A vaccine for superbugs because it isn't profitable enough to make antibiotics.

[bubbleymummy]

Story here

Not exactly ethical really is it? Not that the pharmaceutical companies are that well known for their ethics... :)

Still doesn't negate the fact that there was a large outbreak in a highly vaccinated population. Although it does make it more plausible that they were all from a Steiner school

Yes, I realised that's probably what had happened.

I've not found more details for Saudi but it may have had similar characteristics to the one in Quatar the same year:

ABSTRACT While a major reduction in morbidity and mortality from measles has been achieved in Qatar since it adopted the measles elimination programme in 1997, the country has experienced small, recurrent measles outbreaks. The aim of this study was to determine the demographical and epidemiological characteristics of measles cases reported to the surveillance programme in Qatar in 2007. Of 362 confirmed cases 67.7% were among children aged 1?14 years old and 16.9% were > 15 years. A majority of cases were unvaccinated (35.9%) or had unknown or undocumented vaccination status (47.0%). The high proportion of cases were among Pakistani nationals (39.5%) followed by Qataris (27.6%). Measles outbreaks were concentrated among the children of expatriates of Asian ethnicity with unknown vaccination status. This highlights the importance of achieving uniformly high levels of vaccination coverage in a community.

If I am reading the WHO data, it talks about "target population" immunised, which is a very different thing to entire population. Target population appears to be 9 month olds for first measles or those scheduled for a series of MMR up to age 6.

I make it:
26 million total population, thereabouts
334 cases of measles in 2010
Last time they surveyed coverage of target population (1995) - coverage was 97%.
We don't know enough about these figures to start using them to do calculations of our own.

RE: passive immunity - it is useful but is not a bomb proof shield. When the maternal passive immunity wears off the baby's immune system will start forming its own immunity to things, and be able to produce its own antibodies, which are specific to individual diseases.

RE: whooping cough. Given we agree, I think, that it would be difficult to eradicate whooping cough from the population it is clear that the more immunised children the better. This is the best way of protecting vulnerable newborns. The logic of this is, I suggest, because if you have an unvaccinated population most of the infections will occur in the very young. So toddlers and newborns. Those least able to withstand this awful disease. Older children and adults in this unvaccinated population would be the ones that survived and have good immunity as a consequence. Once you have a vaccine, albeit an imperfect one, the logic is clear.

"passive immunity - it is useful but is not a bomb proof shield. When the maternal passive immunity wears off the baby's immune system will start forming its own immunity to things, and be able to produce its own antibodies, which are specific to individual diseases."

Do you think I don't know this? I've mentioned several times that it provides temporary protection while the baby's immune system matures.

Back later no time

Thanks for the link Bubbley and thank you for the analysis Grimma - was away from the computer and (not wanting to gloat or anything), but I was right with my predictions...

"if you have an unvaccinated population most of the infections will occur in the very young"

Do you mean because the older population have natural acquired immunity? I think natural immunity to whooping cough only lasts around 12 years as well. Iirc the recent whooping cough outbreak in the US has mainly been affecting adults.

Are you referring to the outbreak in California last year in which, it appears that it was children who had the highest incidence.

"Ten deaths were reported; 9 (90%) were Hispanic infants. Nine fatalities were infants

No, I wasn't specifically referring to that outbreak. It was something that looked at the increase in pertussis over the last few years and over 50% of cases were in adolescents or adults. I realise that most to of the fatalities are in very young children which is tragic but, as I've pointed out. Even a high vaccination rate can't guarantee protection due to the short lived nature of the immunity the vaccine provides.

Sorry but this (including the BBC story) seem very confused! Vaccines on the main are for viral infections, anti-biotics are for bacterial. The use of bleach and good hygiene would be the best first port of call for bacterial infections (so nurses not wearing uniform home and higher cleanliness). If we use anti-biotics too much, especially not finishing courses etc. then a few bacteria survive, and pass on their ability to survive to their offspring. This leads to super bugs.

Vaccines on the whole are only useful against viruses (due to the way white blood cells attack them). So I can't see how they would be a genuine response to bacterial infection.

If you want to campaign then campaign for more hospital laundry, more cleaning staff and places for hospital staff to change their clothes. What about "Bleach not vaccines" as a slogan.

I think vaccines can be used against any antigen, not just viruses. So it may be that a vaccine can be developed not against a whole bacterium, but against the toxin it produces which is what actually makes us ill.

You're absolutely right that appropriate hygiene is a most important defence... wash your salad! But, conversely, don't go mad with domestic antibacterials, we need low-level challenges; a bit of 'good clean dirt' is an excellent thing for a child's immune system. Its getting the balance right which is difficult. Hospitals by their nature are breeding grounds for human pathogens - normal houses aren't.

The BBC story also didn't mention a few other things, such as that that vaccines maye be developed for use in cattle rather than people, if cattle are the vectors of infection. And there are other alternatives being researched, e.g. phages (about which I know nothing) - so its not just 'vaccines instead of ABs'.

campaign for more hospital laundry, more cleaning staff and places for hospital staff to change their clothes

I second that - I flinch every time I see nurses/doctors in their greens and blues in the hospital canteen. I know it comes down to too little time/to few facilities to change for lunch, but this is just the perfect to get hospital bugs out of the hospital and street bugs in...

Bubbleymummy, in the Californian outbreak it was mainly kids. See the link. Would you like to cite your source? In any case millions of doctors and public health officials, all over the world are agreed that, given some adults may catch whooping cough, the best plan is to vaccinate infants. This means that they will be protected at the stage in their lives when they are most likely to be made very seriously ill by the disease.
There are undoubtedly a range of vaccines against bacterial diseases. Diphtheria is an example along with Tetanus and Whooping cough.
Bacterial diseases often do their damage via toxins they produce.
The vaccines tend to be made by using these toxins as the antigen. (e.g. Tetanus Toxoid vaccine). Not as powerful as a dose of the real thing but a darn sight better than getting diseases like Diphtheria which was common, within living memory.
I agree re hygiene. Kitchen hygiene is a good thing and cheap, thin bleach is an excellent way to achieve this. It will help to protect against food poisoning and is better for the environment than antibacterials.
Hand washing can reduce some infections as well. But neither of these will protect against diseases like measles or whooping cough that are spread by droplets.
Hospital infections not all down to staff and hygiene. The resistant bugs are out in the community now. Hence MRSA screening before surgery. You can have it on your body and it does no harm until you have a wound plus lowered immunity after surgery.
But worth watching the staff like a hawk, it's true. On paediatric wards you have to fend off staff that just fancy a cuddle of baby!

Yes, I saw the link. As I said, the article I was reading was looking at the increase in the number of cases over the last few years - since 2003 I think. There was concern about the number of cases appearing in adolescents and adults and I think that was what triggered the campaign for boosters in that age group. Sorry - not at home ATM so I have no access to links. It would be interesting to see how that campaign was doing prior to the California outbreak. Re. Vaccinating infants - yes, but the vaccine isn't given until 8 weeks and think of how many potentially infected adults a baby can come into contact with in that time - parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, friends, older siblings etc.

Mummytime, vaccines can be for bacteria as well. They are just exploring other possibilities because certain bacteria are becoming resistant to antibiotics. I agree that hygiene also has an important role to play. Some hospitals are shocking. The bathroom I used in the maternity ward when I was having DS1 had blood around the toilet and in the shower cubicle

vaccinating mums before ttc or even in trimester three is a cool idea to cover the first weeks after birth.