7 ms·

Yeah, even if it had like a 1 in 10000 rate of nasty side effects, it would still be a lot less risky than the measles.

AnimalMuppet 7y ago
Not yet. What's the US population? 300 million, say, roughly? 1 in 10000 rate of nasty side effects is 30,000 people. The measles outbreak isn't that big... yet. If 75 cases is 9.8%, then the outbreak is about 750 people... so far. [Edit: The thing is (as most people here probably know), you can (mostly) safely be unvaccinated if everyone else is vaccinated, because you probably won't ever be exposed. But when other people also aren't vaccinated, it's more risky.]
- hobs 7y ago
  Before the introduction of measles vaccine in 1963 and widespread vaccination, major epidemics occurred approximately every 2–3 years and measles caused an estimated 2.6 million deaths each year. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/measles https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/measles So, you were saying?
  - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
    Not what you think I was, apparently. I was pointing out that Confusion's conclusion didn't follow from his/her number, yet, but it could soon, even with Confusion's far-too-high number for major side effects. I guess I said it badly, because everyone seems to think I'm an anti-vaccination apologist or something.
- llukas 7y ago
  In EU on medical leaflets risk for various side effects of drug is in form 1 in 10^N cases where N varies. US leaflets contain useless word descriptions. Hint: After reading EU style leaflet you know 1 in 10000 rate is very high for nasty side effect. Rare is something like 1 in 1000000
  - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
    Hey, I didn't make that number up - Confusion did. I just used his/her number to show that his/her conclusions didn't yet follow.
- olliej 7y ago
  This "safely be unvaccinated" nonsense is part of the problem with anti-vaxxers. It represents a fundamental misunderstanding of how vaccines work: For highly contagious diseases you need to ensure that the vast majority of the population is vaccinated, in the order of 90+%. Otherwise your "choice" puts immuno-compromised people at people at risk, it puts pre-immunisation infants at risk, and finally it drastically increases the likelihood of the virus mutating such that the vaccine no longer works for everyone. If you actually read the article you'd see that this is an increase of 75 people beyond the existing 800+ people [1], in the pre-vaccination world 500 thousand cases were reported a year, 48000 requiring hospitalization, 1000 with encephalitis, and 450 deaths[2]. This was with a population of around ~200 million, vs 329 million now[3], so this increases to 750k infections, 72k hospitalization, and 675 deaths (better hospital care may reduce this). So you're saying 30k adverse events (which is a gross exaggeration, as the events apply only to children <7 years old, and the side effects while bad are still better than death, but based on [4] this is around 3.5k not small but < 6x the number of fatalities) Note this is assuming a 1 in 10k rate of adverse side effects, a subject of which of debate - antivaxxers claim higher, others saying only about 67% of adverse reactions following vaccination are attributable to the measles component [5]. For measles the rate of encephalitis is 1 in 1000, Minor additional note, per [5], the most common of the really bad adverse responses is seizures, but the seizures have no long term side effects (as opposed to long term neurological damage from actually getting measles). The minor adverse reactions all last 2-3 days, Thrombocytopenia (whatever that is) is usually benign and transient. [1] https://www.cdc.gov/measles/cases-outbreaks.html https://www.cdc.gov/measles/cases-outbreaks.html [2] https://www.cdc.gov/measles/downloads/measlesdataandstatsslideset.pdf https://www.cdc.gov/measles/downloads/measlesdataandstatssli... [3] https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/us-population/ https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/us-population... [4] https://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/tables/101-child-population-by-age-group#detailed/1/any/false/871,870,573,869,36,868,867,133,38,35/62,63,64,6,4693/419,420 https://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/tables/101-child-popul... [5] https://www.who.int/vaccine_safety/initiative/tools/MMR_vaccine_rates_information_sheet.pdf https://www.who.int/vaccine_safety/initiative/tools/MMR_vacc...
  - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
    You seem to be in violent agreement with me.
- Confusion 7y ago
  For measles, herd immunity requires a 95% vaccination rate. So where there are outbreaks they have apparently dropped below that. Would the entire population drop below that, at least 5% of the entire population would get measles. Since a lot more than 0.2% would suffer nasty side effects from measles, I said 1 in 10k, because even if it were 1 in 10k, the country would be better off with more than 95% getting vaccinations. I thought I could riff on olliej’s obviously sardonic comment, but as you I seem to have miscalculated how the comment is read.
chime 7y ago
It's much, much lower: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBkVCpbNnkU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBkVCpbNnkU

