Two-Thirds of Whooping Cough cases were vaccinated for it

[bigus_D]

Okay. If people with the vaccine are getting sick at a much higher rate than unvaccinated people, I think that statement is indefensible.

I don't see anything that points to this! Vaccinated people ARE NOT getting sick at a higher rate!

You are trying to represent that data in the OP in this manner, but it is simply wrong to do so. That IS NOT what the stats presented actually say!

 

[rambone]

Is Whooping Cough Vaccine Working? | KPBS.org

UTD = up-to-date with age appropriate pertussis vaccinations by immunization record review or parent report

NOTD = not up-to-date with age appropriate pertussis vaccinations

PBE = personal belief exemption reported by parent and/or physician

UNK = unknown

TDAP DUE = any child 11-18 years old who had only 5 pertussis containing immunizations with no Tdap noted
(source: San Diego County Health & Human Services Agency)

I don't see anything that points to this! Vaccinated people ARE NOT getting sick at a higher rate!

You are trying to represent that data in the OP in this manner, but it is simply wrong to do so. That IS NOT what the stats presented actually say!

If you accept the results of the above as valid, then we have 332 sick people, 197 of whom were up to date on vaccines, plus 45 who had "only 5 pertussis vaccines."

Add up all the other categories, including the unknowns, and I see much higher rates of vaccinated people getting sick.

 

[bigus_D]

If you accept the results of the above as valid, then we have 332 sick people, 197 of whom were up to date on vaccines, plus 45 who had "only 5 pertussis vaccines."

Add up all the other categories, including the unknowns, and I see much higher rates of vaccinated people getting sick.

More people in the entire population are vaccinated than not.

Your analysis is assuming equal non-vaccination vs vaccination rates.


If this doesn't make sense, I'm not sure I can clarify any further the error you are making.


Let's assume a 75% vaccination rate. Further assume there are 1000 people in san diego county.

750 people vaccinated
250 not vaccinated

200 vaccinated people sick = 200/750 = 26%
100 non vaccinated people sick = 100/250 = 40%

Now... make the numbers closer to reality... I bet 90%+ are vaccinated and 1M people in the county.

900,000 people vaccinated
100,000 people not vaccinated

200 / 900,000 = 0.02%
100 / 100,000 = 0.1%

The rate of people NOT VACCINATED getting sick is HIGHER than the rate for those that are vaccinated. Sure, more people are sick who are vaccinated, but that is because SO MANY MORE PEOPLE ARE VACCINATED. Overall, the rate of infection is 0.03%. For the vacinated, the rate is 0.02% and for the non-vaccinated the rate is 0.1% (5 times worse than the vaccinated).

ASSUMPTIONS 1M people in the county and a 90% vaccinatation rate.

 

[Bigum1969]

The bottom line is that folks who don't vaccinate their children are relying on those of us who do... Your child can likely be fine without vaccinations because a large majority of the kids he/she comes in contact with are vaccinated.

This anti-vaccination stuff is pure . You can find people that think the moon landing was faked, etc.

 

[bigus_D]

You can find people that think the moon landing was faked, etc.

Ummm... yea!

 

[rambone]

The bottom line is that folks who don't vaccinate their children are relying on those of us who do... Your child can likely be fine without vaccinations because a large majority of the kids he/she comes in contact with are vaccinated.

Vaccinated kids are the most sickly kids I have known. Clearly vaccinated kids spread disease the same as anybody else. I'm not sure why people get this notion that vaccines give "immunity." Clearly from the OP, don't bet on it.

This anti-vaccination stuff is pure . You can find people that think the moon landing was faked, etc.

Really. Yeah some people will believe anything. One time I heard somebody say that vaccines are safe. I laughed.

I guess its pure to not want to see your kid turn into this. I'm not even sure what you are refuting. You ever read the fine print on a vaccine insert? (you have to actually request it.) You really buy into that collectivist, "herd" immunity line of bull?

 

[bigus_D]

Clearly.

(well... something is clear anyhow)

 

[rambone]

Thoughts on "herd immunity"

Genomics, Evolution, and Pseudoscience: Whooping cough in California: deaths caused by the anti-vaccination movement

The pertussis vaccine, called DTaP (diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis) has been responsible for a dramatic drop in whooping cough in recent decades. It isn't 100% effective, but its effectiveness relies in part on “herd immunity”: if enough people are immune to the bacteria, then even if someone gets sick, the disease cannot easily spread through the community.

If the human population is looked at like a herd, must it not then thin itself as any other herd would? Vaccines negate* the herd's natural ability to thin itself. You replace the natural deaths of sickly human cattle who die of the common flu, with the very unnatural deaths of otherwise healthy cattle dying of raging fevers, brain swelling, and fatal seizures. Not to mention all the cattle walking around with long-term degenerative diseases caused by the bombardment of chemicals & carcinogens from their vaccines. If you altruistic vaccinoholics just want to see "the greater good" for the herd, maybe they should consider how their best efforts to save us from nature are actually weakening the entire herd as a whole.

* Supposedly, assuming vaccines work at all.

 

[rambone]

Clearly.

(well... something is clear anyhow)

The survey of 332 found 197 sick vaccinated kids in one single town. Clearly collectivist herd immunity did not work so well for them. Imagine if this disease was allowed to finally die out instead of annually reintroduced by doctors.

 

[bigus_D]

The survey of 332 found 197 sick vaccinated kids in one single town. Clearly collectivist herd immunity did not work so well for them. Imagine if this disease was allowed to finally die out instead of annually reintroduced by doctors.

except... you are turning the study over and mis-interpreting the results.

No big deal, but since your error has already illustrated, it sounds less like an error now and more like a lie.

(unsubscribe)

 

[rambone]

More people in the entire population are vaccinated than not.

Your analysis is assuming equal non-vaccination vs vaccination rates.




ASSUMPTIONS 1M people in the county and a 90% vaccinatation rate.

Well we obviously need some facts about the actual rates of the total population. I can't find anything that leads me to believe that the total population is anywhere near 90% vaccinated.

This 2009 article by Dr. Russell Blaylock leads me to believe the rates are far lower than that.

When we examine the scientific literature, we find that for many of the vaccines protective immunity was 30 to 40%, meaning that 70% to 60% of the public has been without vaccine protection. Again, this would mean that with a 30% to 40% vaccine-effectiveness rate combined with the fact that most people lost their immune protection within 2 to 10 year of being vaccinated, most of us were without the magical 95% number needed for herd immunity. This is why vaccine defenders insist the vaccines have 95% effectiveness rates.

 

[rambone]

except... you are turning the study over and mis-interpreting the results.

No big deal, but since your error has already illustrated, it sounds less like an error now and more like a lie.

(unsubscribe)

197 sick people can attest that vaccinated people can still spread disease. There is no disputing that people are getting sick even after vaccinated, all rate analysis aside. See above.