The largest outbreak is in Ontario where there have been 1,795 cases since October, according to the latest numbers from Public Health Ontario. Alberta's outbreak is growing too, with more than 500 cases as of Friday.
While losing elimination status might not affect Canadians' day-to-day lives, Dr. Santina Lee, a pediatric infectious disease specialist in Winnipeg, said it would be an unfortunate marker.
...
Because measles is one of the most contagious viruses humans can catch, 95 per cent of the population needs to be immunized to reach herd immunity, meaning the population is considered well-protected.
Canada's vaccination rate is below that threshold. First-dose coverage declined between 2019 and 2023, from 90 to 83 per cent, according to the Public Health Agency of Canada.
...
Cases are primarily spreading among people who are unvaccinated or under-vaccinated. In Ontario, for example, nearly 90 per cent of the cases are among those who are not immunized. Public Health Ontario's Dr. Wilson said that makes stopping the virus difficult.
In Manitoba, which is also experiencing an outbreak, provincial health officials have expanded vaccine eligibility in the most affected regions, offering shots to children aged six months to one year, in addition to the routine schedule that starts at 12 months.
This is so sad, that even in 2019 we didn't get 95%. From a medical science point of view, do we have any technology that's 'person' based instead of relying on herd behaviour? It sounds to me...
This is so sad, that even in 2019 we didn't get 95%.
From a medical science point of view, do we have any technology that's 'person' based instead of relying on herd behaviour? It sounds to me this day and age if we allow some health decisions to be made by preference, any money towards herd benefits is just money into a firey pit.
I understand this leaves the very vulnerable without any options at all. But this late into the game, nobody is adequately covered anyway.
"Nobody is adequately covered" is inaccurate. We do have the technology for protecting individuals and it's called getting vaccinated. It's cheap and effective. The trouble is that it doesn't work...
"Nobody is adequately covered" is inaccurate. We do have the technology for protecting individuals and it's called getting vaccinated. It's cheap and effective.
The trouble is that it doesn't work for everyone. (A compromised immune system makes it less effective.)
Some people legitimately cannot safely get vaccinated either. And in the cases of the MMR/MMRV vaccines there are a bunch of restrictions related to it (see: this CDC vaccine info page), like...
Some people legitimately cannot safely get vaccinated either. And in the cases of the MMR/MMRV vaccines there are a bunch of restrictions related to it (see: this CDC vaccine info page), like pregnant women are advised to wait until their pregnancy is over, and for infants it's advised to wait until they are a year old. Although as the article states, that has been lowered to 6 months here in Canada due to the seriousness of the outbreak. E.g. My youngest nephew only got his a few months ago because he had to wait until he was a year old before he could get his... which was actually delayed a few months past that milestone because he had a serious ear infection and was on antibiotics at the time, which apparently would have potentially effected the vaccine's efficacy.
And herd immunity isn't all or nothing either. The more people that are vaccinated the easier outbreaks are to control since the diseases still spread more slowly, and are easier to contain. So even if the 95% "herd immunity" level is never actually achieved, it still helps to push the immunized numbers as high as you can.
So to combine what you and @redwall_hp have said, am I understanding this at all? If decently healthy person A gets the MMR vaccine, that individual has a 97% of not becoming infected after...
So to combine what you and @redwall_hp have said, am I understanding this at all?
If decently healthy person A gets the MMR vaccine, that individual has a 97% of not becoming infected after exposure. Person B cannot get the vaccine but lives in the same community as A, where 95% of the people also did. So, while person B would more than likely be infected if exposed, their chances are still about as good as Person A via herd immunity, ie, there isn't as much virus being passed around.
Person C cannot get the vaccine, but thankfully lives in a community where 80% of the people did, so while not ideal and not as protected as person A or B, is still decently covered compared to person D whose community isn't immunized at all.
So people who are immunized can still get infected, and people who aren't still can get away with not being infected. It's just a matter of likelihood depending on what else your community is doing.
Surely anyone that's old enough to get pregnant should have already had both of their MMR doses though. Babies have their first shot at twelve months because they already have their mother's...
Surely anyone that's old enough to get pregnant should have already had both of their MMR doses though.
Babies have their first shot at twelve months because they already have their mother's antibodies from birth until around nine months. If they're vaccinated early then their mum's antibodies will prevent them from building up long term antibodies of their own.
In areas with low vaccination uptake they can have an extra vaccination from around six months but they still need their two regular vaccinations too so it makes no sense in most situations.
