Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
  Post removed Sun Feb 8, 2015, 12:03 PM Feb 2015

Post removed

40 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Post removed (Original Post) Post removed Feb 2015 OP
The enormous fucking hole in that analysis: Spider Jerusalem Feb 2015 #1
I'm talking about the present. If the numbers change, so do the costs and benefits. Obviously. DanTex Feb 2015 #2
There was a measles outbreak in 1989-91 that infected 55k and killed 123. Spider Jerusalem Feb 2015 #3
Anectodal evidence, huh. Yes, I'm assuming that event was covered by that study which DanTex Feb 2015 #5
We lived in a society where "most" people were vaccinated, presumably, in 1989. Spider Jerusalem Feb 2015 #7
I don't think you understand what an "individual decision" is. DanTex Feb 2015 #12
The consequences of your "individual decision" can onecaliberal Feb 2015 #22
The overall historical fatality rate... Spider Jerusalem Feb 2015 #32
There are other holes as well Major Nikon Feb 2015 #14
The argument doesn't rely on 1950s data for anything except for DanTex Feb 2015 #18
Using data post 2000 would make even less sense Major Nikon Feb 2015 #36
Well, we live in 2015, so there's that... DanTex Feb 2015 #39
so do we live in a ME society... handmade34 Feb 2015 #4
You are right about that. Not vaccinating is a selfish act. But it is not an irrational one. DanTex Feb 2015 #9
Your reasoning is false jehop61 Feb 2015 #6
50 years ago, the risk of contracting measles was far higher than it was today. DanTex Feb 2015 #11
redo your math, marym625 Feb 2015 #8
What part? Mortality rate is mortality rate. DanTex Feb 2015 #10
baloney marym625 Feb 2015 #17
That's a societal argument, not an individual one. DanTex Feb 2015 #19
If the vaccination rates drop marym625 Feb 2015 #25
Yes, and if vaccination rates drop and measles rates go up, then at some point DanTex Feb 2015 #38
"That's a societal argument, not an individual one" OMFG shoot me up the ass right now, sibelian Feb 2015 #28
I'm not sure what you mean. Do you not understand the distinction between a societal DanTex Feb 2015 #34
Thank you! marym625 Feb 2015 #35
Not only is it irrational, it's plain stupid. Dr Hobbitstein Feb 2015 #13
Fair enough, but is there anything wrong with the math or the argument in the OP? DanTex Feb 2015 #15
Anti-anti-vax? Isn't that what the anti-vaxxers say to try and smear Dr Hobbitstein Feb 2015 #21
+1 marym625 Feb 2015 #27
Your "math" specifically avoids asking the relevant questions. sibelian Feb 2015 #37
What relevant questions? And can we do this without the personal attacks? DanTex Feb 2015 #40
Wow. Let's look at some materials from Europe for comparison... Bluenorthwest Feb 2015 #16
If you live in a country with highe measles rates the cost-benefit analysis will change. Obviously. DanTex Feb 2015 #23
145,000 deaths EVERY YEAR from measles -- and that's at current vaccination levels mainer Feb 2015 #20
That's worldwide, not in the US. I'm talking about the cost-benefit analysis for an individual in DanTex Feb 2015 #26
Yes, it is really irrational to skip the MMR vaccine. 99Forever Feb 2015 #24
Fair enough, just curious if there is any statistical or logical argument behind that sentiment. DanTex Feb 2015 #29
I generally don't argue with stupid. 99Forever Feb 2015 #33
+1 marym625 Feb 2015 #31
Wow, you just made the same debunked argument EVERY anti-Vaxxer makes. MohRokTah Feb 2015 #30
 

Spider Jerusalem

(21,786 posts)
1. The enormous fucking hole in that analysis:
Sun Feb 8, 2015, 12:05 PM
Feb 2015
Assuming a 90% coverage rate


if some unknown number of parents choose to not vaccinate, then vaccination rates will fall below the level that confers herd immunity (as they have in fact done in some places, where there have been epidemics).

