Unsure about vaccinations? Try reading "Deadly Choices"

[arkestra]

I got Whooping Cough recently at age 43, what fun. Apparently vaccine immunity for WC wears off after a few decades. It was as ill as I have ever been and I was pretty much out of action for 3 months. There has been an increase of WC cases recently in the SW of England, where I live. I could rant at anti -vaccine campaigners, but what would be the point? I am more concerned that the people who are unsure have access to a clear statement of the pro-vaccine position.

So can I suggest that anyone who is unsure about vaccination reads "Deadly Choices" on the pro-vaccine front even if they read nothing else?

I just had my early summer ruined. But babies get killed by this kind of thing. I totally get why people find vaccines icky and unsettling, there are hard wired ways we intuitively think about our bodies that foster that kind of reaction. So just read this book if you're on the fence OK? It would be nice if lots of other 40-somethings don't irritate everyone else with their wheezing and self-pity

(Gets back off soapbox)

Right I'm back on a normal computer with my lenses in.

Arkestra, I have read your posts and to be honest they came across as rather narcissistic and over concerned with your own illness. I've thought them rather odd - to be totally, totally honest - and somewhat self-contradictory (for eg LaVolcan pointed out one of those self-contraditions early on).

I don't see much point in talking about the value of mass testing, mass boosting etc, as if that's something I've proposed. It's just a straw man you two seem to have come up with. I haven't suggested anything of the sort. It's certainly possible to construct such an argument in terms of the statist approach to vaccination, but I haven't done that here, so I don't know why you've wasted so much energy talking about it.

My argument (which you seem to accept) is that you can't advise, lecture or even have any business taking a proprietory interest in anyone else's immunity unless your own status is up to the same standards. That means regular checking and boosters if necessary.

Now, you don't know your status, and you have no intention of finding out, and that's fine, because apparently you don't advise anyone to vaccinate for herd immunity, or criticise their status, or in any way judge that their immunity is any of your business. Have I got that right?

You can't have "partial herd immunity". But you can have "partial herd effects short of immunity". Which is what they are aiming for in this case.

True herd immunity effectively eliminates a disease but practical herd effects achievable in the real world will tend to fall short if this. But saying a herd effect doesn't reach the eliminations threshold is very different from saying the herd effect doesn't make a huge difference.

It would probably be better if everyone used terms like "herd protection" rather than "herd immunity" as I agree "herd immunity" will often describe the ideal instead if the actual result.

Re reporting: I agree adult Pertussis is probably under-reported, but I think infant Pertussis is probably better reported. Adult benefit is a secondary thing, it's infant benefit we all care about.

By the way wrt your "freeloader" aside - you were one, remember? You weren't immune and you were relying on the immunity of others to protect you. And it didn't, and now you don't know if you're immune to MMR, and you're relying on the immunity of others to protect your children (assuming you have children - apols if that assumption is wrong). So you still might be what you call a freeloader. You have no idea and no intention of finding out.

No - true herd immunity is natural herd immunity. That involves a number of ways of protecting people (or members of the herd) - for e.g.
passive immunity through maternal anti-bodies, natural boosters through circulating disease, generational strengthening of stock etc. This is a kind of "infectious" immunity.

Vaccination herd immunity has one tool in its lunch box - reduced exposure. Vaccination immunity is not "infectious" - it only protects the vaccinated person. If an unvaccinated person, or a person with waned vax immunity is exposed to measles, they'll still most likely get it. This is why waning immunity is so tremendously important for those people who think it's only important to scoop up all the children wrt vax.

Crumbled: sorry, wrong number. I bear you no ill will but you are not worth the effort to engage with on current evidence. You just can't understand what anyone else is saying to you. All the best

I certainly can't understand what you're saying to me. I've never come across anything like it.

Extraordinary

Well that article that you linked to said that deaths from pertussis could be higher because it isn't always recognised so again, the number of cases/deaths could be higher than reported. Tbh, given that quite a few people seem to think that if you've been vaccinated you can't catch the disease, the figures are probably much higher. Even some doctors seem reluctant to diagnose a disease if the patient has been vaccinated against it. That really isn't going to help accuracy!

I think 'herd protection' will be thought of in the same way as 'herd immunity' tbh. what they have advised is having the vaccine to protect yourself and not rely on others.

Bumbly: two things I've got from this thread are that immunity wears off a lot earlier than I thought for a whole range of diseases, and I need to be a lot more nuanced in how I think and talk about herd protection effects.

Also - must be maddening if a GP refuses to diagnose an ailment because of a vaccination that will largely have worn off 10 years ago, I do see that.