Not everyone gets vaccinated as a child due to parents, inaccessibility of medical care, travel, religious beliefs, etc. Plenty of adults postpone it, or don't know they're not vaccinated until...
Not everyone gets vaccinated as a child due to parents, inaccessibility of medical care, travel, religious beliefs, etc.
Plenty of adults postpone it, or don't know they're not vaccinated until later, because it's not a priority.
I think the baby's immunities are impacted by breastfeeding, and not all children are breastfed. If you want the protection now and still need the shots later it's not the end of the world to get an extra.
Your point about inaccessibility of vaccinations sounded really odd to me. Even in the UK where wait times to see a general practitioner can be as high as six weeks the GP surgeries heavily...
Your point about inaccessibility of vaccinations sounded really odd to me. Even in the UK where wait times to see a general practitioner can be as high as six weeks the GP surgeries heavily prioritise providing vaccinations for children.
Although in the UK certain vaccinations that are considered normal in other countries aren't available from the NHS. I had to pay £75 per chickenpox vaccination for each of my children.
Sometimes it's money, sometimes it's being rural - Canada and the US are huge, sometimes you don't trust doctors, sometimes your parents are undocumented or homeless, etc. There are lots of...
Sometimes it's money, sometimes it's being rural - Canada and the US are huge, sometimes you don't trust doctors, sometimes your parents are undocumented or homeless, etc.
There are lots of reasons care can be hard to acquire.
Medical stuff is provincial. There are provincial vaccine schedules. (I know for sure at least for BC, AB, ON, NS, NB. Edit: your link mentions some of the holes but that's a huge ordeal for...
Medical stuff is provincial. There are provincial vaccine schedules.
(I know for sure at least for BC, AB, ON, NS, NB. Edit: your link mentions some of the holes but that's a huge ordeal for national vs provincial that I hope this administration will fix)
But even then, people fall through cracks unintentionally or intentionally. We recently found out my best friend did not have MMR antibodies after checking for tetanus. He had no idea why he must have been missed/withheld as a teen. Got the whole battery as an older adult.
The MMR vaccine is approximately 97% effective, which is about as good as it gets. (About the same as condom use.) It's more on the human immune system being imperfect than anything. Even...
The MMR vaccine is approximately 97% effective, which is about as good as it gets. (About the same as condom use.) It's more on the human immune system being imperfect than anything. Even something like being tired can make your body less successful at fighting pathogens.
Herd immunity is just a simpler way of talking about collapsing a sigmoid curve.
Populations collapse when you make their environment inhospitable.
A virus has a certain rate of spread (R0) that basically refers to how many more people a typical person will infect while hosting the virus.
The point where the population collapses and the virus can no longer effectively spread to new hosts, herd immunity, is basically when the rate of spread has been curtailed to the point that the virus population can't sustain itself.
The problem with measles is that the R0 is terrifying. It's so damn infectious you can just breathe the same air, half an hour later, as someone who had it, and be infected.
COVID's R0 was 2-5. Measles' is up to 18. COVID (pre-omicron) only needed 50-60% of the population to be vaccinated for herd immunity. Measles is fucked.
As an aside, here’s a study from the federal government on vaccine refusals. I’m not sure what the opposition to the varicella and rotavirus vaccines are, but I believe the MMR vaccine was the one...
As an aside, here’s a study from the federal government on vaccine refusals. I’m not sure what the opposition to the varicella and rotavirus vaccines are, but I believe the MMR vaccine was the one that quack doctor who had their license revoked incorrectly stated would cause autism, in a retracted study.
I wasn’t able to quickly find any research to back this up, but it’d be interesting if offering a split vaccine would improve acceptance. It’s probably more risky for the child re. side effects, but if the side effect of only offering the MMR vaccine is that people refuse to vaccinate their children …
I suspect splitting the vaccine would result in rates of all three rising, because eventually you get enough people who don't know what rubella is or how bad mumps are (is?), and three shots is...
I suspect splitting the vaccine would result in rates of all three rising, because eventually you get enough people who don't know what rubella is or how bad mumps are (is?), and three shots is more difficult with children than 1.
It’d be interesting to find out — it could be offered as an alternative, compassionately, by the healthcare worker if a child’s guardian is concerned by the MMR vaccine. I suppose the harm would...
It’d be interesting to find out — it could be offered as an alternative, compassionately, by the healthcare worker if a child’s guardian is concerned by the MMR vaccine. I suppose the harm would be an increased distribution cost for the individual vaccines, which takes away from a limited pool of medical resources that could address “real” problems.
