warrington, UK
Offline
It shows that there continue to be outbreaks of measles or other diseases in highly vaccinated populations that meet the threshold of herd immunity.
Yes. And? Why do you think that's significant?

I mean, are you under the impression vaccination is claimed to be 100% effective in preventing anyone being infected? We know that's not the case. The smallpox vaccine was historically about 95% effective in that regard, two doses of the MMR vaccine are around 97% effective against measles, 88% effective against mumps.

That there are still outbreaks isn't that remarkable. But they tend to be milder and short-lived due to vaccination. As your first paper linked says, for example: " IDFPHB conducted an epidemiologic investigation, which identified nine measles cases in a population with high measles vaccination coverage. All measles patients had signs and symptoms consistent with modified measles (i.e., less severe disease with milder rash, fever, or both, with or without other mild typical measles symptoms)." "Absence of tertiary cases in this outbreak is consistent with the lower risk for transmission reported in other cases of measles in vaccinated persons, possibly owing to their milder symptoms, including lack of or reduced cough. In this outbreak, most contacts being fully vaccinated probably contributed to rapid containment."

But I have looked but can not find any confirmation that there is any substantial testing of the multitude of combinations that different vaccine products can be administered at once in practice out in the real world. MMR + hep A + pneumococcal plus plus in one visit.
That's one of the things the CDC's Vaccine Safety Datalink that I just linked you to continually assesses. Vaccination schedules are drawn up with consideration for existing evidence, which includes studies of combinations. New vaccines are tested, including along with others, as part of their licensing procedure. That typically involves a phased rollout process, with the results assessed at each stage, as well as projects like Datalink continually assessing the results after licensing. They're not just thrown out there willy-nilly.

But the posture from the medical industry seems to be not emphasize maybe a consultation in advance to assess potential allergic reactions, family history, or to give much thought to this at all, rather the procedure is just pushed and if there is reaction or serious outcome..."ooops".
No. Vaccine information statements include a list of "people who should not get this vaccine" that includes both allergic reactions and family history. E.g. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/vis/vis-statements/mmr.html.

Vaccines are right there with unicorns and rainbows.
As in... unicorns and rainbows are pushed by the medical industry?

The reality is that vaccinations are continually assessed and re-assessed, both in terms of safety and effectiveness, the studies you've linked to are part of that continual process, issues like allergies and other reactions are well understood and addressed, not ignored, and vaccination schedules are drawn up carefully with regard to, again, both safety and effectiveness. You seem to be under the impression they're just thrown together with even less regard than the NFL gives the Saints schedule. But that's just not the case.
 

blackadder

...from a chicken, bugwit
VIP Contributor
Joined
Nov 8, 2003
Messages
26,511
Reaction score
17,105
Online
You sorta lost everything you wrote when you snuck in...
Nah, this is crucial to why I found the thread interesting.

It's sort of a litmus test and paid off as I thought.

This is yet another polarized, politically charged subject were any skepticism at all, or level of caution that someone interprets as skepticism leads to being berated for being anti-science. Get's tiresome.

When I started the process I had to ask all the questions. I had to make the effort and look around for a doctor that would even tolerate the very discussion.

Some doctors wanted to come at it autocratically.

The "science-as-the-secular-religion" guys should be happy. I'm doing it and I'm paying attention while I do it. But in there is I think is the dissatisfaction that some don't accept the message unquestioningly.
 

mt15

Subscribing Member
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Subscribing Member
Platinum VIP Contributor
Joined
Mar 14, 2006
Messages
12,382
Reaction score
16,403
Offline
It’s fine to be cautious and all, but you’re saying things that just aren’t true at times. And the unicorn and rainbow statement is just weird when we are talking about something that is as proven and effective as vaccines.

The vaccination rate in Washington where the current outbreak is taking place is well below herd immunity levels. And to repeat, herd immunity protects those who cannot be immunized due to age or medical conditions. It doesn’t prevent all cases.
 

efil4stnias

ppfffffttttt
VIP Contributor
Joined
Jul 9, 2001
Messages
28,173
Reaction score
24,448
Location
Madisonville
Online
Well, I know how this will go but what the hell.

I vaccinated my child but did so on a schedule and carefully to observe for reactions. I absolutely didn't do multiple in a day because if there was a reaction how would I know which particular one was the source? I have seen them happen to people I know. Seizures.

People have different sensitivities to things but there is no interest in the small % injured by this particular medical procedure. This is considered a small price to pay. Those impacted should deal with it and don't spook anyone else.

But in general with the view of effectiveness, what kind of product is so great when you get it and it only works if 99% of everyone else gets it too?

If you're protected...you're protected? or not?

It doesn't take much effort to find many cases of outbreaks in populations where vaccination rates meet the criteria for herd immunity but there is little interest in this except for the medical researchers to study.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/67/wr/mm6742a4.htm

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1646939/

https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.77.4.434

https://academic.oup.com/aje/article-abstract/129/1/173/58793

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/04/measles-outbreak-traced-fully-vaccinated-patient-first-time?r3f_986=https://www.google.com/

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022347605807267

Flame away.

I'm vaccinating but with informed consent and reading the inserts and asking questions.

so then you arent a proponent of NOT vaccinating....you just do your due diligence.

Viruses and bacteria are living organisms that have the ability to mutate their own genome structure. So introducing measles into the population gives the virus the opportunity to mutate and evolve and adapt to the current form of vaccination.

Thats is the danger of not vaccinating.
 

Saint_Ward

The Great Eye is ever Watchful
Staff member
Administrator
Gold VIP Contributor
Joined
Mar 1, 2007
Messages
40,893
Reaction score
33,429
Location
Fort Lauderdale, FL
Offline
Nah, this is crucial to why I found the thread interesting.

