Clusters of non-vaccinated children

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:
The greatest concentration by far, at least 20 cases, is in Orange County, which includes Disneyland and the Disney California Adventure Park, both in Anaheim.

That county has been at the center of a nationwide movement against immunizations based in part on an erroneous belief — and a discredited study — linking vaccines to autism.
I'm sorry for the children of these stupid parents.

Last edited by a moderator:

OmCheeto
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.
I'm more sorry for responsible parents:

Tdap for Pregnant Women: Information for Providers
For Healthcare Professionals
...
Most pertussis deaths are infants who are too young to be protected by the childhood pertussis vaccine (DTaP)
...
There are currently no pertussis vaccines licensed or recommended for newborns at birth.

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

From my notes:
September 10, 2003
Pertussis outbreak persists in Jackson County
With 109 cases in 2003, Jackson County has the highest rate of pertussis infection for any county in Oregon. It's also 53 times the national average, according to public health nurse Viki Barbour.

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Similar historical reference: Season 1, Episode 22: The Monsters Are Due On Maple St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:
Gold Member
I'm more sorry for responsible parents:
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.

OmCheeto
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.

You are correct. I browsed 3 references.
http://www.cdph.ca.gov/Pages/NR15-008.aspx [Broken]
Date: 1/21/2015

Vaccination status is documented for 34 of the 59 cases. Of these 34, 28 were unvaccinated, one had received one dose and five had received two or more doses of MMR vaccine.

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:
jedishrfu
Mentor
OmCheeto
Gold Member
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.
Ah, I see now. Sorry for the confusion.

Last edited by a moderator:
256bits
Gold Member
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.
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
A study{4} of 6-month-old and 15-month-old infants born to vaccine-immunized mothers demonstrated
that, following vaccination with ATTENUVAX, 74% of the 6-month-old infants developed detectable
neutralizing antibody (NT) titers while 100% of the 15-month-old infants developed NT. This rate of
seroconversion is higher than that previously reported for 6-month-old infants born to naturally immune
mothers tested by HI assay. When the 6-month-old infants of immunized mothers were revaccinated at
15 months, they developed antibody titers equivalent to the 15-month-old vaccinees. The lower
seroconversion rate in 6-month-olds has two possible explanations: 1) Due to the limit of the detection
level of the assays (NT and enzyme immunoassay [EIA]), the presence of trace amounts of undetectable
maternal antibody might interfere with the seroconversion of infants; or 2) The immune system of
6-month-olds is not always capable of mounting a response to measles vaccine as measured by the two
antibody assays.

There is some evidence to suggest that infants who are born to mothers who had wild-type measles
and who are vaccinated at less than one year of age may not develop sustained antibody levels when
later revaccinated. The advantage of early protection must be weighed against the chance for failure to

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:
lisab
Staff Emeritus
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

Thirteen Oregon schools have Nonmedical Exemption Rates of 50 percent or greater, according to the most recent list dated January 2014.

Of those, 3 are in Lane County - including St. Thomas Becket Academy in Veneta, which leads the state with a 72 percent rate. Of the school's 103 students, 74 have a nonmedical exemption to one or more required vaccines.

Seems inevitable that these outbreaks will become much more common.

OmCheeto
Staff Emeritus
2019 Award
even though the Lancet study it was base on was retracted

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?

Borg and OmCheeto
OmCheeto
Gold Member
Ah, I see now. Sorry for the confusion.
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]:

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:
Staff Emeritus
2019 Award
it seems that the latter numbers indicate an efficacy rate of only 85%.

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.

OmCheeto
Gold Member
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.

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...

Staff Emeritus
2019 Award
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.

OmCheeto
Gold Member
It's practically impossible to read what you wrote in microscopic type. Please don't do that - we want to read what you write.
Ok.
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.
This is what I concluded from my studies. Thank you for putting my thoughts into words.
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.

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." 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. Vanadium 50 Staff Emeritus Science Advisor Education Advisor 2019 Award 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. mheslep OmCheeto Gold Member 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%

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...

OmCheeto
Gold Member
I hope this guy gets his way:

To Protect His Son, A Father Asks School To Bar Unvaccinated Children (NPR)
JANUARY 27, 2015 5:05 PM ET

Carl Krawitt has watched his son, Rhett, now 6, fight leukemia for the past 4 1/2 years. For more than three of those years, Rhett has undergone round after round of chemotherapy. Last year he finished chemotherapy, and doctors say he is in remission.

Now, there's a new threat, one that the family should not have to worry about: measles.

Rhett cannot be vaccinated, because his immune system is still rebuilding.
...
But Rhett lives in Marin County, Calif., a county with the dubious honor of having the highest rate of "personal belief exemptions" in the Bay Area and among the highest in the state.

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

Marin Vaccination Opt-Outs Increase, Despite the Science
By KQED News Staff AUG 21, 2013

...

Last year, Tamalpais Pediatrics, which cares for about 8,000 patients out of its Greenbrae and Novato clinics, told its patients that it would no longer treat children who have not been vaccinated with the measles/mumps/rubella vaccine by age 2.

“We decided this was a tinderbox,” said Tamalpais Pediatrics’ Dr. Nelson Branco. “We didn’t want measles transmitted in our waiting room.”

Branco said about 25 families decided to take their kids elsewhere.

