Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Clusters of non-vaccinated children

  1. Jan 23, 2015 #1

    Borg

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    A study in California has shown that non-vaccinated children are clustered geographically thus increasing the severity of outbreaks of preventable diseases.
    http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/gca?submit=Get+All+Checked+Abstracts&gca=pediatrics%3Bpeds.2014-2715v1 [Broken]

    Apparently California has a pretty liberal personal belief exemption to avoid school vaccination requirements.

    And, not surprisingly, the current Disneyland outbreak of measles is right in the middle of a non-vaccination cluster:
    I'm sorry for the children of these stupid parents. :oldmad:
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 7, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Jan 23, 2015 #2

    OmCheeto

    User Avatar
    Gold Member
    2016 Award

    I'm more sorry for responsible parents:

    I contracted the disease in 2003, and did extensive research.

    From my notes:
    Clusters of idiots
    Now there's a topic for discussion.

    ----------------------------
    Similar historical reference: Season 1, Episode 22: The Monsters Are Due On Maple St
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 7, 2017
  4. Jan 23, 2015 #3

    Borg

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I couldn't find it online but I read somewhere that alll but 5 of the Disney cases were unvaccinated. Either way, it's a senseless situation.
     
  5. Jan 23, 2015 #4

    OmCheeto

    User Avatar
    Gold Member
    2016 Award

    You are correct. I browsed 3 references.
    But as I said before, some of the parents of the unvaccinated were not idiots, but like responsible parents, victims.

    IFLS lists the number of "not old enough to receive the vaccination" at 6, and http://www.cdph.ca.gov/HealthInfo/discond/Pages/Measles.aspx [Broken] says 4, but implies more.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 7, 2017
  6. Jan 23, 2015 #5

    jedishrfu

    Staff: Mentor

    There is a genuine fear that parents have that cause them to make unwise medical decisions. Some parents still believe the Jenny McCarthy diatribe even though the Lancet study it was base on was retracted. Other parents try to balance their fear of vaccination side effects by delaying vaccine schedules with disastrous results.

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astr...thy_responds_to_claims_she_s_not_antivax.html

    http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/02/02/lancet.retraction.autism/
     
  7. Jan 24, 2015 #6

    Borg

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Ah, I see now. Sorry for the confusion. :redface:
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 7, 2017
  8. Jan 24, 2015 #7
    Somewhat misleading. The young infant can be vaccinated, but receive no benefit.
    It is the response to vaccination by the infant by which the best age is determined.
    A fetus and newborn has some acquired protection by maternal antibodies through the placenta, and by breast feeding, and this will last some months into life, during which the protection ebbs.

    The success rate of the administration of the vaccine to a young infant depends upon the age of the infant.
    A newborn will have a low rate of seroconversion, but increase with age.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seroconversion.

    Possible reasons explained here:
    https://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/m/mmr_ii/mmr_ii_pi.pdf
    Section 2.1.3 has a chart of maternal antibody decay, with explanation.
    http://refbooks.msf.org/msf_docs/en/measles/measles_en.pdf
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 7, 2017
  9. Jan 24, 2015 #8

    lisab

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I'm sure there are many places like Lane County, Oregon:

    http://www.kval.com/news/local/Many-Lane-County-students-unvaccinated-289510871.html

    Seems inevitable that these outbreaks will become much more common.
     
  10. Jan 24, 2015 #9

    Vanadium 50

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    Not just retracted. It was identified as deliberate fraud by Wakefield, who had his medical license revoked. This whole anti-vaccination movement was the deliberate creation of Wakefield, who hoped to profit by it. I know that modern society isn't supposed to use words like "evil", but what other word describes someone who intends to make children sick so he can profit?
     
  11. Jan 24, 2015 #10

    OmCheeto

    User Avatar
    Gold Member
    2016 Award

    I'm just glad I spent as much time as I did researching before I posted. I was going to accuse you of misreading the numbers:
    5 were properly vaccinated
    An average of 5 were too young to be vaccinated

    You can understand my confusion. But there are some people's posts that I'm more willing to trust than others, and hence, my research.
    But it looks like we are on the same page. The anti-vaxxers are somewhere between stupid and idiot. And as V just posted, their leader, is just plain evil.

    Another thing that my research found, was that I'm not sure about how to interpret the numbers:

    http://www.cdph.ca.gov/HealthInfo/discond/Pages/Measles.aspx [Broken]
    Two doses of measles-containing vaccine (MMR vaccine) are more than 99 percent effective in preventing measles.

    Which doesn't jibe with the Disneyland outbreak numbers:

    http://www.cdph.ca.gov/Pages/NR15-008.aspx [Broken]:
    Of these 34, 28 were unvaccinated, one had received one dose and five had received two or more doses of MMR vaccine.

    Now, I may not be a rocket scientist, but, it seems that the latter numbers indicate an efficacy rate of only 85%.

    Perhaps, I should invoke my magical, epidemiologist conjuring powers.*

    *I worked at a medical research facility for 30 years, and made many friends. Hopefully, one or two still remember me.....
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 7, 2017
  12. Jan 24, 2015 #11

    Vanadium 50

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    Well, a) that could still be true, since the 99% point is measured at some fixed time after the vaccination, b) five is not a large number, so there can be fluctuations, and c) don't you need to know the total numbers of visitors to do the 85% calculation? I don't see that number anywhere.
     
