![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
missroserose18% of Americans "are convinced" that vaccinations cause autism; another 30% "aren't sure".
This despite the fact that:
[a] The initial study published linking the two has since been retracted by the medical paper in which it was published;
[b] The author of the study has had his medical license revoked and been barred from practicing medicine in Britain;
[c] The study has been repeatedly debunked and, most recently, declared "an elaborate fraud that has done long-lasting damage to public health" by the British medical establishment.
Eighteen percent may not seem like a huge number, but that translates to millions and millions of people who, at least in some cases, are hesitant (or unwilling) to get their children vaccinated. Fortunately, thanks in part to state laws requiring vaccinations, the percentage of vaccinated children is still very high (92%). But laws can be changed, and the problem with government by the people is that "the people" are easily influenced by things that scare them, especially when it comes to their children.
Now, normally I wouldn't even be that bothered by such a statistic. It's sad, certainly, but it's not that unusual and it's frankly pretty understandable. People love to look for patterns, and when it comes to something as personally tragic and little-understood as autism, that tendency is going to go into overdrive. Things are less scary when you have an explanation for them, no matter how untrue that explanation might be. It's the same reasoning that made mothers of epileptic children back in the day accuse other women of practicing witchcraft on their children.
Similarly, this particular surge of paranoia falls into a pretty classic cyclical pattern that people are prone to. Back in the days when polio and smallpox weren't uncommon diseases, the invention of vaccinations was a godsend - suddenly the chances of your child making it into adulthood alive, unscarred and unparalyzed were significantly higher. Similarly, diseases like measles and mumps, while not quite as drastic, still cost their share of lives (and parents their share of worry). So the idea that a magic shot could forestall all of that pain and misery and worry was wholeheartedly embraced.
Fast forward a generation or two. Now, smallpox has been declared globally eradicated, and we're well on our way to doing so with polio as well. Measles outbreaks still occur on occasion, but are far smaller and less disastrous. And when was the last time you heard about a friend (or a friend's kid) coming down with mumps? We all know, theoretically, that these are serious diseases that can permanently harm or kill people, but our collective sense of urgency about them has declined, simply because most of us haven't experienced them directly.
So, now the autism idea has been introduced, and (not unlike the viruses previously discussed) spread throughout the vulnerable population. Even a decade or two ago, telling people you were voluntarily not vaccinating your children would have gotten you strange looks at the least, and a visit from CPS more likely. Now, even though the majority still know the "connection" is hooey, there's just enough collective nods of support (and indifferent shrugs and attitudes of "well, it can't hurt") that people are managing it, usually by claiming religious exemptions that were initially put in the law for folks like the Amish.
Now, I understand how conspiracy theories work in people's minds. One of my favorite mottos is "You can't reason someone out of something if they didn't use reason to get into it." But speaking as a thinking, reasoning person, I feel almost obligated to speak up here. And even if it doesn't convince a single person or do one whit of good, I'll at least feel better for having made the effort. So, to anyone who's even remotely considering not vaccinating their children for fear of their developing autism: Let me address you directly for a moment.
This despite the fact that:
[a] The initial study published linking the two has since been retracted by the medical paper in which it was published;
[b] The author of the study has had his medical license revoked and been barred from practicing medicine in Britain;
[c] The study has been repeatedly debunked and, most recently, declared "an elaborate fraud that has done long-lasting damage to public health" by the British medical establishment.
Eighteen percent may not seem like a huge number, but that translates to millions and millions of people who, at least in some cases, are hesitant (or unwilling) to get their children vaccinated. Fortunately, thanks in part to state laws requiring vaccinations, the percentage of vaccinated children is still very high (92%). But laws can be changed, and the problem with government by the people is that "the people" are easily influenced by things that scare them, especially when it comes to their children.
Now, normally I wouldn't even be that bothered by such a statistic. It's sad, certainly, but it's not that unusual and it's frankly pretty understandable. People love to look for patterns, and when it comes to something as personally tragic and little-understood as autism, that tendency is going to go into overdrive. Things are less scary when you have an explanation for them, no matter how untrue that explanation might be. It's the same reasoning that made mothers of epileptic children back in the day accuse other women of practicing witchcraft on their children.
Similarly, this particular surge of paranoia falls into a pretty classic cyclical pattern that people are prone to. Back in the days when polio and smallpox weren't uncommon diseases, the invention of vaccinations was a godsend - suddenly the chances of your child making it into adulthood alive, unscarred and unparalyzed were significantly higher. Similarly, diseases like measles and mumps, while not quite as drastic, still cost their share of lives (and parents their share of worry). So the idea that a magic shot could forestall all of that pain and misery and worry was wholeheartedly embraced.
