With outbreaks of measles going on it’s worth pointing out that there is a point here. The measles vaccination is indeed dangerous. It’s just that it’s less dangerous than measles itself. And the thing is, in a population not protected by vaccines, a child really is going to get measles.
In fact, in an unprotected population and one where measles isn’t endemic it can be one of the great killers. The population of the Faroe Islands suffered several epidemics in the 1800s and as the disease ripped through a virgin population it killed substantial percentages. A paper on which is here. The classic paper in fact. Worth noting that we palefaces didn’t conquer the Americas with guns but with germs, measles being one of the epidemics that carried off perhaps 90% of the indigenous population.
But modern mothers – and it is more often mothers – have been told and some believe that the vaccine itself is a rise in risk. Something that their own little darlin’s shouldn’t be exposed to. This has the boring property of not being true:
[perfectpullquote align=”full” bordertop=”false” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””] Amid a measles outbreak that has sickened more than 50 people in the Pacific Northwest, Washington lawmakers heard testimony Friday on a bill that would remove parents’ ability to claim a personal or philosophical exemption to opt their school-age children out of the combined measles, mumps and rubella vaccine. Hundreds of people opposed to the measure lined up more than an hour before the start of the hearing before the House Health Care and Wellness Committee, many wearing stickers with the bill number, HB 1638, within a crossed out circle. [/perfectpullquote]Just to underline the silliness of this reaction. Again, yes, the measles vaccine is dangerous but it is less so than measles. From the standard warnings:
[perfectpullquote align=”full” bordertop=”false” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””]Other vaccine safety issuesDo recall, in a non-vaccinated population a child is going to get measles. So, what’s the preference, the 1 in 1,000 chance of brain damage or the 1 in 1 million chance?
Again:
[perfectpullquote align=”full” bordertop=”false” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””]The risk was less than 1 per million doses, or about 1,000 times less than the risk from measles infection.[/perfectpullquote]Everything is dangerous in this life it is relative risk that matters. Those not vaccinating their children other than for already known medical issues really are increasing the possibility of their own child’s death. This is not sensible.
The language we use matters - it provides clarity to our own thoughts and enables…
It is now generally acknowledged that the structure of the NHS needs to be overhauled…
In the film Apollo 13, a loss of oxygen causes the crew to start inadvertently…
There's an idea out there which seems intuitive but then so many ideas do seem…
When we think about the darkly opaque goals of modern central bankers as they relate…
As the papers recently filled with the distressing images of desperate souls looking to escape…
View Comments
"Do recall, in a non-vaccinated population a child is going to get measles. So, what’s the preference, the 1 in 1,000 chance of brain damage or the 1 in 1 million chance?"
But you're comparing apples to oranges.
If a kid gets the measles vaccine, the kid has a 1 in 1 million chance of brain damage.
If a kid doesn't get the measles vaccine AND GETS MEASLES, the kid has a 1 in 1,000 chance of brain damage.
And in a community where most kids get the vaccine (and take the 1 in 1 million risk), the kid who doesn't get the vaccine isn't much more likely to get measles (with its attendant 1 in 1000 risk) than they are because it's not like everyone's spreading the disease around.
Think of it as free rider problem -- all those other kids are taking the 1 in 1 million risk, thus helping my kid avoid the 1 in 1000 risk ... why should I ever so slightly increase MY little darling's certain risk on the off chance it will ever so slightly decrease his or her prospective risk?
That's the 'herd immunity' effect. You need more than about 90% of the herd immunised for free riders to be protected.
Yes, a very high percentage has to be vaccinated for "herd immunity" to work.
And that's where free-riderism as a problem comes in.
Take a population of 100 people. If 90 of them are vaccinated, "herd immunity" nearly eliminates the risk of measles to the other 10.
But if you go down the list one by one and tell each one "hey, as long as 90 of you get vaccinated, the other 10 will get the benefit without having to take the vaccination risk," presumably more than 10 of them will want to be among the 10 who don't have to take the risk.
Which is why we can't have nice things, I guess.
JH: You need more than about 90% of the herd immunised for free riders to be protected.
So anti-vaxxers are incentivised to talk up the number of anti-vaxxers (as the threat of lack of herd immunity) while also discouraging others from joining them (to actually protect herd immunity).
Tricky balancing act.