It's sort of a litmus test and paid off as I thought.

This is yet another polarized, politically charged subject were any skepticism at all, or level of caution that someone interprets as skepticism leads to being berated for being anti-science. Get's tiresome.

When I started the process I had to ask all the questions. I had to make the effort and look around for a doctor that would even tolerate the very discussion.

Some doctors wanted to come at it autocratically.

The "science-as-the-secular-religion" guys should be happy. I'm doing it and I'm paying attention while I do it. But in there is I think is the dissatisfaction that some don't accept the message unquestioningly.
I have no issue with you being some what cautious or slowing down the schedule to make sure there are no reactions. So long as you're still getting your kids vaccinated, I see no issue with that.

I'm simply making a commentary on throwing out the stupid things in addition, makes you a lot less credible.
 
OP
OP
superchuck500

superchuck500

tiny changes
VIP Subscribing Member
VIP Contributor
Diamond VIP Contributor
Joined
Aug 9, 2004
Messages
44,578
Reaction score
58,143
Location
Mt. Pleasant, SC
Online
Nah, this is crucial to why I found the thread interesting.

It's sort of a litmus test and paid off as I thought.

This is yet another polarized, politically charged subject were any skepticism at all, or level of caution that someone interprets as skepticism leads to being berated for being anti-science. Get's tiresome.

When I started the process I had to ask all the questions. I had to make the effort and look around for a doctor that would even tolerate the very discussion.

Some doctors wanted to come at it autocratically.

The "science-as-the-secular-religion" guys should be happy. I'm doing it and I'm paying attention while I do it. But in there is I think is the dissatisfaction that some don't accept the message unquestioningly.
I greened-thumb your original post because I thought it was valuable for the discussion (and I was happy to see you over here). I think that ultimately the question is one of policy and not of science . . . there's enough science on both sides to prompt a serious policy debate. I think it might be a bit unfair to accuse the 'pro-vaccine' crowd as dogmatic about science that might not actually exist while not also recognizing that a substantial percentage of the 'anti-vaccine' crowd is operating off of an emotional response to suspect research about correlations that probably don't exist.

But what does exist is that vaccines, like almost every medication, have an incidence (albeit low but over broad populations, still very meaningful) of adverse response, some very serious. And that can cause real fear - and when you're talking about a mandate across the population to do something that comes with risk, something that will likely harm a very, very small number it is going to be controversial.

I just think this is one of things where the utility of the measure is obvious, but there will be casualties and who's going to risk their child to 'take one for the team'? Most of us do. I read quite a bit about vaccines when I had my kids (now age 5 and 4) and I was concerned about it. But don't we roll the dice every time we get in the car? Every time we take any kind of medication? Swim in the ocean?

We do these things because we decide they're worth the risk.
 

Arathrael

Pro-Bowler
Joined
Apr 23, 2014
Messages
804
Reaction score
2,094
Location
Warrington, UK
Offline
It's sort of a litmus test and paid off as I thought.

This is yet another polarized, politically charged subject were any skepticism at all, or level of caution that someone interprets as skepticism leads to being berated for being anti-science. Get's tiresome.
At the time you posted this, only three four people had replied to you in this topic. mt15 (I think) talking about herd immunity, GMR, who said they similarly spaced out their schedule with their first child, Saint_Ward who criticised not your expressing caution or skepticism but your saying "Vaccines are right there with unicorns and rainbows," and me. And I replied, partly because some of your comments weren't so much expressing skepticism as making flatly untrue assertions (e.g. "there is no interest in the small % injured ..."), and partly because I wasn't clear on what you were getting at with your comments on outbreaks in vaccinated populations.

But no-one has berated you for being anti-science.

But in there is I think is the dissatisfaction that some don't accept the message unquestioningly.
Asking questions is typically a good thing. But making a simply untrue assertion is not asking a question.
 
Last edited:

blackadder

...from a chicken, bugwit
VIP Contributor
Joined
Nov 8, 2003
Messages
26,511
Reaction score
17,105
Online
I greened-thumb your original post because I thought it was valuable for the discussion (and I was happy to see you over here). I think that ultimately the question is one of policy and not of science . . . there's enough science on both sides to prompt a serious policy debate. I think it might be a bit unfair to accuse the 'pro-vaccine' crowd as dogmatic about science that might not actually exist while not also recognizing that a substantial percentage of the 'anti-vaccine' crowd is operating off of an emotional response to suspect research about correlations that probably don't exist.

But what does exist is that vaccines, like almost every medication, have an incidence (albeit low but over broad populations, still very meaningful) of adverse response, some very serious. And that can cause real fear - and when you're talking about a mandate across the population to do something that comes with risk, something that will likely harm a very, very small number it is going to be controversial.

I just think this is one of things where the utility of the measure is obvious, but there will be casualties and who's going to risk their child to 'take one for the team'? Most of us do. I read quite a bit about vaccines when I had my kids (now age 5 and 4) and I was concerned about it. But don't we roll the dice every time we get in the car? Every time we take any kind of medication? Swim in the ocean?

We do these things because we decide they're worth the risk.
Yep. I have a lower risk tolerance. When you've experienced the 1 in a million event even that seems very real.

I've seen a lot of this over the years and I find it interesting about how polarizing and invective inducing it is. It's not just blanket anti-vax. It's also deviation from orthodoxy that seems to raise ire. My ex whose daughter had the seizures stopped vaccinating as a result and still gets the stink eye from quite a few in the school.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)



Saints Headlines (The Advocate)

Headlines

Top Bottom