Please explain, succinctly, the anti vac argument

[WorkingBling]

With all the current news re vaccines and measles I realised that while I am very comfortable and believe strongly that vaccines are the most appropriate defense, I don't actually understand the anti vac argument. I remember the Wakefield thing but that has been debunked. So why do people still resist? What is the thinking?

Someone told
Me that he doesn't "agree with vaccines" in much the same tone as he mightn't say he doesn't agree with the death penalty but I was too nervous to push him further without understanding the issues better.

Oh dear. Logical and reasoned? Great example of confirmation bias there!

Unanswered questions for vlad (which she asked to be pointed out on other thread)

We're you aware of the pertussis outbreaks?

Were you aware that they are the result of waning immunity from the vaccine?

""Under reporting does exist of course. However, using it as a buttress to try and support an argument that has no base in fact, studies or science is basically another attempt to use innuendo to support the unsupportable."

What exactly do you mean by that? My 'argument' was that reactions are frequently not reported so figures for reactions are not accurate. I can support that statement with studies that show the extent of under reporting. Are you saying that they are not factual, are not real studies or are not scientific?"

• your original quote and my questions at the bottom.

"This was an interesting discussion until Vladim appeared. Your posts are so long I can't be bothered to read them."

If the posts aren't even read, how can their level of interest/relevance/accuracy be gauged? And that's a death knell to discussion.

'Were you aware that they are the result of waning immunity from the vaccine?'

Do you have a link for that? And has the HPA responded to the new evidence? For it sounds as if the vaccine is good (deaths counted in tens, not thousands) but needs to be better. The way to counteract a jab wearing off is to add boosters to the schedule. When do you think this would be best done? As the new acellular is OK for adults, should it be added to at least the teen booster?

Edith - I linked to a paper up thread. I'm on my phone and put for the day but I can link to more later.

Re what's being done. Very young infants are the ones most at risk from WC which is why they've started vaccinating pregnant women. Some studies have shown that immunity from the vaccine starts to wane in as little as 12 months so I'm not sure they'd introduce more boosters for it for adults.

Thanks, I've got it now.

Is it the same vaccine as used in UK? Because if so, their schedule has 5 doses not 4, so presumably the findings don't apply directly here?

But in the discussion (which was not conclusive about the nature of the waning of the protective effect, owing to differing natural prevalence in age groups anyhow and insufficient numbers of unvaccinated individuals as comparison now) the main conclusion was that a better vaccine is needed, (and until then consideration to adding more shots to the schedule).

Are there any plans to add a 5th shot to NHS offered schedule?

vladimpaler
I have already explained that 'herd immunity is a very secondary consideration' was pertaining to the thought processes I believe many follow when thinking about vaccination risk. Most only care about their own safety. Those words ARE NOT MY OPINION, THEY ARE MY THOUGHTS OF HOW I BELIEVE MANY PEOPLE THINK.

Here's the orginal quote in full. There is nothing from you in the quote below to suggest it is how you think other people think and that it is not your opinion. Moreover, the second part of the sentence contains a judgment from you which reinforces the idea that the first part is indeed your own opinion:

Herd immunity is a very secondary consideration - immunisation is to protect you primarily, and of course the tax-payer when you catch something and have to spend a year in hospital (assuming you service the experience).

So nothing more than revisionism on your part.

You have once again dodged my request for an explanation of adult vaccination/protection rates and strategy where there is a herd immunity requirement. Yet again you have linked to an article without a) answering the question or b) indicating where in the text you think the answers lie. For information, your latest link does not answer the questions I have put to you. So vladimpaler, stop hiding behind links, stop slinging insults and answer basic questions to support your own arguments.

Third attempt: Just answer the question at the bottom in bold. To be crystal clear, the final sentence: 'How are the rates assumed/calculated/monitored?' refers to adults and not children.