Fast forward a generation or two. Now, smallpox has been declared globally eradicated, and we're well on our way to doing so with polio as well. Measles outbreaks still occur on occasion, but are far smaller and less disastrous. And when was the last time you heard about a friend (or a friend's kid) coming down with mumps? We all know, theoretically, that these are serious diseases that can permanently harm or kill people, but our collective sense of urgency about them has declined, simply because most of us haven't experienced them directly.
So, now the autism idea has been introduced, and (not unlike the viruses previously discussed) spread throughout the vulnerable population. Even a decade or two ago, telling people you were voluntarily not vaccinating your children would have gotten you strange looks at the least, and a visit from CPS more likely. Now, even though the majority still know the "connection" is hooey, there's just enough collective nods of support (and indifferent shrugs and attitudes of "well, it can't hurt") that people are managing it, usually by claiming religious exemptions that were initially put in the law for folks like the Amish.
Now, I understand how conspiracy theories work in people's minds. One of my favorite mottos is "You can't reason someone out of something if they didn't use reason to get into it." But speaking as a thinking, reasoning person, I feel almost obligated to speak up here. And even if it doesn't convince a single person or do one whit of good, I'll at least feel better for having made the effort. So, to anyone who's even remotely considering not vaccinating their children for fear of their developing autism: Let me address you directly for a moment.
Look, guys. I totally understand taking the "accepted knowledge" with a grain of salt - there are all kinds of historical examples of people believing something to be true for generations and it turning out to be false (and sometimes harmful). I completely get not wanting the government to interfere in how you raise your children; it's your family and your values. And I especially can see why you'd want to be particularly careful when the decision seems so clear-cut; you've probably seen autistic kids first-hand, while the spectre of measles or polio seems just that - a spectre with little likelihood of manifesting in reality.
Now, if you've been looking into the research on vaccinations (and I hope you have, especially if you've also been listening to Jenny McCarthy on the subject), you've probably come across the term "herd immunity". Specifically, this is how vaccines work. There will always be a small portion of the population who (for religious or medical reasons) won't be vaccinated - they might have compromised immune systems, or they might be deathly allergic to the ingredients of a vaccine. However, so long as the significant majority of the population surrounding them is vaccinated, they can enjoy a certain immunity as well: the chances of their contracting a disease that everyone around them is immune to is basically nil. If you don't vaccinate your children, the likelihood of their contracting a serious disease is also fairly small, because our vaccination levels are so high. Fairly easy to understand, right?
The next step is a little bit more abstract, but see if you can follow me here. Your unvaccinated children can enjoy herd immunity, true - but every additional child who remains unvaccinated weakens the herd immunity as a whole. So long as the minority of vulnerable children remains small, the rest of us will act as a firebreak of sorts, making it hard for a serious illness to reach them. But as that minority grows, even if it's still a minority, the chances of their coming into contact with a carrier of one of these illnesses shoots up exponentially.
Now, while polio isn't completely eradicated yet, its presence among developed nations is pretty much gone. And the death rate in those developed nations for diseases like measles is vanishingly small (0.3%). So it might not seem like that big a deal if your kid does come into contact with them - I know there's a small minority of parents who actively seek out these diseases in order to expose their children to them. Sure, it's a few weeks of worry and hassle, but then they'll get better and you won't have to worry about them getting it again, right?
Well, yes, that's likely true - for your child. The problem with this line of thought is that you're completely discounting the fact that your decision affects other people too. People who, for instance, never got vaccinated because they're allergic to the vaccine - let's say one of those people is now an adult, and he catches measles from your child. The rate of complications (and death) from measles is significantly higher when you catch the disease as an adult. Are you really going to tell this person's grieving family that you're sorry their husband/father/son is dead, all because you couldn't run the nonexistent risk of vaccinating your child?
Okay, well, that person was an adult and at least had a good run of life. What about children who are less healthy than your own? Some children are born with compromised immune systems, either through genetic or environmental factors, but never through any fault of their own. Are you going to tell the parents of your kid's seven-year-old best friend that their child had to die because Oprah told you that vaccines were evil?