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
2. I'm talking about the present. If the numbers change, so do the costs and benefits. Obviously.
Sun Feb 8, 2015, 12:06 PM
Feb 2015

And more to the point, if 90% overestimates the coverage rate, that would make the numbers come out even more unfavorably for the vaccine, because it means that there are more unvaccinated individuals over whom the cases of measles are averaged.

 

Spider Jerusalem

(21,786 posts)
3. There was a measles outbreak in 1989-91 that infected 55k and killed 123.
Sun Feb 8, 2015, 12:11 PM
Feb 2015
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/289060.php

That was after MMR had become standard. So that's more like what you can expect with more parents deciding "we don't need to vaccinate". Frankly, not vaccinating is stupid. The very low rate of vaccine-associated deaths and serious complications is much much lower than the death rate from measles. This is the same sort of fallacy that makes people think they're safer driving than flying.

See also here:

Measles epidemic from failure to immunize.


During 1988 through 1990, California experienced its worst measles epidemic in more than a decade, with 16,400 reported cases, 3,390 hospital admissions, and 75 deaths.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1022280/


NB that 75 deaths out of 16400 cases is a fatality rate of 0.46%/

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
5. Anectodal evidence, huh. Yes, I'm assuming that event was covered by that study which
Sun Feb 8, 2015, 12:18 PM
Feb 2015

computed the measles fatality rate.

If you have a statistical argument that not vaccinating is a stupid individual decision, I'd like to hear it. The fact is, we live in a society where most people are vaccinated, and there are very low numbers of measles outbreaks. That's why you had to go back 25 years to find your anecdote. In this society, the numbers don't add up favorably to getting MMR. Unless my math is wrong. Please correct me if that's true.

It's true that as a society we are all better off with more immunized people. But that doesn't affect the individual cost-benefit analysis. You can say that not vaccinating is selfish, but in the status quo, it isn't stupid.

If you do a cost-benefit analysis for driving and flying, the kind I did in the OP, you will find that (per mile, not per hour), flying is much safer. I'm not sure what fallacy you are referring to. There's no herd immunity in flying.

 

Spider Jerusalem

(21,786 posts)
7. We lived in a society where "most" people were vaccinated, presumably, in 1989.
Sun Feb 8, 2015, 12:19 PM
Feb 2015

Also I don't think you know what "anecdotal" means.

And not vaccinating is a stupid individual decision because society is made up of individuals. If a sufficient number of individuals make the decision not to vaccinate, then it's a problem for society as a whole.

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
12. I don't think you understand what an "individual decision" is.
Sun Feb 8, 2015, 12:27 PM
Feb 2015

There is a distinction between what is good for an individual and what is good for society as a whole. If you can't grasp that, I'm not sure where we go from here.

Anecdotal means taking a single event or anecdote and trying to draw conclusions from it without looking at the larger statistical picture. Exactly what you are doing.

The rates of measles have been steady at about 100 per year over the last decade. There has been a recent spike, which I noted in the OP, can change the analysis. On the other hand, the fatality rate of 0.3% is probably high, so even at 600 per year, MMR is probably net negative for the individual.

 

onecaliberal

(36,594 posts)
22. The consequences of your "individual decision" can
Sun Feb 8, 2015, 12:39 PM
Feb 2015

Mean death for someone else. If you want to live in society and put your kid in public school, the whole of society is affected. So NO it's not an individual decision when so many can be affected. This whole line of thinking is just asinine.

 

Spider Jerusalem

(21,786 posts)
32. The overall historical fatality rate...
Sun Feb 8, 2015, 12:46 PM
Feb 2015

isn't necessarily going to be the fatality rate in a specific outbreak. In some, the rate may be zero; in others, more on the order of 0.4-0.5% rather than 0.3%. And I quite understand what an individual decision is. However individuals live in society, and as such have no right to make decisions that will endanger others. Choosing to drive drunk is also an individual decision, and we have laws against it for a good reason.