… hence why it’d be nice to see a study of whether/to what degree it’d be effective. Since I’d hope that, ultimately, we’re trying to accomplish the greatest harm reduction possible, even if that means burning resources on misinformed parents (so that their children don’t die).
Tbh the problem is that's probably not an ethical study. Developing the separate vaccines would probably be doable but you'd almost certainly need to give the subjects all three or you're failing...
Tbh the problem is that's probably not an ethical study. Developing the separate vaccines would probably be doable but you'd almost certainly need to give the subjects all three or you're failing to protect them from 2/3 of the diseases. And much like RFK Jr's vaunted "placebo" studies you don't just not give people the treatment/protection and let them think they have it.
But the MMR is safe, and the standard, so who's going to spend money on a new vaccine especially a traditional one rather than an mRNA option, when there's no guarantee people will take it either.
If they exist already, sure give them if they're safe and effective but people who don't trust vaccines and believe that they're over vaccinating probably don't trust getting more vaccines
The root of the modern anti-vax movement, Andrew Wakefield, raised concerns about the MMR specifically because he'd patented and was recommending separate shots for MMR. Once he was blacklisted by...
The root of the modern anti-vax movement, Andrew Wakefield, raised concerns about the MMR specifically because he'd patented and was recommending separate shots for MMR.
Once he was blacklisted by any reasonable medical professional, he started showing up at the "all vaccines are bad" crowd's events.
Yeah like I said, anyone promoting his work, or work based on it, should be liable for all harm they cause with their "advice" and all money on whatever bullshit remedies they sell instead should...
Yeah like I said, anyone promoting his work, or work based on it, should be liable for all harm they cause with their "advice" and all money on whatever bullshit remedies they sell instead should be forfeit.
Every child who dies of measles unvaccinated out of fear should cost that man and everyone between him and the decision making parent millions.
Surveying people would probably be enough? That’s what the vaccine refusal rate numbers from the above link were derived from. That’s kind of my question? I don’t know enough anti-vaxxers to...
Tbh the problem is that's probably not an ethical study.
Surveying people would probably be enough? That’s what the vaccine refusal rate numbers from the above link were derived from.
If they exist already, sure give them if they're safe and effective but people who don't trust vaccines and believe that they're over vaccinating probably don't trust getting more vaccines
That’s kind of my question? I don’t know enough anti-vaxxers to understand what their focus is. I’d like to live in a world where we’ve kicked measles out of the country, again, so asking questions like these seems prudent? But I can appreciate that if you’ve had to deal with anti-vaxxers more any discussion about them could be exhausting.
It appears that separate vaccines of dubious effectiveness existed circa 2001 in the UK (Separate vaccines could endanger children), so there’s probably not much need to develop new ones. But the point I’m getting at is that is — per that letter — they’re less safe than an MMR vaccine, so we should weigh the pros and cons of offering them if parents are going to turn down the combined vaccine and expose us all to measles.
Of course we could also remove all exemptions to vaccination policy and shoot anyone (with vaccine-loaded darts) who dares refuse. But that might be an unpopular policy, and it’d be nice to just get on with life without worrying about infectious diseases coming back from the dead and avoiding civil unrest.
(edit)
And much like RFK Jr's vaunted "placebo" studies you don't just not give people the treatment/protection and let them think they have it.
Sorry; I don’t follow American politics (unless they’re talking about invading), so I can’t comment on this. Vaguely knowing of the guy, though, I’m sure it’s something very dumb that he promoted.
I thought you meant to study on efficacy, not a survey of the vibes of anti-vaxxers. You would, however, also need to also survey vaccinating parents for example and find out if they would switch...
I thought you meant to study on efficacy, not a survey of the vibes of anti-vaxxers. You would, however, also need to also survey vaccinating parents for example and find out if they would switch from the MMR shot to an individual vaccine and reduce the overall vaccination rate for all three diseases. Promoting an individual vaccine option likely reduces faith in the combined vaccine.
It appears that separate vaccines of dubious effectiveness existed circa 2001 in the UK (Separate vaccines could endanger children), so there’s probably not much need to develop new ones.
If they are of dubious effectiveness, it would be unethical to give them as if they were effective. They are also not approved in the UK according to this which would require research to get them approved. And as noted in this study, it is dangerous practice to switch to individual ones.
Of course we could also remove all exemptions to vaccination policy and shoot anyone (with vaccine-loaded darts) who dares refuse.