My plea to you is the same as my pleas on any similar topic, or in any case where people are trying to make you scared so that you won't think rationally - do your research. Learn the difference between "anecdote" and "fact", consider the reliability and credentials of your sources, and think critically about both sides of the issue. Don't let fear and the desire to fit into a misguided group sway your decisions, and please don't fall into the confirmation bias trap. Believing that the sun goes around the earth, or that the universe was created 4,000 years ago, or that our president is a Muslim - well, I might think you're wrong, but it doesn't really hurt anyone else, so it's your choice to believe that. But this is something that has real consequences for real people who aren't you or your child. Would you kill another person because you heard on television that it might keep your child from developing autism? Would you kill your own child? In an indirect way, that may be exactly the choice you're making when you refuse to vaccinate.
As I said before, I don't really expect this to do any good. And I take a bleak, Pyrrhic sort of comfort in the fact that it's a self-correcting problem; if the hysteria gets bad enough and enough people don't vaccinate their kids, we'll end up with a minor epidemic on our hands, which will reinforce the necessity of vaccinating in people's minds and figuratively vaccinate us against the vaccines=optional idea for another generation or so. But small comfort as that is to me, it's even less for the parents and families of the vulnerable people who will die in such an event. I can only hope that it won't come to that, and that the hysteria will die down before it reaches that critical mass where it starts changing laws and significantly altering cultural attitudes - if it hasn't reached that point already.Now, if you've been looking into the research on vaccinations (and I hope you have, especially if you've also been listening to Jenny McCarthy on the subject), you've probably come across the term "herd immunity". Specifically, this is how vaccines work. There will always be a small portion of the population who (for religious or medical reasons) won't be vaccinated - they might have compromised immune systems, or they might be deathly allergic to the ingredients of a vaccine. However, so long as the significant majority of the population surrounding them is vaccinated, they can enjoy a certain immunity as well: the chances of their contracting a disease that everyone around them is immune to is basically nil. If you don't vaccinate your children, the likelihood of their contracting a serious disease is also fairly small, because our vaccination levels are so high. Fairly easy to understand, right?
The next step is a little bit more abstract, but see if you can follow me here. Your unvaccinated children can enjoy herd immunity, true - but every additional child who remains unvaccinated weakens the herd immunity as a whole. So long as the minority of vulnerable children remains small, the rest of us will act as a firebreak of sorts, making it hard for a serious illness to reach them. But as that minority grows, even if it's still a minority, the chances of their coming into contact with a carrier of one of these illnesses shoots up exponentially.
Now, while polio isn't completely eradicated yet, its presence among developed nations is pretty much gone. And the death rate in those developed nations for diseases like measles is vanishingly small (0.3%). So it might not seem like that big a deal if your kid does come into contact with them - I know there's a small minority of parents who actively seek out these diseases in order to expose their children to them. Sure, it's a few weeks of worry and hassle, but then they'll get better and you won't have to worry about them getting it again, right?
Well, yes, that's likely true - for your child. The problem with this line of thought is that you're completely discounting the fact that your decision affects other people too. People who, for instance, never got vaccinated because they're allergic to the vaccine - let's say one of those people is now an adult, and he catches measles from your child. The rate of complications (and death) from measles is significantly higher when you catch the disease as an adult. Are you really going to tell this person's grieving family that you're sorry their husband/father/son is dead, all because you couldn't run the nonexistent risk of vaccinating your child?
Okay, well, that person was an adult and at least had a good run of life. What about children who are less healthy than your own? Some children are born with compromised immune systems, either through genetic or environmental factors, but never through any fault of their own. Are you going to tell the parents of your kid's seven-year-old best friend that their child had to die because Oprah told you that vaccines were evil?
My plea to you is the same as my pleas on any similar topic, or in any case where people are trying to make you scared so that you won't think rationally - do your research. Learn the difference between "anecdote" and "fact", consider the reliability and credentials of your sources, and think critically about both sides of the issue. Don't let fear and the desire to fit into a misguided group sway your decisions, and please don't fall into the confirmation bias trap. Believing that the sun goes around the earth, or that the universe was created 4,000 years ago, or that our president is a Muslim - well, I might think you're wrong, but it doesn't really hurt anyone else, so it's your choice to believe that. But this is something that has real consequences for real people who aren't you or your child. Would you kill another person because you heard on television that it might keep your child from developing autism? Would you kill your own child? In an indirect way, that may be exactly the choice you're making when you refuse to vaccinate.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-01-23 09:11 pm (UTC)If it's any sort of consolation, everyone I know who has children gets them vaccinated. And there's apparently some headway being made in the realm of vaccine-patches, which would really be very cool, I think. (I think it's Emory University in GA that's helping on that one...)