The fatality rate of measles being 0.3%, or even 0.1%, is still significantly higher than the rate of adverse reaction to the MMR vaccine ( 0.000001%). Therefore it's frankly stupid to suggest that MMR is a "net negative for the individual".

Major Nikon

(36,925 posts)
14. There are other holes as well
Sun Feb 8, 2015, 12:30 PM
Feb 2015

In the 1950's the urbanization rate was far lower than it is today. It also assumes zero benefit to the reduction of hospitalization, disabling permanent complications like deafness and brain injury, loss of school and work, etc.

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
18. The argument doesn't rely on 1950s data for anything except for
Sun Feb 8, 2015, 12:35 PM
Feb 2015

the endnote that the 0.3% fatality rate seems high, because it is so much higher than in the 1950s. If anything the lack of urbanization and access to hospitals should imply that the fatality rate would be higher in the 1950s than today. The 0.3% was from a study of ten or 15 years before 2000. I could use data from 2000 to the present, but of course in that case the fatality rate would be 0%.

You are right that I am only including fatalities as risk factors. If we include other outcomes, we have to do that both for the vaccine and for the disease. I find it odd that you listed non-fatal outcomes for measles but didn't complain that I didn't count non-fatal disabilities that resulted from the vaccine, including permanent complications, loss of work for the parent, hospital costs, etc.

You're welcome to do the full analysis for both, weighing all possible outcomes based on how bad they are.

Major Nikon

(36,925 posts)
36. Using data post 2000 would make even less sense
Sun Feb 8, 2015, 12:47 PM
Feb 2015

Because in essence you would be saying the MMR vaccine's effectiveness is a reason not to get it.

But regardless of what figure you come up with by pure speculation, comparing it to the complete bullshit figure from VAERS is still misleading and is easy enough to debunk by simply reading the disclaimer one has to click to acknowledge to get to the database in the first place. Very telling that.

Guide to Interpreting VAERS Case Report Information
When evaluating data from VAERS, it is important to note that for any reported event, no cause-and-effect relationship has been established. Reports of all possible associations between vaccines and adverse events (possible side effects) are filed in VAERS. Therefore, VAERS collects data on any adverse event following vaccination, be it coincidental or truly caused by a vaccine. The report of an adverse event to VAERS is not documentation that a vaccine caused the event.

VAERS data contains coincidental events and those truly caused by vaccines.
More than 10 million vaccines per year are given to children less than 1 year old, usually between 2 and 6 months of age. At this age, infants are at greatest risk for certain medical adverse events, including high fevers, seizures, and sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). Some infants will experience these medical events shortly after a vaccination by coincidence.
These coincidences make it difficult to know whether a particular adverse event resulted from a medical condition or from a vaccination. Therefore, vaccine providers are encouraged to report all adverse events following vaccination, whether or not they believe the vaccination was the cause.

Please read the following statement on the limits of VAERS data. You MUST click on the box below to access the VAERS database.

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
39. Well, we live in 2015, so there's that...
Sun Feb 8, 2015, 12:52 PM
Feb 2015

Yes, in a sense, the MMR vaccine's effectiveness is the reason not to get it. Measles has been reduced to the infinitesmal extent that it is no longer personally beneficial to get it.

Yes, the VAERS data, like all data sources, is not perfect. It is likely that it contains some deaths that were not caused by vaccines, and it misses other deaths that were caused by vaccines.

handmade34

(24,008 posts)
4. so do we live in a ME society...
Sun Feb 8, 2015, 12:12 PM
Feb 2015

or a WE society??


this is key to your post...

the cost-benefit analysis of MMR may be negative for an individual, it is positive for society as a whole

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
9. You are right about that. Not vaccinating is a selfish act. But it is not an irrational one.
Sun Feb 8, 2015, 12:20 PM
Feb 2015

At least not based on present statistics.