  13. Jan 25, 2015 #12

    OmCheeto

    User Avatar
    Gold Member
    2016 Award

    And this would be why I'm probably not a rocket scientist. You are most likely correct.
    And after 4 hours of research, I found this:

    JAMA re: Measles
    July 7, 1999
    Results On average, exemptors were 35 times more likely to contract measles than were vaccinated persons (95% confidence interval, 34-37).

    I guess that means the vaccine is 97.2% effective.

    But my brain is now fried, with TMI.......

    People should vaccinate their children.


    ----------------------------------------
    pre final edit detritus, if anyone is bored:
    But 5 immunized kids @ 1% infection rate indicates 500 immunized kids were exposed. Seems like a lot.
    It's been 45 years since I've been to Disneyland. Has it turned into a giant mosh pit since then?

    Oh wait!
    I just found another reference to a "99% number":

    Measles - Q&A about Disease & Vaccine (CDC)
    Widespread use of measles vaccine has led to a greater than 99% reduction in measles cases in the United States compared with the pre-vaccine era.
    I don't think they say the same thing. The previous statement was from the California Department of Public Health.
    Vaccination Coverage Among Children in Kindergarten — United States, 2013–14 School Year(CDC)
    Weekly
    October 17, 2014 / 63(41);913-920
    ...
    This report describes vaccination coverage in 49 states and the District of Columbia (DC) and vaccination exemption rates in 46 states and DC for children enrolled in kindergarten during the 2013–14 school year. Median vaccination coverage was 94.7% for 2 doses of measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine...
     
  14. Jan 25, 2015 #13

    Vanadium 50

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    It's practically impossible to read what you wrote in microscopic type. Please don't do that - we want to read what you write.

    It is entirely possible that vaccination is 97% effective and yet the rate in the population goes down by 99%. This goes by the name of "herd immunity". Essentially, as more and more people become immune through vaccination, the number of opportunities to contract the disease also goes down, and this increases the effectiveness across an entire population.

    You can see an extreme example of this with smallpox. We stopped immunizations 40 years ago because the disease was extinct - immunization was so effective it became impossible to be exposed to the disease.
     
  15. Jan 25, 2015 #14

    OmCheeto

    User Avatar
    Gold Member
    2016 Award

    Ok.
    This is what I concluded from my studies. Thank you for putting my thoughts into words.
    I did not know that about smallpox. This would imply that, like what I found out about Measles yesterday, humans are the only hosts of these diseases. Which would make Measles as easy to eradicate.

    Information I gleaned from the WHO yesterday:

    Measles (WHO)
    Measles is one of the leading causes of death among young children even though a safe and cost-effective vaccine is available.*
    Measles is a human disease and is not known to occur in animals.
    Measles is a highly contagious, serious disease caused by a virus. In 1980, before widespread vaccination, measles caused an estimated 2.6 million deaths each year.

    *I was going to yell at 256bits for the comment;
    Somewhat misleading. The young infant can be vaccinated, but receive no benefit.
    as it struck me as a bit illogical.

    My interpretation; "You are a liar, as you can have a $100 bill, and simply burn it." :oldconfused:

    But then, I discovered the following, so I didn't.

    Measles (WHO)
    The measles vaccine has been in use for 50 years. It is safe, effective and inexpensive. It costs approximately one US dollar to immunize a child against measles.
     
  16. Jan 25, 2015 #15

    Vanadium 50

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    Eradicating measles is possible, but has problems that smallpox did not. It was declared gone in the US in 2000, but now thanks to the efforts of Andrew Wakefield and Jenny McCarthy, it's back. Apart from their tireless efforts to ensure that children die from preventable diseases, you have the problem that eradicating it requires a worldwide effort. Because of the AIDS epidemic, you have a large immunocompromised population, and that probably is enough by itself to make this impractical.
     
  17. Jan 26, 2015 #16

    OmCheeto

    User Avatar
    Gold Member
    2016 Award

    One thing I would recommend not doing, is try and figure out the demographics of these people. The internet is awash with finger pointing and mud slinging.

    What Do We Really Know About Social Resistance to Vaccines?
    By Sara Gorman, PhD, is an MPH candidate at Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health
    December 13, 2013
    The truth is, we have relatively little data about the demographics and nature of anti-vaccination thought and the mechanisms of its spread.

    But that hasn't stop people from trying. The following is an article which looks fairly legitimate, and appears to be the source of some of the "It's the left wing hippies fault!", based on the demographics of a discussion group of 11 people. Though, I disagree with the generalization. The following is from a slightly larger sample, of 83 people:

    Measles Outbreak in a Highly Vaccinated Population, San Diego, 2008: Role of the Intentionally Undervaccinated
    9 authors
    March 2010
    Online Parent Network Survey

    Compared with the overall county population, survey respondents more often were non-Hispanic white (91% vs 50%), were college-educated (91% vs 34%), and had household incomes higher than $100 000 (51% vs 19%). Two-thirds indicated that they would accept certain vaccinations, but three-quarters would not accept measles vaccination. Perceived adverse vaccine reactions, especially autism, were often cited by those who declined some or all vaccines (Table 2).

