U.S. Whooping Cough outbreak worst in 70 years

Wilber · January 29, 2015

Which disease that we currently use vaccinations for is 50% fatal?

I would like to know at what point you would consider the risk of the disease to be greater than the risks you think you run by being vaccinated?

Accountability Now · January 29, 2015

I would like to know at what point you would consider the risk of the disease to be greater than the risks you think you run by being vaccinated?

If you would have read my one of my initial posts you would see that I am in favor of all vaccines....except the flu shot. I am fully aware that for the majority of people they pose no risk and will in fact protect them from these diseases.

My point from the start is that there is more we can do to further advance these vaccines and to educate ourselves. Of course the minute you raise any type of question regarding vaccines, you get labelled as an anti-vaxxer. I guess it's your all or none kind of thing again...hey?

Wilber · January 29, 2015

That doesn't answer my question but I thought the topic was whooping cough.

Edited January 29, 2015 by Wilber

Accountability Now · January 29, 2015

That doesn't answer my question but I thought the topic was whooping cough.

How did I not answer your question? I said that I already support all vaccines except the flu. Obviously I consider those diseases more riskier than the side effects.

We were talking about whooping cough and how the new vaccine is weaker and wears off after 5 years. Again....Is this the best we can do? But don't ask that because you'll be labelled an antivax

Mighty AC · January 29, 2015

If you would have read my one of my initial posts you would see that I am in favor of all vaccines....except the flu shot. I am fully aware that for the majority of people they pose no risk and will in fact protect them from these diseases.

My point from the start is that there is more we can do to further advance these vaccines and to educate ourselves. Of course the minute you raise any type of question regarding vaccines, you get labelled as an anti-vaxxer. I guess it's your all or none kind of thing again...hey?

It's great that you are not anti-vax, I didn't read your posts from the beginning of the thread so they did appear that way. Even though the infamous Jenny McCarthy has changed her tune recently she is responsible for contributing to much of the anti-vax movement that still exists. There is a significant number of people that now believe avoiding vaccines is the healthy choice and that's a huge problem.

I get why people with specific conditions may avoid the flu shot, but why do you?

Accountability Now · January 29, 2015

It's great that you are not anti-vax, I didn't read your posts from the beginning of the thread so they did appear that way. Even though the infamous Jenny McCarthy has changed her tune recently she is responsible for contributing to much of the anti-vax movement that still exists. There is a significant number of people that now believe avoiding vaccines is the healthy choice and that's a huge problem.

I get why people with specific conditions may avoid the flu shot, but why do you?

I'm not anti vax but I certainly am far from thinking that our current vaccines are perfect. I believe that Jenny McCarthy believed the same but again when it comes to vaccines it's an all or none type of thing. I'm not saying she's totally innocent but the fact (as you can see in this thread) is that the minute you even question the science, you are thrown to the opposite side.

I took the flu shot sbout 10 years ago and about a week later got the sickest I have ever been. Logically I have to believe i had an adverse reaction to the shot which is rare but is probably the way it is for me. After that I started looking into the science and I didn't feel it was worth it. I also believe that getting the flu once in a while isn't a bad thing as it allows your body to build a natural immune response to it. I can do that because I'm in a healthy bracket and I understand others can't. If the vaccine actually worked to the point where herd inmunity was possible then I'd give it more merit but it doesn't.

bush_cheney2004 · January 29, 2015

Haven't had a flu shot in decades...haven't had the flu in decades.

Accountability Now · January 30, 2015

I would like to know at what point you would consider the risk of the disease to be greater than the risks you think you run by being vaccinated?

At what point would you not get the vaccine? Perhaps if it offered little to no protection like this years vaccine?

http://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/health/canada-s-flu-shot-offered-little-or-no-protection-this-season-study-1.2211931

Bonam · January 30, 2015

I would like to know at what point you would consider the risk of the disease to be greater than the risks you think you run by being vaccinated?

Getting a vaccine is unpleasant (don't know about you, but needles aren't my favorite thing). If the effectiveness is low, and the risks associated with the disease you are trying to vaccinate against are low, why bother? There are way better things to be spending public health money on than pushing flu shots on everyone. The only people who need to be getting them are those who are either at risk for complications from flu, or those who work in jobs which provide a vehicle for contagion to those that are at risk (medical personnel, teachers, etc).

It's not about the risk of being vaccinated, the risk is small, negligible. It's just the hassle/unpleasantness/cost, which easily outweighs the small chance that you might get a relatively harmless disease in a given year.

Mighty AC · January 30, 2015

Getting a vaccine is unpleasant (don't know about you, but needles aren't my favorite thing). If the effectiveness is low, and the risks associated with the disease you are trying to vaccinate against are low, why bother? There are way better things to be spending public health money on than pushing flu shots on everyone. The only people who need to be getting them are those who are either at risk for complications from flu, or those who work in jobs which provide a vehicle for contagion to those that are at risk (medical personnel, teachers, etc).

It's not about the risk of being vaccinated, the risk is small, negligible. It's just the hassle/unpleasantness/cost, which easily outweighs the small chance that you might get a relatively harmless disease in a given year.

The money is spent on the vaccine prior to knowing the efficacy of the strains chosen. All you're really saving is 15 minutes and a pin prick. Though sometimes I'd like to kill the lonely old people that grocery shop on weekends and feel the need to tell the cashier their life story; I still give 15 minutes of my time. A 1 in 4 chance of the shot helping, due to the poor match this year, doesn't mean much to me, but it could mean a lot to others.

Accountability Now · January 30, 2015

A 1 in 4 chance of the shot helping, due to the poor match this year, doesn't mean much to me, but it could mean a lot to others.

As per my link above, it's more like no chance of it working this year....at least in Canada that is. They're even telling the elderly not to bother

Mighty AC · January 30, 2015

As per my link above, it's more like no chance of it working this year....at least in Canada that is. They're even telling the elderly not to bother

Surges in different strains happen throughout the year and I plan on living at least until the end of the flu season. Plus, I get the shot early so it can do the most good. This is long before any data on it's effectiveness can be available. Since, the shot is painless, takes 15 minutes to receive and the money is spent ahead of time, there is no downside. Unless someone has a condition that puts them at risk, by not getting it they are part of the systemic laziness and selfishness problem that holds society back.

Accountability Now · January 30, 2015

Surges in different strains happen throughout the year and I plan on living at least until the end of the flu season. Plus, I get the shot early so it can do the most good. This is long before any data on it's effectiveness can be available.

So even the health authorities are saying don't bother but you're pushing forward anyway? Are you also going to get the vaccine for the plague while you're at it?

Since, the shot is painless, takes 15 minutes to receive and the money is spent ahead of time, there is no downside. Unless someone has a condition that puts them at risk, by not getting it they are part of the systemic laziness and selfishness problem that holds society back.

We know there are side effects from vaccines which we accept the risk in favor of not getting the disease. However in this case you are only getting the risk and zero reward. Doesn't make sense to me.

Perhaps this isn't an issue of laziness but more an issue of people who actually think critically and sensibly.

Mighty AC · January 30, 2015

So even the health authorities are saying don't bother but you're pushing forward anyway? Are you also going to get the vaccine for the plague while you're at it?

I'm saying most people should have got the vaccine already. Strain prevalence does change throughout the season. Since it has already been paid for and takes next to no time and can still prevent the spread of H1N1 and Influence B, it doesn't make sense no to get it.

We know there are side effects from vaccines which we accept the risk in favor of not getting the disease. However in this case you are only getting the risk and zero reward. Doesn't make sense to me.

The reward isn't zero and the risks are still practically zero.

Perhaps this isn't an issue of laziness but more an issue of people who actually think critically and sensibly.

It's lazy and irresponsible to not have been vaccinated already. What you are calling critical thinking is like staying home to watch TV, because there is risk involved with driving to the movies.

bush_cheney2004 · January 30, 2015

I'm saying most people should have got the vaccine already.

Why ? People should vote in elections too but many don't. One can still logically choose not to get a flu shot after fully understanding the risks.

Accountability Now · January 30, 2015

I'm saying most people should have got the vaccine already. Strain prevalence does change throughout the season. Since it has already been paid for and takes next to no time and can still prevent the spread of H1N1 and Influence B, it doesn't make sense no to get it.

Typical flu season starts in January and peaks in Feburary. If the strain isn't here now, do you really think its going to come in the next few weeks? Health officials don't which is why they are advising you NOT to get it.

The reward isn't zero and the risks are still practically zero.

The reward is zero...as stated by my article and the health officials. This is lower than any risk...which is not practically zero. Check the box that the flu vaccine comes in.

It's lazy and irresponsible to not have been vaccinated already. What you are calling critical thinking is like staying home to watch TV, because there is risk involved with driving to the movies.

No...you are focusing on the risk when i'm saying not to get vaccinated because of the lack of reward. At least in your movie example, the person still gets the rewarcd of entertainment. What reward is there from getting a vaccine that doesn't work? Perhaps a chance to talk with a hot nurse?

TimG · February 3, 2015

http://news.sciencemag.org/2011/01/why-prius-driving-composting-set-fears-vaccines?ref=hp

I have suspected that there is a significant overlap between the group of people who call skeptics "deniers" and the people who refuse vaccines. This is anecdotal evidence but not surprising:

I talked to a public health official and asked him what's the best way to anticipate where there might be higher than normal rates of vaccine noncompliance, and he said take a map and put a pin wherever there's a Whole Foods. I sort of laughed, and he said, "No, really, I'm not joking." It's those communities with the Prius driving, composting, organic food-eating people.

Edited February 3, 2015 by TimG

Mighty AC · February 3, 2015

I have suspected that there is a significant overlap between the group of people who call skeptics "deniers" and the people who refuse vaccines. This is anecdotal evidence but not surprising:

I suspect there is significant overlap between people who refuse vaccines and those that would subscribe to reflexology, acupuncture, reiki, feng shui and vaginal steaming. Though they tend to be on the opposite side of the political spectrum from climate change deniers, they do have a lot in common.

TimG · February 3, 2015

Though they tend to be on the opposite side of the political spectrum from climate change deniers, they do have a lot in common.

I disagree. A pathological fear of technology/industrialization, a tendency to grossly exaggerate small risks and a delusional view of pre-industrial society are characteristics of climate alarmists - not those who argue against them. Edited February 3, 2015 by TimG

Mighty AC · February 3, 2015

Eschewing evidence in favour of a preferred ideology... Come on righties and the Chopra, new age crowd are meant for each other.

TimG · February 3, 2015

Eschewing evidence in favour of a preferred ideology...

Evidence? There is no evidence that warming will lead to a disaster that requires radical policy choices today because evidence can only describe what has happened in the past. All there is a claim that there is a non-zero risk of negative effects at some point in the future. Climate alarmists, like anti-vaxxers, obsess about these risks and ignore the benefits that the technology provides. That is why anti-vaxxers are often also climate alarmists.

Accountability Now · February 3, 2015

So it's even worse than thought. A very recent Canadian study on this years flu shot suggests it might actually make you sick. So at what point does a negative reward become a risk?

http://globalnews.ca/news/1804162/canadian-study-finds-flu-shot-could-increase-risk-of-getting-sick/

GostHacked · February 3, 2015

I am not against vaccines, I am against all the garbage that is IN a vaccine. They should be able to make clean vaccines without the need for formaldehyde, mercury ect.

http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/SafetyAvailability/VaccineSafety/UCM096228

Thimerosal is a mercury-containing organic compound (an organomercurial). Since the 1930s, it has been widely used as a preservative in a number of biological and drug products, including many vaccines, to help prevent potentially life threatening contamination with harmful microbes. Over the past several years, because of an increasing awareness of the theoretical potential for neurotoxicity of even low levels of organomercurials and because of the increased number of thimerosal containing vaccines that had been added to the infant immunization schedule, concerns about the use of thimerosal in vaccines and other products have been raised. Indeed, because of these concerns, the Food and Drug Administration has worked with, and continues to work with, vaccine manufacturers to reduce or eliminate thimerosal from vaccines.

Thimerosal has been removed from or reduced to trace amounts in all vaccines routinely recommended for children 6 years of age and younger, with the exception of inactivated influenza vaccine (see Table 1). A preservative-free version of the inactivated influenza vaccine (contains trace amounts of thimerosal) is available in limited supply at this time for use in infants, children and pregnant women. Some vaccines such as Td, which is indicated for older children (≥ 7 years of age) and adults, are also now available in formulations that are free of thimerosal or contain only trace amounts. Vaccines with trace amounts of thimerosal contain 1 microgram or less of mercury per dose.

Bonam · February 4, 2015

I am not against vaccines, I am against all the garbage that is IN a vaccine. They should be able to make clean vaccines without the need for formaldehyde, mercury ect.

http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/SafetyAvailability/VaccineSafety/UCM096228

Looking at your link, the only widely used vaccines that contain non-trace amounts of mercury are the seasonal flu vaccines and the TT and Meningococcal vaccines. The DT vaccine also contains mercury but is generally not used in favor of the DTaP vaccine, which does not contain mercury. TT and Meningococcal vaccines are not administered to children but are given later in life, and furthermore the 25 microgram dose of mercury is small compared to other sources of Mercury.

For example, drinking water is considered safe if it contains less than 2 ppb mercury. That means 2 micrograms per liter. A typical person drinks 2 L / day -> 700 L / year, meaning you get up to 1400 micrograms of mercury from drinking water every year, or over 100,000 micrograms in your lifetime. Additionally, a single serving of seafood can contain up to 1000 micrograms of Mercury.

Your lifetime dose of mercury from vaccines is likely to be on order of 1000 times smaller than your lifetime dose of mercury from drinking water (or ~100 times smaller if you take a yearly flu vaccine). And yet people freak out about the mercury from vaccines but rarely consider the mercury in their water.

This is the same kind of irrational hysteria that people have about nuclear power. The amount of radiation dose you get in a typical year is a few mSv from background sources. The amount added to that from Fukushima is imperceptibly small. And yet you still freak out about Fukushima.

Or consider that your chances of dying from terrorism are less than your chances of dying from being struck by lightning, and your chance of dying from falling down, from a preventable disease, from a car accident, etc, all completely eclipse your chance of dying from terrorism. And yet people completely freak out about terrorism, and the response and spending against terrorism outweighs the responses to diseases that kill literally billions of people (heart disease, stroke, cancer etc).

This is the danger of a populace that simply has no understanding of numbers even at a basic level. Numerical illiteracy is perhaps the greatest threat to modern democratic institutions, as people simply fail to judge risks properly and demand that resources are allocated in ways that are totally irrational.

Edited February 4, 2015 by Bonam

Michael Hardner · February 4, 2015

This is the danger of a populace that simply has no understanding of numbers even at a basic level. Numerical illiteracy is perhaps the greatest threat to modern democratic institutions, as people simply fail to judge risks properly and demand that resources are allocated in ways that are totally irrational.

Riffing on your point: numerical literacy is perhaps too much to hope for. But maybe a better way to look at it is: the complexity of government will tend to exceed the scope of understanding of the voters. When you look at the advances made in literacy and numeracy it makes more sense to think of it that way.

The answer, to me, is for society to respond by developing an influential and informed public that can keep government in check. This used to be "the press" but they evolved into entertainment vehicles, and so (like Hollywood) could only make money by dumbing it down. I have greater hope for social media and web boards. For now, let's do our part and point out when people use numbers inconsistently/irrationally.