Still, if vaccinating isn't mandatory, I can't blame a parent too much for putting the life of their own child above the lives of others. People look out for their own family, it's human nature.

jehop61

(1,735 posts)
6. Your reasoning is false
Sun Feb 8, 2015, 12:18 PM
Feb 2015

You can't base it on a ten year timeline. Measles was thought to be eradicated during that time. Go back 40 or 50 yearswhen it was rampant. A friend contacted measles 40 years ago from her children. She was in the early stages of a pregnancy. Her child was born deaf and profoundly mentally disabled and is still being cared for in a state institution.

No ine is talking today about measles' effect on pregnancy. Vaccinate your children!

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
11. 50 years ago, the risk of contracting measles was far higher than it was today.
Sun Feb 8, 2015, 12:24 PM
Feb 2015

Using 50-year old contraction rates would be a truly horrible way to make decisions about what to do in the present day. For today's decisions use today's numbers. If measles goes back to where it was 50 years ago, the numbers change, and so does the cost-benefit analysis.

marym625

(17,997 posts)
8. redo your math,
Sun Feb 8, 2015, 12:20 PM
Feb 2015

On the mortality rate, the number of deaf and disabled with numbers prior to the vaccine. Because the if the "anti-vax idiots" continue and this movement grows, that's what you'll be looking at.

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
10. What part? Mortality rate is mortality rate.
Sun Feb 8, 2015, 12:22 PM
Feb 2015

Yes, it's a shortcut, and it doesn't capture all the harms. But if we're weighing all outcomes, including permanent disabilities short of death, we have to do the same with both measles and with MMR.

marym625

(17,997 posts)
17. baloney
Sun Feb 8, 2015, 12:34 PM
Feb 2015

It's not a real look at the problem when you don't take on the consequences of measles coming back to pre-vaccination levels. If one kid is not vaccinated, and you compare to the risk of getting measles when all others are, of course the MMR risk is greater. When you have millions of kids not vaccinated, those numbers flip. So the numbers you post mean nothing.

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
19. That's a societal argument, not an individual one.
Sun Feb 8, 2015, 12:37 PM
Feb 2015

As a society, if vaccination rates drop, that's bad. But that's bad whether or not I decide personally to vaccinate.

If the argument is that people need to vaccinate for the good of society, be honest and make that argument. As per the status quo, the risks involved with vaccination are greater than the risks involved with non-vaccination. If the status quo changes, the comparative risks will change also.

marym625

(17,997 posts)
25. If the vaccination rates drop
Sun Feb 8, 2015, 12:43 PM
Feb 2015

It becomes not just protection of society but the individual. Because with every rate drop, the chances of your child contracting measles increases.

There's nothing dishonest about what I am saying. I'm done. Anti-vaccination idiots can't be reasoned with.

On edit: just adding - we live in a global society.

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
38. Yes, and if vaccination rates drop and measles rates go up, then at some point
Sun Feb 8, 2015, 12:48 PM
Feb 2015

the numbers will change and it will be beneficial for the individual to get the MMR vaccine. As others have pointed out, if you live in, say Sudan, then it is a very very good idea to get a measles shot.

But, right now, living in the US, an MMR vaccine causes more risk than it prevents. Getting a vaccine can be understood as an act of altruism, and refusing as an act of selfishness, but not of stupidity.

sibelian

(7,804 posts)
28. "That's a societal argument, not an individual one" OMFG shoot me up the ass right now,
Sun Feb 8, 2015, 12:44 PM
Feb 2015

Mr What About Other Opinions,

"be honest and make that argument" - there is no smiley for my reaction to this

THAT'S WHAT JUST SHE DID, YOU COLOSSAL FUCKING BUFFOON.

Trundle out your freedom of speech point, go on. You are here to hear yourself talk.

Christ.

Do NOT hide this, jury.

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
34. I'm not sure what you mean. Do you not understand the distinction between a societal
Sun Feb 8, 2015, 12:47 PM
Feb 2015

and an individual argument?