If you are a strong proponent of herd immunity, I would expect some knowledge of the questions and finer detail surrounding it. I was specifically asking you how adults fit into herd immunity plans. (By adults, I'm particularly thinking of those who won't routinely have received the MMR.) If the target vaccination rate for the MMR is 95% of all children, what rates are required for adults? How are the rates assumed/calculated/monitored?

bumbleymummy:

"The chances of your child be harmed are minisule - don't lose site of that, and don't forget that the stories on her of vaccine 'damage' are just that - stories. The facts speak for themselves."

Vlad, are you suggesting that you know the risk for her individual child? How did you establish that? There you go again with the vaccine damage denial..."

And there go you again supporting vaccines; oh no wait; being an ant-vaxxer; which you deny you are. Your arguments have descended to the laughable. Did you see the word 'chance'? Chance is a very important word. It means the likelihood within a population of people of having a bad reaction/side effect. When I use the word 'chance', I mean the likelihood of 1 child in 100,000 or more suffering from some side-effect or another. I known the risks for a population; which are tiny. You seem to be advocating working out the chances for each individual person - but despite me asking you twice; you seem to have no clue whatsoever about how you do that, what parameters to use, or what adjustments you would make.

Next stop: 'But won't you think of the poor parents (all 500? of them) where some side affect has happened; you heartless monster?' Already happened in another thread to me (and I note this has happened before to others (I was sent some links privately - it seems some people have form for this). Hope I did not 'break Mumsnet Royalty rules' by clicking on them; I felt so naughty!).

Typical Anti-vaxx deliberate failure to understand, and if that does not work, start pointing at the examples where problems have occurred. Then, roll out the violins and tears about how awful it is. That tactic is sickening in that is exploits the very real problems these kids face to further some twisted political agenda. I note you have not apologised for your comment - is that the anti-vaxx way; as it seems to be my experience of it? Never wrong, never apologise, stick finger in ears, use any tactic (even the kids) to attack?

"Why is the alternative to not having the MMR, having rubella when pregnant? You know that you can actually contract rubella and gain immunity that way don't you?"

Err, that would be 'chance' again wouldn't it? Sod's law is must annoying, as it has a habit of making things happen just when you don't need them to, like when you are pregnant. It is better and safer to give blanket coverage than just wait until someone is pregnant (the obvious 'tailored' approach you espouse); as by then it is too late to be immunised/people won't know/people don't even sometimes know they are pregnant until the baby arrives.

bumbleymummy Sun 01-Mar-15 08:06:44

"Unanswered questions for vlad (which she asked to be pointed out on other thread)

We're you aware of the pertussis outbreaks?"

Whooping cough - Yes, they are cyclical.

"Were you aware that they are the result of waning immunity from the vaccine?"

No. My understanding was that they are cyclical. From the CDC's website:

Q: Why is there more whooping cough in some years than others?

A: Reported cases of whooping cough vary from year to year and tend to peak every 3-5 years. Our last peak year nationally, before the 2012 peak, was in 2010 when more than 27,000 cases were reported. This pattern is not completely understood, but that’s why it’s important that everyone get vaccinated. If it weren’t for vaccines, we’d see many more cases of whooping cough."

"Under reporting does exist of course. However, using it as a buttress to try and support an argument that has no base in fact, studies or science is basically another attempt to use innuendo to support the unsupportable."

What exactly do you mean by that? My 'argument' was that reactions are frequently not reported so figures for reactions are not accurate. I can support that statement with studies that show the extent of under reporting. Are you saying that they are not factual, are not real studies or are not scientific?"

Your argument was that reactions are underreported, and therefore the inference is that there are lots more than we think there are. The double-blind licensing trials take account of this - and the chance of reaction stats are pretty accurate.

Viadim, thanks for pointing out the risks with mumps, I'll take my chances for now.

I'm not sure about the herd immunity thing tbh, I'm not providing a link but if you search for how all these illnesses have fallen since 1800s or so you should see that they were massively in decline before there was any vaccine.

What about diseases that have gone from Britian at least, scarlet fever, typhoid, cholera, bubonic plague, they haven't been eradicated by vaccination.