I mean this is such an unreasonable statement. I don't know what point you're trying to make. Yeah we could also just spray measles across the country side and let survivable of the fittest win out.
As for peace and health, if people are still choosing to refuse any number of these individual vaccines you're going to still have the risk of contagious disease like we do now. Public Health experts need to regain control of messaging, and IMO anyone promoting debunked research like Wakefield should be held liable for outbreaks. I'm not in charge of that so who knows if that's effective. But "offer dubious vaccines" is not the answer.
Point by point: Measles is now a concern again, due to declining vaccination rates, increasing vaccination rates is advised so as to reduce the incidence of measles. MMR vaccination refusal rates...
I don't know what point you're trying to make. If people are still choosing to refuse any number of these individual vaccines you're going to still have the risk of contagious disease like we do now.
Point by point:
Measles is now a concern again, due to declining vaccination rates,
increasing vaccination rates is advised so as to reduce the incidence of measles.
MMR vaccination refusal rates are predominantly due to fear of side effects (61% of respondents).
Alternatives to a combined MMR vaccine exist, apparently, but require further study to determine safety and effectiveness.
Questions requiring research:
Would providing a split vaccine decrease vaccine refusal rates?
What change in risk to the individual patient occurs if they take a split vaccine?
As part of public health policy, are the individual risks outweighed by an improvement in vaccination rate?
As part of economic policy, would this investment in preventative care be more or less expensive than dealing with the illness?
That’s it. I’m not a public health practitioner, I’m not a doctor, and I’m fully vaccinated against everything I can get jabbed for. I’m an internet commenter who brought up a point about four questions (listed above) that were raised by thinking about this point in order to have a discussion on the internet.
I get the impression that discussion is unwanted, so I’ll take my leave.
I meant that I didn't know what point you were making with the hyperbolic comment. I'm also just an internet commenter, but I'm saying what you're asking both in terms of a survey and in medical...
I meant that I didn't know what point you were making with the hyperbolic comment.
That’s it. I’m not a public health practitioner, I’m not a doctor, and I’m fully vaccinated against everything I can get jabbed for. I’m an internet commenter who brought up a point about four questions (listed above) that were raised by thinking about this point in order to have a discussion on the internet.
I get the impression that discussion is unwanted, so I’ll take my leave.
I'm also just an internet commenter, but I'm saying what you're asking both in terms of a survey and in medical research and practice is much much more complicated and as the article you linked noted, potentially dangerous. It's no guarantee it ends with more vaccinated people overall instead of the same or even lower rates.
Research studies are very expensive, and again you cannot ethically leave people unvaccinated - if your participants are testing the measles vaccine they ethically have mumps and rubella go unvaccinated, and scientifically can't get all three test shots. You'd have to go somewhere the individual vaccines are already tested and approved or where the MMR vaccination isn't the standard and this is likely all separate from the social impact research you're going to be doing.
It's not a quick fix and it's almost certainly a detriment to public health.
If the "problem" with MMR is "fear of side effects" instead of spending billions on research and vaccine development, would it not be better to improve the public health messaging about those side effects? Which we know are minimal and do not include autism! Because any new vaccine is as susceptible to fear-mongering as MMR. The COVID vaccine does not connect one to the 5g network. New mRNA vaccines don't turn you into a furry (or whatever the current fear-mongering is).
As I said, if those vaccines exist and are safe, I think it's not the worst thing to offer them. But it still undermines the trust in a very safe and effective vaccine for ones that offer less protection per shot, at a minimum
The only point at which I found something unwanted was setting up "vaccine dart guns" as the hyperbolic alternative to lower risks of infectious disease and having a lack of social unrest and that's what I said I didn't understand your point.
iirc a large part of the reason for the original "mmr vaccines cause autism" ruse was because the guy who wrote that paper was selling separate vaccines that he didn't want the combined mmr...
it’d be interesting if offering a split vaccine would improve acceptance
iirc a large part of the reason for the original "mmr vaccines cause autism" ruse was because the guy who wrote that paper was selling separate vaccines that he didn't want the combined mmr vaccine to outcompete.
I lived in Canada for the first half of my life, and it could mostly be due to the fact that my parents were/are very embedded in it, but it always seemed to me that non-science-based...