no subject
Date: 2011-01-23 09:26 pm (UTC)That is cool, although I doubt it will help much with the zealots - see above re: use of reason to get in/out of a mindset. Fortunately, state laws seem to be doing their job - 92%'s still a very high number. At this point, it's more the cultural shift in thinking that I'm worried about - such things are great when they happen with stuff like gay rights, but not so great when charismatic and well-meaning but misguided people are behind them.
no subject
Date: 2011-01-23 10:40 pm (UTC)I suspect the "cause" of autism will eventually be linked to paternal genetics. I also suspect that research will uncover a relationship between having the genetic predisposition for autism and sensitivity to toxins, whether it be certain metals (mercury, aluminum) found in vaccines or certain allergy-triggering foods (gluten, dairy). But those are just my guesses.
I subscribe to the Dr. Sears version of vaccinations, which says that we should vaccinate our kids but more slowly than recommended by the AAP. When you and I were kids, we got 10 vaccines. Now kids get 35 in the same time period. I think that's a lot on a little bitty immune system, and it couldn't hurt to spread them out a little more. For instance, there's no reason to give infants the Hepatitis B vaccine -- it's a sexually transmitted disease. We didn't have to have that one until our teens.
no subject
Date: 2011-01-23 11:51 pm (UTC)That's true about the correlation - I'd been meaning to mention that, but it must have gotten lost. While correlation and causation may be linked, more often they point to a common cause. My favorite example of this is the amateur scientist who observes that, during certain periods of the year, women wear shorter skirts, and during those same periods of the year, people eat more ice cream. He therefore concludes that shorter skirts cause increased ice cream consumption.
I read about an interesting metastudy where some folks gathered data on the availability of television in individual communities, specifically television aimed at toddlers, and the reported rates of autism in each of those communities, while controlling for things like weather (i.e. how much time a kid would be likely to spend outside and not in front of the TV) and income levels. That also brought up some rather fascinating correlations, but we're a long, long way from proof that toddler-age TV consumption causes autism. Again, most likely a common third factor. (Although the thought of people suing all those "make your baby a genius with our videos" companies for actually making their kid autistic fills me with schadenfreude. :)
My heart really goes out to the people who are convinced that vaccines made their kids autistic. I can't even imagine how heartbreaking a diagnosis like that is, and latching on to an explanation (and crusading to "prevent" it from happening to others) probably makes them feel a lot less helpless. If it weren't for the danger to the rest of us that their crusading presents, I'd just say let them.
(Also, have I mentioned that I might need to gank that icon? I might need to gank that icon. :)
no subject
Date: 2011-01-24 02:09 am (UTC)-If you get enough of the vocal constituency thinking that vaccinations are a devil's tool that is killing the children, they will be made illegal (ref: marijuana).
-Vaccination by exposure: obviously not ideal for MMR/smallpox/black death, but chickenpox, flu... we (I'm guessing) all had those growing up, don't have to worry about them, and don't have to deal with nagging things like shingles.
-Normal childhood illnesses build character and appreciation for not having worse illnesses. As well as an appreciation for mineral-added baths, warm soup, and why if you're sick you should call in not go in, damnit.
-Queen Victoria avatar: you win at the intertubes.
no subject
Date: 2011-01-24 03:23 am (UTC)I can't imagine vaccines becoming *that* unpopular - at least, I've not met anyone so far gone as to question their efficacy. But then, when you're dealing with fundamentally irrational people, anything is possible...
no subject
Date: 2011-01-24 05:49 am (UTC)That consent provided by the parents for children. Medical treatment provided to one person to possibly benefit another isn't something I'm generally inclined to accept for legal compulsion. More certain benefits to another person might be acceptable, for example some direct threats to a foetus or sexual partner. Or compelled immunisation or isolation when there is a major threat of high rates of death (whole numbers per thousand) from a major epidemic.
Normal measles, endemic in a population, isn't lethal enough to pass that high rate of death threshold. The estimate in Wikpedia is only 5,200 deaths prevented in the US in the first 20 years, about one per ten thousand infections.
Herd immunity is too diffuse a factor for me to support forced vaccination. Better to sell vaccination on its benefits, make it free of all charges and leave it up to individuals to decide.
The child death rate in the US is apparently about one per eleven thousand swimming pools (http://www.anesi.com/accdeath.htm). According to WISQARS in 2007 for those aged 5-9 drowning was the third most common cause of death due to unintentional injury (http://webappa.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.exe?_service=v8prod&_server=app-v-ehip-wisq.cdc.gov&_port=5081&_sessionid=W//i.um.M52&_program=wisqars.details10.sas&_service=&type=U&prtfmt=STANDARD&age1=5&age2=9&agegp=5-9&deaths=965&_debug=0&lcdfmt=lcd1ageðnicty=0&ranking=10&deathtle=Death), at one quarter the rate in traffic accidents, which caused 456 deaths.
The leading cause of injury for those aged 1 to 16 inclusive was unintentional injury, causing 5,328 deaths in 2007 in the US. Cancer was the second most common major cause, with 1,577 deaths. Within the unintentional injury group (http://webappa.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.exe?_service=v8prod&_server=app-v-ehip-wisq.cdc.gov&_port=5081&_sessionid=ARH4Hvm.M52&_program=wisqars.details10.sas&_service=&type=U&prtfmt=STANDARD&age1=1&age2=16&agegp=1-16&deaths=5326&_debug=0&lcdfmt=customðnicty=0&ranking=10&deathtle=Death) the leading cause of death was motor vehicle accidents, 49.8% of that group, 2,651. Drowning was second in that group, 14.8%, 786 deaths.
It's estimated that in the US if measles hadn't been treated at all for the first twenty years it would have saved about two years worth of current rate auto accident deaths. Nice to see those lives saved, of course, but not where I'd choose to direct most education money and controversy. Even less so for the risk from the minimal number of infections in the US today, with just 66 cases in the US in 2005, more than half due to one person infected abroad.
It's just not worth the miniscule benefit to accept the strife of coercion, and never will be for measles unless it suddenly develops a more lethal strain.
Flu and pneumonia caused 230 deaths in the US in those 1-16 years old in the US, the seventh most common cause. Investigating ways to reduce those deaths might be a better use of resources. Measures like banning attending school if showing symptoms might reduce the incidence, as might rescheduling school times to avoid the times of peak flu activity. Reduced school attendance during hours of darkness would probably also reduce auto accident deaths. No medical controversy involved, just public willingness to accept a change of schedules to save more children's lives than vaccination in the US.
Less disruptive and possibly with higher lives saved counts would be changes to car and booster seat designs for children, which apparently have a 72% misuse rate (http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/childpas.htm). Fix that and it could save many more lives than even flu kills. Or note the observation that children in the back seat have a 40% reduction in injury rate and ensure that parents know it.
How often do child protection services take action against parents for almost doubling the risk of injury in an auto accident by having them travel in the front seat of a car? It's probably a better use of their time and resources, if measured by lives and injuries avoided.
no subject
Date: 2011-01-24 06:02 am (UTC)Thanks for prompting me to do the research that persuaded me that I should reject immunisation of any children I'm responsible for, on health grounds.
But don't get too worried. :) As soon as practical in the US means after measles has almost completely been eradicated in the rest of the world, so there's no longer a source of infection that could be brought to the US. Time to throw vaccinations at every country that will accept them, free of charge, to eliminate the adverse health effect on the US population currently being vaccinated.
10% of those being vaccinated having adverse health effects is a lot and should be dealt with, not tolerated.
no subject
Date: 2011-01-26 12:42 am (UTC)I'm no great fan of compelled medical treatment, either (I support death-with-dignity laws and am pro-choice). But requiring at least major vaccinations in order to attend school (which is how most of these laws are written) only makes sense. 55 cases isn't a lot, but keep in mind that's *with* our current levels of herd immunity. (And yes, I had a minor fever after getting my MMR booster, but compared to the multi-week misery that's measles or mumps I figure it's a pretty small price to pay.)
I'm not arguing for additional laws or regulations, or even any use of resources other than what we're already expending; I don't actually think CPS needs to be involved (I was merely attempting to evoke how far attitudes have shifted in the intervening years). I'm simply trying to get across the message that this isn't a decision that affects only your child. If you put your kid in the front seat and they get hurt as a result, well, that's sad, but your family is the only one who was hurt because of your decision. If you refuse to vaccinate your kid and they infect another kid with an immune disorder, that's a much worse situation. There needs to be some kind of firebreak between infected kids and vulnerable ones; "send them home from school when they start showing symptoms" alone doesn't work, as most viruses have an incubation period and by the time symptoms are showing the damage is done.