I.e. getting an MMR vaccine, based on present data, is more likely to kill you than save your life. That's an individual argument.

But, it is better for society as a whole for more people to be vaccinated, because it reduces transmission risk. That's a societal argument.

In this case the individual and societal cost-benefit analyses are at odds.

 

Dr Hobbitstein

(6,568 posts)
13. Not only is it irrational, it's plain stupid.
Sun Feb 8, 2015, 12:29 PM
Feb 2015

Anti-vaxxers are irresponsible and deserve all the shame they are getting. So do their apologists.

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
15. Fair enough, but is there anything wrong with the math or the argument in the OP?
Sun Feb 8, 2015, 12:31 PM
Feb 2015

Can you defend your anti-anti-vax position with logic or statistics, or is it just an emotional them-versus-us thing?

 

Dr Hobbitstein

(6,568 posts)
21. Anti-anti-vax? Isn't that what the anti-vaxxers say to try and smear
Sun Feb 8, 2015, 12:38 PM
Feb 2015

those of us who are pro-science? You know, the rational thinkers who use data and not emotion to make decisions. Anti-vaxxers deserve shame. Their fears are based on junk science and unfounded claims. No matter how much you try and show them the truth, they ignore it.

Measles killed a few hundred thousand a year before the vaccine. Then there were the people who were injured from the disease. Blindness, paralysis, decreased mental function. The vaccine has caused less than 100 deaths in a 10 year time period. If we lose herd immunity (85-95% required for measles), we will see those deaths again. Your whole premise is flawed.

I did find an anti-vaxxer/woo/CT site trying to make the same exact points as you, though.

sibelian

(7,804 posts)
37. Your "math" specifically avoids asking the relevant questions.
Sun Feb 8, 2015, 12:47 PM
Feb 2015

DELIBERATELY, for no reason other than to shore up some fuckwitted identity process. "I'm such an underappreaciated iconoclast!"

Get out of my fucking life. I seriously cannot fucking believe people like you are real anymore. You just make me feel sick.

"muuuuuh you're all emotional and stuff" - yeah, why do you think that is, jackass?

How many actual dead people do you want before your "point" becomes moot, dearest?

Get your brain out of the fog and start treating the world as if it's something OTHER than a system of nebulous symbols the public manipulation of which earns you imaginary debatey points.

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
40. What relevant questions? And can we do this without the personal attacks?
Sun Feb 8, 2015, 12:53 PM
Feb 2015

What's up with the emotional stuff on this issue. Even if I'm wrong, we're talking about a disease that has killed zero people in ten years. All of a sudden I post some statistics and now I'm Satan. Odd.

 

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)
16. Wow. Let's look at some materials from Europe for comparison...
Sun Feb 8, 2015, 12:31 PM
Feb 2015

"Britain went through wave after wave of outbreaks of measles and mumps after the now-discredited reports by Andrew Wakefield in the 1990s linking measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccines with autism.
Vaccination rates in Britain plunged to 85 percent and measles cases rose: 1,000 cases 2011, 1,900 in 2012 and again in 2013. A mumps epidemic made more than 56,000 Britons sick in 2004-2005. Now vaccination rates are back up to 95 percent and just 137 cases were reported in Britain in 2014. Measles cases were mostly among children aged 10 to 19 who missed the normal vaccination schedule during the vaccine scare years, Read said."
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/measles-outbreak/think-u-s-has-measles-problem-just-look-europe-n301726


DanTex

(20,709 posts)
23. If you live in a country with highe measles rates the cost-benefit analysis will change. Obviously.
Sun Feb 8, 2015, 12:41 PM
Feb 2015

I'm talking about the US. If you decide to go to Romania, I strongly recommend getting a measles shot. If you go to Africa, there are a number of vaccines you are going to want to get. Etc.

mainer

(12,548 posts)
20. 145,000 deaths EVERY YEAR from measles -- and that's at current vaccination levels
Sun Feb 8, 2015, 12:37 PM
Feb 2015

Imagine how many more kids will die if vaccination rates drop.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs286/en/

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
26. That's worldwide, not in the US. I'm talking about the cost-benefit analysis for an individual in
Sun Feb 8, 2015, 12:43 PM
Feb 2015

the US. I should have made that clear from the OP. If you live in Sudan, I highly recommend getting a measles vaccine.