I lived in Canada for the first half of my life, and it could mostly be due to the fact that my parents were/are very embedded in it, but it always seemed to me that non-science-based "alternative" and "holistic" medicine there is much more widespread and accepted than here in the USA. For example it's not uncommon for health insurance to cover stuff like accupuncture, homeopathic medicines, chiropractic (and yes I know there are arguably some science-based chiropractic practitioners, but I am referring here specifically to the unscientific subluxation and "energy medicine" forms), and even stuff like Reiki, which I don't imagine many insurance companies in the states would even consider covering. Just going on (admittedly probably biased) vibes it felt like a lot more people either fully embraced or at least considered those things as valid forms of therapy in Canada, and that whole world of non-scientific medicine kind of comes bundled with a propensity to buy into conspiracy theories about the evils of "western" medicine that can lead to stuff like anti-vax and belief in debunked ideas like MMR leading to autism. I feel like it's one thing that the privatized health care system in the states actually gets right--by strictly limiting coverage to only things that are scienteficially proven to provide a benefit it probably helps curb some of the public acceptance and buy-in to the "gateway" therapies that can lead down the path to more dangerous beliefs.
Chiropractors and acupuncture are absolutely covered in the US. I used Medicare because in many ways that's a standard. Employer plans may vary but chiropractic has always been covered on mine....
Chiropractors and acupuncture are absolutely covered in the US. I used Medicare because in many ways that's a standard. Employer plans may vary but chiropractic has always been covered on mine. Ironically physical therapist delivered dry needling isn't covered but acupuncture is.
Reiki is rarely covered in what I've seen.
I'm not sure if you mean "homeopathic" medicines are covered as those are expensive filtered water, vs other "alternative" medications but it's too broad a category to compare.
From the article:
...
...
This is so sad, that even in 2019 we didn't get 95%.
From a medical science point of view, do we have any technology that's 'person' based instead of relying on herd behaviour? It sounds to me this day and age if we allow some health decisions to be made by preference, any money towards herd benefits is just money into a firey pit.
I understand this leaves the very vulnerable without any options at all. But this late into the game, nobody is adequately covered anyway.
"Nobody is adequately covered" is inaccurate. We do have the technology for protecting individuals and it's called getting vaccinated. It's cheap and effective.
The trouble is that it doesn't work for everyone. (A compromised immune system makes it less effective.)
Some people legitimately cannot safely get vaccinated either. And in the cases of the MMR/MMRV vaccines there are a bunch of restrictions related to it (see: this CDC vaccine info page), like pregnant women are advised to wait until their pregnancy is over, and for infants it's advised to wait until they are a year old. Although as the article states, that has been lowered to 6 months here in Canada due to the seriousness of the outbreak. E.g. My youngest nephew only got his a few months ago because he had to wait until he was a year old before he could get his... which was actually delayed a few months past that milestone because he had a serious ear infection and was on antibiotics at the time, which apparently would have potentially effected the vaccine's efficacy.
And herd immunity isn't all or nothing either. The more people that are vaccinated the easier outbreaks are to control since the diseases still spread more slowly, and are easier to contain. So even if the 95% "herd immunity" level is never actually achieved, it still helps to push the immunized numbers as high as you can.
cc: @chocobean
So to combine what you and @redwall_hp have said, am I understanding this at all?
If decently healthy person A gets the MMR vaccine, that individual has a 97% of not becoming infected after exposure. Person B cannot get the vaccine but lives in the same community as A, where 95% of the people also did. So, while person B would more than likely be infected if exposed, their chances are still about as good as Person A via herd immunity, ie, there isn't as much virus being passed around.
Person C cannot get the vaccine, but thankfully lives in a community where 80% of the people did, so while not ideal and not as protected as person A or B, is still decently covered compared to person D whose community isn't immunized at all.
So people who are immunized can still get infected, and people who aren't still can get away with not being infected. It's just a matter of likelihood depending on what else your community is doing.
AFAIK that is essentially correct, yes.
Surely anyone that's old enough to get pregnant should have already had both of their MMR doses though.
Babies have their first shot at twelve months because they already have their mother's antibodies from birth until around nine months. If they're vaccinated early then their mum's antibodies will prevent them from building up long term antibodies of their own.
In areas with low vaccination uptake they can have an extra vaccination from around six months but they still need their two regular vaccinations too so it makes no sense in most situations.
Not everyone gets vaccinated as a child due to parents, inaccessibility of medical care, travel, religious beliefs, etc.
Plenty of adults postpone it, or don't know they're not vaccinated until later, because it's not a priority.
I think the baby's immunities are impacted by breastfeeding, and not all children are breastfed. If you want the protection now and still need the shots later it's not the end of the world to get an extra.