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:
Staff Emeritus
2019 Award
Given that there is plenty of precendent for jailing parents (or just removing the kids) for dodging medical treatment for their kids already

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.

lisab
russ_watters
Mentor
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.
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:
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
This is very true. I find it misleading as well. When I was 2 years old I got measles and I was vaccinated against it. I was also vaccinated against Varicella (chickenpox) yet I contracted it when I was 7 years old. It wasn't funny. I've always been vaccinated up to the brain since I was a baby and still contracted those diseases.

The most one can say is that maybe (without any evidence) said vaccines only helped prevent complications that could have caused death. Because it's more than obvious they did not prevent the disease.

And with your post, now I know why. Thank you.
Edit: Let me clear that. What I mean is that now I know why I still contracted them despite being vaccinated.

Last edited:
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... So because of politeness you posted first a study, that would let reaching the conclusion "It's the left wing hippies fault!" in more data-based manner. ;) After discussion with my anti-vaxine friend, I'd suggest in next study ask people concerning standard conspiracy theories and see whether the support for them is also related. (she was a rare case of a creationist in Poland) Anyway, if you are evolving your healthcare system in the USA towards public one, shouldn't you just make some minor rate increase for not immunised people? OmCheeto Gold Member So because of politeness you posted first a study, that would let reaching the conclusion "It's the left wing hippies fault!" in more data-based manner. ;) Actually, I was going to post various other possible conclusions from the study, but I've been PM'd about "trying to be funny, but I'm not", so I didn't. Going back over the article, I see I left out the fact that there were 17 people in the discussion group. So 6 were provax, and 11 were antivax. One alternate conclusion is that crazy people are twice as likely to go to discussion groups. I have to admit, it's a really hard study for me to properly dissect, so I invite everyone to come to their own conclusion after reading it. One section sort of reinforces my hypothesis that this is an internet fueled problem: "Attitudes of Persons Who Declined/Delayed Vaccination for Their Children Parents did not report affiliation with a common religious/secular organization but said that they accessed 2 Web-based parenting discussion sites. Although these parenting Web sites were not focused on vaccination issues, and the proportion of persons accessing the Web sites who had intentionally undervaccinated children was unknown, discussion-group participants reported that the sites were used by many parents with intentionally undervaccinated children to exchange views and information." It continues: "Surveys were sent to 1642 e-mail accounts in the online parenting networks, and 256 surveys were returned during the collection period; a San Diego County residence was reported by 194 respondents, of whom 83 reported intentional undervaccination and were included in our analysis." This might indicate that crazy people are just as likely as non-crazy people to respond to random surveys. After discussion with my anti-vaxine friend, I'd suggest in next study ask people concerning standard conspiracy theories and see whether the support for them is also related. (she was a rare case of a creationist in Poland) Anyway, if you are evolving your healthcare system in the USA towards public one, shouldn't you just make some minor rate increase for not immunised people? Makes sense to me. My previous employer did something similar. It developed a variety of "get healthy" programs, which if you completed one, you got a check at the end of the year for$200 (738 złoty). I think they contributed around $7200 per year for my health coverage, so$200 was peanuts. Multiply that by 10,000 employees, and it adds up. That's $72,000,000 vs.$2,000,000. And if the employees are half as likely to go to the doctor, because they are healthier, it strikes me that the employer is going to win in the end, with much lower premiums.

From the survey again:

"RESULTS: The importation resulted in 839 exposed persons, 11 additional cases (all in unvaccinated children), and the hospitalization of an infant too young to be vaccinated. Two-dose vaccination coverage of 95%, absence of vaccine failure, and a vigorous outbreak response halted spread beyond the third generation, at a net public-sector cost of $10,376 per case." hmmm... This is interesting: http://www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/immunize/Documents/2014-15%20CA%20Kindergarten%20Immunization%20Assessment.pdf [Broken] CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH, IMMUNIZATION BRANCH This year 90.4% of the 535,332 students enrolled in reporting kindergartens received all required immunizations Which means only 56,849 kids were not fully vaccinated. Which at a buck a pop, is about half of cost of the 2008 San Diego outbreak of$114,136. (11 cases * $10376/case) And that's for the entire state! Wait! I just got a link fed to me via Facebook. It took 20 minutes to download, so their server must be heavily overloaded by millions of people reviewing the article. So I copied and mirrored the document to my website: How[/PLAIN] [Broken] do vaccines cause autism? See exactly what science says. Last edited by a moderator: Actually, I was going to post various other possible conclusions from the study, but I've been PM'd about "trying to be funny, but I'm not", so I didn't. Damn, a few topics ago we were speaking so highly about a few cartoonists who published almost funny pictures about Muhammed... Makes sense to me. My previous employer did something similar. It developed a variety of "get healthy" programs, which if you completed one, you got a check at the end of the year for$200 (738 złoty). I think they contributed around $7200 per year for my health coverage, so$200 was peanuts. Multiply that by 10,000 employees, and it adds up. That's $72,000,000 vs.$2,000,000. And if the employees are half as likely to go to the doctor, because they are healthier, it strikes me that the employer is going to win in the end, with much lower premiums.
I wonder whether it would be enough to openly allow private companies to differentiate premiums based on that. In such case it would not be the gov who would be the "bad guy", but punishment would be executed by markets. Of course there is an issue of herd immunity, which may ask for gov intervention, because profit oriented entity would care only about individual costs.

Anyway, in my country there is simple approach - kid has to be immunized, if not - ticket, that can be challenged in administrative court. Less finises and heroic fight for individual freedom, but so far more or less worked.