    Table 2 is probably the most interesting thing I've seen so far, with some real eye openers. Raw numbers from a survey returned by 83 people, 81 of which were mothers/stepmothers.

    Practiced no religious faith: 52.6%
    Concerning health condition
        Autism: 79.8%

        ADD/ADHD: 73.4%
        Asthma: 73.4%
        Allergies: 73.4%
        Inflammatory bowel disease: 67.1%
    Source of information
        Doctor: 67.5%

        Internet sites: 38.6%
        Alternative provider: 32.5%
        CDC: 30.1%
        Books: 24.1%​

    Now it's possible that 67.5% of these people all went to the same witch doctor, but my hypothesis is that social media is the bigger culprit. People tend to have social media friends who share their views. I base this on (a) My sister's FB friends all seem to belong to the same coven, and (b) I unfollowed my sister the other day, because I found their crowd feeding hysteria somewhat disturbing.

    The "no religious faith" percentage kind of confirms my belief that there's really little difference between people of faith, and those of notafaith.

    As the concluding statement from Borg's post from Friday stated:

    Disneyland measles outbreak strikes in anti-vaccination hotbed of California
    The only potential good that might come out of the outbreak, wrote L.A. Times columnist Michael Hiltzik yesterday, is “a much-needed jolt of reality” to the “dolts” who shun vaccinations and officials who grant them exemptions from immunization laws.

    IMHO, there will never be enough derogatory nouns to describe these people.

    ps. I really like the WHO Measles FAQ. They are very to the point:

    Measles
    Measles is a highly contagious, serious disease caused by a virus. In 1980, before widespread vaccination, measles caused an estimated 2.6 million deaths each year.

    The disease remains one of the leading causes of death among young children globally, despite the availability of a safe and effective vaccine. Approximately 145 700 people died from measles in 2013 – mostly children under the age of 5.

    And their info-graphic page is very interesting. You can follow the planetary immunization rates for 1 year olds from 1980 through 2013. I could spend days trying to interpret all the data.

    For instance, tracking the USA, the last time we had a 98% immunization rate was way back in 1988. Since then, it declined, and has been hovering around 90%. But there have been no big outbreaks until last year. Which would indicate that a homogeneous 90% immunization rate is adequate. And, as you can imagine, I conclude that this is a "let's point our fingers at the pockets of misguided ignorance, and shame them into not killing other people's children", moment.

    hmmm.... Perhaps, like my former employer, which also houses a hospital, which last year, during the flu season, told all employees that "opted out" of the flu vaccine, that they would have to wear surgical gloves and a surgical mask, when entering patient areas. The anti-vaxxers were quick to comply.

    Perhaps if whatever government agency is in charge of who can travel overseas, were to tell people; "I see your child isn't immunized against measles, and the country you're traveling to has an outbreak, so, I'm afraid you can't go. Sorry!", we'd see some changes. I mean really, if the thought of having to put on rubber gloves can motivate people...
     
  18. Jan 27, 2015 #17

    OmCheeto

    User Avatar
    Gold Member
    2016 Award

    I hope this guy gets his way:

    The link in the article is interesting, as it predates the current outbreak.

    Interesting. Out of 8000 patients, only 25 families decided to leave. 7.8% opt out rate implies 624 patients were unvaxed. An average family size of 2.9 for the county implies 1 kid per family. 25/647 = 4%. So 96% of the people decided to get their brats vaxed. Amazing how motivating a tiny inconvenience can be.

    Based on Carl Krawitt's situation, the Disneyland incident, my knowledge of how contagious these diseases are, and my newly discovered "inconvenience motivation factor", I think I'm going to modify my stance a bit.
    90% may be fine for the general public, but in confined, constant contact locations like classrooms and Disneyland, I'm siding with Carl's recommendation that there should be a medical reason for not being immunized. Otherwise, they should be excluded.
     
    Last edited: Jan 28, 2015
  19. Jan 28, 2015 #18

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

  20. Jan 28, 2015 #19

    Vanadium 50

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    Or simply letting them walk home on their own from the park. I can't believe that society thinks that's too dangerous to be within the realm of acceptable parenting, but letting your kid die from a preventable disease is OK.
     
  21. Jan 28, 2015 #20

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    In general it doesn't. I think in this case people don't see the risk because it is both smaller and disconnected from the prevention. There is currently an active case in CT of a teen who will die from cancer if not treated. The risk is immediate and highly certain, so the doctors and state took immediate action to force the treatment when she/her mother refused it.

    Sadly, the girl is nearly 18, so in a few months that will become moot, she'll stop the treatment and likely die unless the act of dying is painful enough to change her mind in time.
     
    Last edited: Jan 28, 2015
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Clusters of non-vaccinated children
  1. Mercury in Vaccines (Replies: 2)

  2. Flu Vaccine (Replies: 58)

  3. Pseudo vaccines? (Replies: 11)

Loading...