I agree that my children might need to be protected from mumps and rubella as they get older, that's fine, but at least it might have some benefit to them then.

fascicle Sun 01-Mar-15 11:45:28

The first part of your obsessional argument about what I 'meant' could it seems go on forever and ever. It is not revisionism, you simply chose to see it the way that you did, and no-one else that I have heard from did. (Other anti-vaxxers supporting their mates need not chime in at this point). I don't know how else to get it through to you' I'm sorry buit I don't.

"Third attempt: Just answer the question at the bottom in bold. To be crystal clear, the final sentence: 'How are the rates

assumed (by this I mean how do we work out what the required rates are?)

www.op12no2.me/stuff/herdhis.pdf

Read p267, 268 and 269. The maths shows you how the rates are worked out.

If you mean 'assumption of rates in a population', then all three questions can be rolled together with 'calculated' & 'monitored'.

The simple answer is that they can't with any 100% accuracy. What you can do is model it mathematically; and use the records you have. Polio used to happen, now it does not happen. Even those who are documented as not being immunised don't get it. Hmmm, something is happening here?

"If you are a strong proponent of herd immunity, I would expect some knowledge of the questions and finer detail surrounding it."

A typically hyperbolic sweeping statement there. I have enough knowledge about the mathematical theory behind it, and of course the evidence of it in action to be confident that it is true and real. That, and of course the fact the reputable science supports it. You sound like you don't believe in it. Care to explain why?

"I was specifically asking you how adults fit into herd immunity plans. (By adults, I'm particularly thinking of those who won't routinely have received the MMR.) If the target vaccination rate for the MMR is 95% of all children, what rates are required for adults? How are the rates assumed/calculated/monitored?"

Same question again. There is a BIG difference between a 'target' rate, and the rate required for herd immunity. It is notoriously difficult to predict outbreaks of disease using herd immunity as your indicator/predictor. Does this mean we can all not immunise anymore, and go home?

SideOfFoot

"Viadim, thanks for pointing out the risks with mumps, I'll take my chances for now." Fair enough.

I'm not sure about the herd immunity thing tbh, I'm not providing a link but if you search for how all these illnesses have fallen since 1800s or so you should see that they were massively in decline before there was any vaccine.

Like Polio you mean?

Rabies
TB

I could go on - but if you really believe that tired old anti-vaxx argument that 'vaccines don't actually do anything anyway'; best of luck with that.

"What about diseases that have gone from Britian at least, scarlet fever, typhoid, cholera, bubonic plague, they haven't been eradicated by vaccination."

Clearly, not EVERY disease which has died down/out has done so because of vaccines. However it is dangerously simplistic to think that because the Bubonic Plague died down naturally, that is going to mean that Polio or AIDS does.

"I agree that my children might need to be protected from mumps and rubella as they get older, that's fine, but at least it might have some benefit to them then."

It has been nice discussing things with you. I have enjoyed it,

Off now - to do work things. Has been fun!

Viadim, thank you, me too, have a good day.

Vlad,

As I said, I am not against vaccination generally, just the current vax program.

I did vaccinate ds1 against polio, diphteria and tetanus, based on the fact that on balance it was probably defensible from a public health point of view. When I went to vaccinate ds2 against the same 3, I was told I couldn't, I had to include pertussis and Hib, neither of which I believe to be a moral imperative, so I did not.

I do understand statistics and public health, I therefore understand that most of the recommended program is based on averages and hit rates, it targets those that the government thinks can be reached in the most cost efficient way in order to reach the kinds of numbers which, on average, mean that the likelihood of an outbreak which would have ph implications is reduced.

But personally, I will not include my children in the government's cost reduction measures.

I will give him the vaccines I deem useful when and as I deem them to be useful to them. If there is a side benefit for society as a whole so be it, if there isn't well, too bad.

If people from my generation are still adequately protected by the very much reduced number of vaccines we got (or none at all in some cases), then how come these days so many more doses and so many more vaccines are needed?

Possibly because we reduced that handy pool of children which had the diseases in very mild form and provided natural boosters to all those around them?

Hib is meningitis/pneumonia. I knew (and held) a little baby girl (in the 90's) who died of meningitis at 18mths. It could have been prevented by Hib.

Believe me, it's worthwhile to have the jab.