Thanks to all who have tried to engage with me. Some of it is getting through, honest! Am out for rest if day now - probably just as well

Don't forget you've also got a great book recommendation! You'll learn a lot, I promise.

Enjoy your day out :)

Crumbled: ordered the book last night - will read it as soon as it arrives!

Credit to you - I'm surprised but definitely impressed. You've proved me wrong on one thing (although I didn't say it, I didn't think you would!) Have a nice day :)

crumble says 'thousands of temporal correlations require research'.

Firstly, you haven't counted the number of correlations, so you're just tossing baseless numbers about. Secondly, counting the number of correlations doesn't mean shit by itself. If autism is diagnosed in 1% of the population around the time of MMR, and you vaccinate a million children there will be thousands of temporal correlations. This would not be a reason to do research.

There is no increased incidence of autism in children vaccinated with MMR compared with unvaccinated children (Farrington et al., 2001; Madsen and Vestergaard, 2004).

There is no clustering of the onset of symptoms of autism in the period following MMR vaccination (Taylor et al., 1999; Mäkelä et al., 2002).

[http://www.ovg.ox.ac.uk/mmr-vaccine link].

Firstly, I'm not just talking about MMR. I can think of the Sally Clark children, for a start. But as you want to discuss MMR....

There are five thousand claims in the US alone JotheHot - You know this - at least.

Autistic disorders used to count not for 1 in 100 but one in about 5-10,000. It was so rare that was the closest they could estimate. Obviously an increase on that scale is worth researching.

Yes - those epidemiological studies. The authorities (unlike you) realised Wakefield was right and research was needed - and carried it out. But they didn't bother looking at the actual real live living children. They carried out epidemiological studies, often retrospective, very often with unpleasant flaws which we must all hope were accidental.

Jo - there have been umpteen threads about MMR and autism so why try to derail this?

This one was initially about whooping cough, and more generally about how immunity can wane, whether people were aware of this, and whether those who offered opinions as to the responsibities of 'anti-vaccers' should check their own immunity first. Wakefield only got a passing mention as putting a contrasting viewpoint to Offit.

Mumps CAN cause long term problems but isn't hugely risky. Long term problems can be sterility, hearing loss etc.

I know we don't immunise against chicken pox in the UK (unless it has changed recently) but I saw a previously healthy 4 year old child die from complications caused by chicken pox a few years back. Horrible

I think as parents we make our own decisions about immunisations based upon what we are told/read etc but it is amazing how often parents have huge misconceptions. For example one parent who had opted for single vaccines for her child was struggling to get hold of the Mumps component. Her comment to me was "well mumps is more of an issue for boys really"...er no......it can cause deafness etc too.

In the meantime her child was not immunised and thankfully never did develop Mumps. I did wonder what her reaction would have been if her DD had developed mumps and subsequent hearing problems.

As I say, no issue with parents making the decision they feel is right as long as they are fully informed....but then we could argue all day about what "fully informed" means when discussing immunisations. I am just glad that DS is past most of it.....although much to his disgust they want to give him an MMR booster.

Then again, apart from "herd immunity", nobody has ever been able to give me a satisfactory answer to the question "why does my healthy boy need to be immunised against Rubella"?

Especially as the rubella immunisation is known to wear off in a significant number of people...as a midwife I dealt regularly with women who found they were not immune to rubella....one assumes that goes for their partner too.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=japan+rubella+pregnancy+husband

Nine acquired rubella from members of their family, including their husband.

Jake, around a third of mumps cases are completely asymptomatic so she may very well have had it without realising. Serious complications from mumps are quite rare anyway and fwiw, according the HPA there is no firm evidence that mumps causes sterility.

'why try to derail this?'

Perhaps I misunderstood. What was the temporal correlation crumble was referring to?

'The authorities ...realised Wakefield was right'

yes, indeed . That's why they struck him off . The research was required because wakefield had falsified data.

No that's true....I think the issue was that it was a cause of deafness and also a big reason for viral meningitis. Obviously viral meningitis is not as serious as bacterial meningitis but not nice.

Have they EVER sorted out access to the single Mumps vaccine? Last I heard was that it wasn't being manufactured anymore. Crap if you are a family waiting for it.

Like I said, glad I am no longer at that stage of making the decision.

crumbled
have you been tested to check your immunity?
would you get revaccinated if you were found to be lacking?
have you been immunized yourself?

No, but I'm not judging people who don't vaccinate their children or themselves. Therefore I'm not a hypocrite.

Yes, do we have to do the whole derailing thing again JotheHot? Yes you misunderstood. What was the temporal correlation? It was cases of damage after vaccines. Not just MMR.

ps Much of the evidence against AW was undermined by the reinstatement of Prof W-S. Next.