99Forever

(14,524 posts)
24. Yes, it is really irrational to skip the MMR vaccine.
Sun Feb 8, 2015, 12:42 PM
Feb 2015

It is also antisocial and stupid.

Thanks for asking.

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
29. Fair enough, just curious if there is any statistical or logical argument behind that sentiment.
Sun Feb 8, 2015, 12:44 PM
Feb 2015
 

MohRokTah

(15,429 posts)
30. Wow, you just made the same debunked argument EVERY anti-Vaxxer makes.
Sun Feb 8, 2015, 12:44 PM
Feb 2015


http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/mmrdeaths.asp

Long debunked. In fact, your post is irrational and dangerous.

Your reliance upon VAERS data basically makes your entire argument BUNK!

VAERS Data
Guide to Interpreting VAERS Case Report Information

When evaluating data from VAERS, it is important to note that for any reported event, no cause-and-effect relationship has been established. Reports of all possible associations between vaccines and adverse events (possible side effects) are filed in VAERS. Therefore, VAERS collects data on any adverse event following vaccination, be it coincidental or truly caused by a vaccine. The report of an adverse event to VAERS is not documentation that a vaccine caused the event.
VAERS data contains coincidental events and those truly caused by vaccines.

More than 10 million vaccines per year are given to children less than 1 year old, usually between 2 and 6 months of age. At this age, infants are at greatest risk for certain medical adverse events, including high fevers, seizures, and sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). Some infants will experience these medical events shortly after a vaccination by coincidence.

These coincidences make it difficult to know whether a particular adverse event resulted from a medical condition or from a vaccination. Therefore, vaccine providers are encouraged to report all adverse events following vaccination, whether or not they believe the vaccination was the cause.

Please read the following statement on the limits of VAERS data. You MUST click on the box below to access the VAERS database.

When reviewing data from VAERS, please keep in mind the following limitations:

VAERS is a passive reporting system, meaning that reports about adverse events are not automatically collected, but require a report to be filed to VAERS. VAERS reports can be submitted voluntarily by anyone, including healthcare providers, patients, or family members. Reports vary in quality and completeness. They often lack details and sometimes can have information that contains errors.

"Underreporting" is one of the main limitations of passive surveillance systems, including VAERS. The term, underreporting refers to the fact that VAERS receives reports for only a small fraction of actual adverse events. The degree of underreporting varies widely. As an example, a great many of the millions of vaccinations administered each year by injection cause soreness, but relatively few of these episodes lead to a VAERS report. Physicians and patients understand that minor side effects of vaccinations often include this kind of discomfort, as well as low fevers. On the other hand, more serious and unexpected medical events are probably more likely to be reported than minor ones, especially when they occur soon after vaccination, even if they may be coincidental and related to other causes.

A report to VAERS generally does not prove that the identified vaccine(s) caused the adverse event described. It only confirms that the reported event occurred sometime after vaccine was given. No proof that the event was caused by the vaccine is required in order for VAERS to accept the report. VAERS accepts all reports without judging whether the event was caused by the vaccine.

DISCLAIMER: Please note that VAERS staff follow-up on all serious and other selected adverse event reports to obtain additional medical, laboratory, and/or autopsy records to help understand the concern raised. However, in general coding terms in VAERS do not change based on the information received during the follow-up process. VAERS data should be used with caution as numbers and conditions do not reflect data collected during follow-up. Note that the inclusion of events in VAERS data does not imply causality.


https://vaers.hhs.gov/data/index
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Post removed