Possibly because we reduced that handy pool of children which had the diseases in very mild form and provided natural boosters to all those around them?

Pretty much bollocks. Tell that to my friend who lost a child.

*who lost a child before hib was an available vaccine.

NICE has said that the vaccine for the most common type of meningitis (B) will not be introduced whatever its cost, as there are so few cases of it.

Yet hib, which is less common, is part of the vaccination program.

If I was going to vaccinate my children against meningitis, I would want it to be for the one they are most likely to get, not the one the vaccine companies happen to have packaged with other jabs.

There are risks associated with everything we do. I know people who have lost children in car accidents. I nevertheless drive my children around in a car. I know of people who have died in skiing accidents, I nonetheless take my children skiing.

We are constantly making assessments about the likely risk and benefit of the things we do. For me, vaccination falls on the wrong side of the line.

And the reason is not that, if vaccines did what it said on the tin and no more, they might not be a good idea. But things which are led by commercial interests have a remarkable way of painting a rosy picture of the benefits and glossing over the potential pitfalls.

I choose to be conservative when it comes to my children's bodies unless I have enough evidence that it is worthwhile. I am not against modern medicine, ds1's life was likely saved by the existence of drugs made by modern pharma.

But the paed who prescribed them made me wean him off them at the first available opportunity, because we simply do not have the data set for the effect these drugs might have over the whole life of a person, they have not been around long enough and have not been monitored over 70+ years.

The same is true of vaccination. I happen to be qualified in statistics, and have looked at the data sets. They are crap. The one thing you can say for sure about statistics is that you cannot do good statistics unless you have good data. But the whole thing has become so politicised that the data collection is simply not there, the follow up is poor and incomplete, the counterfactuals nonexistent.

So until I have good enough data to make me believe that the program as set out by the authorities is in fact the best one, I will use my judgement and what little data I actually do have and make my own decisions on when and what to inoculate my children against.

What always baffles me about these threads is that people ask those who have not vaccinated for their reasons, some of us come and give them, and a whole bunch of randoms start shouting us down. I don't tell people who vaccinate that they are idiots, or that they should do as I do. If you are confident in your choices, and in the effectiveness of vaccines, why do you give a damn what anyone else does? Herd immunity is irrelevant to you if you have all the relevant vaccinations under your belt, you should be immune yourself.

Just vaccinate your children and let others make up their own mind. Or are you actually paid to come and tell people that not vaccinating is a bad thing? I guess it would be a job you could do from home with a baby...

Since the introduction of Hib infant deaths from Men C have fallen from an average of 79 per year to only 1 per year. That is just under 80 families per year who are not grieving the death of their child.

That is something worth talking about in my book.

That is life-saving. That is why so many come on this board to counter the anti-vax argument.

vladimpaler
Herd immunity - once again you linked to an article explaining the concept and theories. That's really not what I was asking. I'm questioning the putting into practice of the concept where adults are concerned. Herd immunity is used as a reason to persuade (compel?) people to vaccinate their children. I've never seen it applied to adults in the same way. I would expect anybody who uses the herd immunity/collective responsibility argument to be able to explain why there seems to be little interest in targeting adults for vaccination against certain diseases with herd immunity requirements. It would be odd, for example, to simply assume adults are immune (certainly not an assumption that is made in some professions, e.g. healthcare). So why do adults not seem to feature in herd immunity strategy?

Good question fascicle. Somebody please could you answer. Why do adults not feature in the herd immunity strategy????

I'm not anti vaccination either. But very curious.

I also am curious as to why our doctors surgery, which serves a wide wide community has decided that they cannot afford to send letters out to parents with children aged 3 to remind them to come in for their booster jabs. They're not texting, phoning. Nothing. I for one had forgotten that these needed to be done. A mum at the nursery was reminding all parents the other day.

Without the boosters, immunity lasts for a very short time. They'll be no herd immunity on our community.

If vaccinations are so effective and so important. Why is this doctor's surgery allowing so many people to slip through the net.

Not that there was any herd immunity anyway, as none of the adults have kept up to date with their jabs.

None of us are advised or asked to ...