Living in society with other people is a compromise; you get many benefits but occasionally are subjected to the "strife of coercion"; specifically, in cases where the individual interest is neutral or negative but the collective interest is positive. Balancing those compromises is tricky; go too far in the one direction and you end up with Japanese resettlement camps or the McCarthy hearings. But something as relatively harmless and collectively beneficial as vaccination doesn't deserve to be lumped into that category, and it certainly doesn't deserve to have damaging lies spread about it by paranoid celebrities.
no subject
Date: 2011-01-26 02:57 am (UTC)To avoid that the US is currently exposing all those with unknown egg allergy to the risk of fatal reaction to the vaccine, with an incidence that I wasn't able to discover. It's low, but is it lower than one fatal case per hundred years? Add in the effect of the pain and cost of the vaccination and its common adverse reactions and it's very easy for me to believe that the numbers now favour eliminating the use of the measles vaccine in the US, on the grounds that it is doing more harm than the measles it's preventing.
But that requires taking some time to prevent lots of new cases in a future un-vaccinated population. So make up 10 years worth of doses per year, don't give them to the US population but instead distribute them free for the next ten years to try to eliminate measles worldwide.
With the very low incidence in the US today I don't see a reason to compel measles vaccination. If a case of measles is reported in an area, most likely an adult who left the country and returned, bar all those who aren't vaccinated from school for the time when there's a risk of infection. Offer free vaccinations to anyone who may have had contacts with the infected person and anyone in the areas visited by that person who wants one. Offer free vaccinations to anyone traveling to areas where measles remains a common infection, so they are less likely to bring it home with them. Those are simple measures that avoid any compelled medical treatment and is likely to be extremely effective for almost the whole country, which won't see any of the tiny number of cases.
Your "booster" reaction implies that you were one of those who wasn't successfully vaccinated the first time. The success rate is about 85% so even two shots leaves 2.25% of the population with no enhanced immune response if all try it. This group won't know that they should stay away from school or get another shot so there's still a chance that they will infect others after being infected themselves.
Given the easy and less troublesome alternatives I don't think it makes sense to continue mass measles vaccination in the US for much longer, even voluntarily. Better to use the resources to try to eliminate it worldwide and remove it from the human population forever.
no subject
Date: 2011-01-26 03:19 am (UTC)Actually, to the best of my knowledge, I was successfully vaccinated the first time. I got a booster at 14 because there was a measles outbreak in my hometown, and the local health services put on free clinics where you could get it re-done to be safe. And based on that experience, I'm not entirely convinced that an after-the-fact response is better than a widespread preventative - waiting in a huge long line was a pain, and the volunteer who injected me was obviously very poorly trained and made it about five times more painful than it needed to be. I'd much rather have it administered as part of a routine exam, by someone who knows what they're doing. But I'll certainly agree that a worldwide eradication initiative would be welcome, especially as the fewer infections there are, the less likely it is to mutate and develop a more lethal strain.
no subject
Date: 2011-01-26 07:14 am (UTC)1. Offering free vaccinations to those traveling to areas where measles is widely present.
2. Removing anyone not vaccinated from school whenever there's a case in an area.
3. Offering free vaccinations to contacts and those in the area of any cases.
That gets most people the benefit of not having the vaccination while still dealing with the small number of cases that happen. Withdrawing mass voluntary vaccination could wait until there's reduced prevalence elsewhere, though it already seems that there are many places where travel doesn't give rise to any reason to be vaccinated.
You might find the UK policy on vaccination against tuberculosis interesting (http://www.patient.co.uk/health/BCG-Immunisation.htm"). That reflects the reduced incidence in recent years that makes it inappropriate to vaccinate every child. Measles in the US seems to be far less prevalent than that.
no subject
Date: 2011-01-26 07:38 am (UTC)fever: 1 in 10 treated.
convulsions: 1 in 1,000 treated.
meningitis / encephalitis: 1 in 1,000,000 treated.
anaphylaxis: 1 in 100,000 treated.
Comparing those effects to those of the low number of cases of measles suggests to me that the measles vaccination program in the US is currently likely to be harming more children than the current incidence of measles in the US.
That leaves fear of a resurgence that could result in more than a hundred or so cases a year as the reason to consider continued use of the vaccine. Doesn't seem sensible to me at current levels, it can be resumed if there is a substantial increase to at least the point where the problems caused by the cases are at a level significantly greater than those caused by the vaccinations.
To me it seems that the US laws mandating measles vaccination are now out of date, not reflecting the current level of risk after a successful program that has largely eliminated the disease in the US. Less severe measures seem more appropriate now.
no subject
Date: 2011-01-26 03:02 am (UTC)Just For the Record
Date: 2011-01-25 06:13 pm (UTC)Re: Just For the Record
Date: 2011-01-26 12:16 am (UTC)