Not yet. What's the US population? 300 million, say, roughly? 1 in 10000 rate of nasty side effects is 30,000 people. The measles outbreak isn't that big... yet. If 75 cases is 9.8%, then the outbreak is about 750 people... so far. [Edit: The thing is (as most people here probably know), you can (mostly) safely be unvaccinated if everyone else is vaccinated, because you probably won't ever be exposed. But when other people also aren't vaccinated, it's more risky.]

hobs 7y ago
Before the introduction of measles vaccine in 1963 and widespread vaccination, major epidemics occurred approximately every 2–3 years and measles caused an estimated 2.6 million deaths each year. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/measles https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/measles So, you were saying?
- AnimalMuppet 7y ago
  Not what you think I was, apparently. I was pointing out that Confusion's conclusion didn't follow from his/her number, yet, but it could soon, even with Confusion's far-too-high number for major side effects. I guess I said it badly, because everyone seems to think I'm an anti-vaccination apologist or something.
llukas 7y ago
In EU on medical leaflets risk for various side effects of drug is in form 1 in 10^N cases where N varies. US leaflets contain useless word descriptions. Hint: After reading EU style leaflet you know 1 in 10000 rate is very high for nasty side effect. Rare is something like 1 in 1000000
- AnimalMuppet 7y ago
  Hey, I didn't make that number up - Confusion did. I just used his/her number to show that his/her conclusions didn't yet follow.
olliej 7y ago
This "safely be unvaccinated" nonsense is part of the problem with anti-vaxxers. It represents a fundamental misunderstanding of how vaccines work: For highly contagious diseases you need to ensure that the vast majority of the population is vaccinated, in the order of 90+%. Otherwise your "choice" puts immuno-compromised people at people at risk, it puts pre-immunisation infants at risk, and finally it drastically increases the likelihood of the virus mutating such that the vaccine no longer works for everyone. If you actually read the article you'd see that this is an increase of 75 people beyond the existing 800+ people [1], in the pre-vaccination world 500 thousand cases were reported a year, 48000 requiring hospitalization, 1000 with encephalitis, and 450 deaths[2]. This was with a population of around ~200 million, vs 329 million now[3], so this increases to 750k infections, 72k hospitalization, and 675 deaths (better hospital care may reduce this). So you're saying 30k adverse events (which is a gross exaggeration, as the events apply only to children <7 years old, and the side effects while bad are still better than death, but based on [4] this is around 3.5k not small but < 6x the number of fatalities) Note this is assuming a 1 in 10k rate of adverse side effects, a subject of which of debate - antivaxxers claim higher, others saying only about 67% of adverse reactions following vaccination are attributable to the measles component [5]. For measles the rate of encephalitis is 1 in 1000, Minor additional note, per [5], the most common of the really bad adverse responses is seizures, but the seizures have no long term side effects (as opposed to long term neurological damage from actually getting measles). The minor adverse reactions all last 2-3 days, Thrombocytopenia (whatever that is) is usually benign and transient. [1] https://www.cdc.gov/measles/cases-outbreaks.html https://www.cdc.gov/measles/cases-outbreaks.html [2] https://www.cdc.gov/measles/downloads/measlesdataandstatsslideset.pdf https://www.cdc.gov/measles/downloads/measlesdataandstatssli... [3] https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/us-population/ https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/us-population... [4] https://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/tables/101-child-population-by-age-group#detailed/1/any/false/871,870,573,869,36,868,867,133,38,35/62,63,64,6,4693/419,420 https://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/tables/101-child-popul... [5] https://www.who.int/vaccine_safety/initiative/tools/MMR_vaccine_rates_information_sheet.pdf https://www.who.int/vaccine_safety/initiative/tools/MMR_vacc...
- AnimalMuppet 7y ago
  You seem to be in violent agreement with me.
Confusion 7y ago
For measles, herd immunity requires a 95% vaccination rate. So where there are outbreaks they have apparently dropped below that. Would the entire population drop below that, at least 5% of the entire population would get measles. Since a lot more than 0.2% would suffer nasty side effects from measles, I said 1 in 10k, because even if it were 1 in 10k, the country would be better off with more than 95% getting vaccinations. I thought I could riff on olliej’s obviously sardonic comment, but as you I seem to have miscalculated how the comment is read.

chime 7y ago

It's much, much lower: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBkVCpbNnkU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBkVCpbNnkU