A simple vaccine question

amother

Fri, May 10 2019, 9:16 am

I'm just a regular mom who vaccinates on schedule. I have a Facebook friend who is very anti vax and often posts about it. I saw a chart that she posted yesterday that very clearly demonstrated that in the early 1900's there were around 14 measles deaths a year per 100,000 people. By the time rhe vaccine was introduced in around 1963, there was around 1measles related death a year per 100,000 people. So from a simple layperson (which I am) view, it seems to indicate that measles really was not a serious issue any longer prior to the vaccine. Any thoughts appreciated.

JoyInTheMorning

Fri, May 10 2019, 9:35 am

OP, please post that chart. I'd like to see the number, and what the numbers in the fraction represent.

The CDC clearly states that in the 1950s and 1960s in the USA, the death rate from measles was 1/1000. The numerator represents deaths from measles; the denominator represents the total number of cases of reported measles.

I'm going to guess that in the fraction you're citing, the numerator represents deaths from measles, while the denominator represents the total population of the US.

But please forward / copy the chart so we can see for ourselves.

eschaya

Fri, May 10 2019, 9:43 am

If you look at graphs on pro-vaxx and anti-vaxx websites, you will often see very different looking numbers. Here's the thing... you gotta make sure you are comparing apples to apples, and not oranges. The graphs/charts that the anti-vaxx crowd uses to "prove" that infectious diseases were diminishing on their own prior to the use of vaccines typically shows MORTALITY from the diseases, but not disease cases or the burden of the disease. So yes, it's true, the mortality (or death rates) from vaccine-preventable diseases were decreasing prior to the implementation of vaccines, because mortality from everything was decreasing due to better sanitation, nutrition, anti-sepsis, antibiotics, and overall medical care. A person is less likely nowadays to die after falling from a 2 story window than they were in the past... but this doesn't mean less people are falling out of windows nor that it's less worrisome, painful and terrible. And in no way would anyone say that we shouldn't put screens or bars on our upstairs windows, because, hey, people are less likely to die from traumatic injuries in modern times as compared to historical times. Similarly, if 200 years ago a child got the measles and then developed pneumonia from it, he was more likely to die than if a child in the 1950s got the measles and developed pneumonia. A kid in the 1950s could get antibiotics, relatively up-to-date hospital care, and even be placed on a ventilator! And they might come out with long term negative sequelae... but they aren't dead, so you won't see that on the anti-vaxx graphs! So yes, fewer kids might be dying from the measles, but we still want to prevent people from getting the disease in the first place.
If you look at any pro-vaxx website (ie, the vast majority of websites, to include national and international health and medical institutions), the numbers you will see paint a very different story. Measles cases rates drop dramatically after the advent of the vaccine (and you'll see the same for almost every vaccine-preventable disease).

Last edited by eschaya on Fri, May 10 2019, 9:46 am; edited 1 time in total

nchr

Fri, May 10 2019, 9:45 am

There is a difference in deaths per reported cases and deaths from all cases. In the early 1900s, less individuals reported measles to their doctors: it was endemic and medical care and communication was not what it was today. Therefore, less cases were reported to doctors. Also, there were not strict causes of deaths detailed and recorded - a death certificate may indicate death from pneumonia, which was a result of measles and therefore actually a death from measles.

This means that 1 or 2 people per 1,000 were dying of measles even then (and the numbers may actually be higher) but that not everyone was reporting measles to their doctors so the deaths were 1 or 2 per 10,000 or 30,000 reported cases. As medical care is improved and measles eradicated, it is more likely cases will be reported to doctors so that the deaths per reported case eventually reflect the same numbers as deaths per overall cases. Since almost all cases in the US today would be reported (either because it would be mandated by the health department or because individuals would be concerned about an almost eradicated disease) deaths per reported cases should be around the same as deaths from all cases (reported and reported).

Also keep in mind that during the Civil War, the measles absolutely devastated troops. For example, the union army had around 67 thousand cases and 4,000 deaths which is much higher than one death per thousand.

amother

Bisque

Fri, May 10 2019, 9:49 am

I hate the number, chart, math calculations regarding vaccines. Maybe cause I'm not a math person.
So it flies over my head.
But one thing I read on another thread that I think made sense is, if a mother would have been immune from the measles than her baby under a year would have been okay. Which is true since that's why babies under a year were not getting the shot.
Should I unvax all my kids?
Yay!one point for anti vaxxers!!

amother

Purple

Fri, May 10 2019, 9:59 am

amother [ Bisque ] wrote:

That’s not why baby’s don’t get the shot. They don’t get the shot that young because their bodies can’t build up immunity at that age.

My sister had the actual chicken pox as a baby and then again when she was older, because she had been too young to build an immunity the first time.

nchr

Fri, May 10 2019, 10:00 am

amother [ Bisque ] wrote:

But one thing I read on another thread that I think made sense is, if a mother would have been immune from the measles than her baby under a year would have been okay. Which is true since that's why babies under a year were not getting the shot.
!

1. Babies under 1 year old do not generally receive the vaccine because their immune systems are not able to develop any lasting or worthwhile immunity.

2. Studies have shown that passive immunity to infants from their mothers only seems to last about 6 months (from mothers who both had natural measles and those who were vaccinated with the MMR) at which point it wanes. https://www.jwatch.org/pa20100.....-last

amother

Puce

Fri, May 10 2019, 10:02 am

amother [ Bisque ] wrote:

I am a math person and a science person and I think this argument does not make sense. Yes some antibodies (molecules that fight off disease) are passed thru the placenta and provide some immunity to the baby. These usually go away after 6 months. Yes, some antibodies are given to the baby thru nursing, but they are not enough to provide immunity. The reason why babies don't get vaccinated before a year is because it is less effective before a year.

momsrus

Fri, May 10 2019, 10:03 am

amother [ Bisque ] wrote:

This makes no sense

southernbubby

Fri, May 10 2019, 10:28 am

eschaya wrote:

Exactly!
There are measles victims kept alive on ventilators with permanent brain damage but they don't show up in mortality rates.