Your point about inaccessibility of vaccinations sounded really odd to me. Even in the UK where wait times to see a general practitioner can be as high as six weeks the GP surgeries heavily prioritise providing vaccinations for children.
So I looked it up and in Canada there is no national vaccination scheme!!!
Although in the UK certain vaccinations that are considered normal in other countries aren't available from the NHS. I had to pay £75 per chickenpox vaccination for each of my children.
Sometimes it's money, sometimes it's being rural - Canada and the US are huge, sometimes you don't trust doctors, sometimes your parents are undocumented or homeless, etc.
There are lots of reasons care can be hard to acquire.
Medical stuff is provincial. There are provincial vaccine schedules.
(I know for sure at least for BC, AB, ON, NS, NB. Edit: your link mentions some of the holes but that's a huge ordeal for national vs provincial that I hope this administration will fix)
But even then, people fall through cracks unintentionally or intentionally. We recently found out my best friend did not have MMR antibodies after checking for tetanus. He had no idea why he must have been missed/withheld as a teen. Got the whole battery as an older adult.
The MMR vaccine is approximately 97% effective, which is about as good as it gets. (About the same as condom use.) It's more on the human immune system being imperfect than anything. Even something like being tired can make your body less successful at fighting pathogens.
Herd immunity is just a simpler way of talking about collapsing a sigmoid curve.
Populations collapse when you make their environment inhospitable.
A virus has a certain rate of spread (R0) that basically refers to how many more people a typical person will infect while hosting the virus.
The point where the population collapses and the virus can no longer effectively spread to new hosts, herd immunity, is basically when the rate of spread has been curtailed to the point that the virus population can't sustain itself.
The problem with measles is that the R0 is terrifying. It's so damn infectious you can just breathe the same air, half an hour later, as someone who had it, and be infected.
COVID's R0 was 2-5. Measles' is up to 18. COVID (pre-omicron) only needed 50-60% of the population to be vaccinated for herd immunity. Measles is fucked.
As an aside, here’s a study from the federal government on vaccine refusals. I’m not sure what the opposition to the varicella and rotavirus vaccines are, but I believe the MMR vaccine was the one that quack doctor who had their license revoked incorrectly stated would cause autism, in a retracted study.
I wasn’t able to quickly find any research to back this up, but it’d be interesting if offering a split vaccine would improve acceptance. It’s probably more risky for the child re. side effects, but if the side effect of only offering the MMR vaccine is that people refuse to vaccinate their children …
I suspect splitting the vaccine would result in rates of all three rising, because eventually you get enough people who don't know what rubella is or how bad mumps are (is?), and three shots is more difficult with children than 1.
It’d be interesting to find out — it could be offered as an alternative, compassionately, by the healthcare worker if a child’s guardian is concerned by the MMR vaccine. I suppose the harm would be an increased distribution cost for the individual vaccines, which takes away from a limited pool of medical resources that could address “real” problems.
… hence why it’d be nice to see a study of whether/to what degree it’d be effective. Since I’d hope that, ultimately, we’re trying to accomplish the greatest harm reduction possible, even if that means burning resources on misinformed parents (so that their children don’t die).
Tbh the problem is that's probably not an ethical study. Developing the separate vaccines would probably be doable but you'd almost certainly need to give the subjects all three or you're failing to protect them from 2/3 of the diseases. And much like RFK Jr's vaunted "placebo" studies you don't just not give people the treatment/protection and let them think they have it.
But the MMR is safe, and the standard, so who's going to spend money on a new vaccine especially a traditional one rather than an mRNA option, when there's no guarantee people will take it either.
If they exist already, sure give them if they're safe and effective but people who don't trust vaccines and believe that they're over vaccinating probably don't trust getting more vaccines
The root of the modern anti-vax movement, Andrew Wakefield, raised concerns about the MMR specifically because he'd patented and was recommending separate shots for MMR.
Once he was blacklisted by any reasonable medical professional, he started showing up at the "all vaccines are bad" crowd's events.
Yeah like I said, anyone promoting his work, or work based on it, should be liable for all harm they cause with their "advice" and all money on whatever bullshit remedies they sell instead should be forfeit.
Every child who dies of measles unvaccinated out of fear should cost that man and everyone between him and the decision making parent millions.
Surveying people would probably be enough? That’s what the vaccine refusal rate numbers from the above link were derived from.
That’s kind of my question? I don’t know enough anti-vaxxers to understand what their focus is. I’d like to live in a world where we’ve kicked measles out of the country, again, so asking questions like these seems prudent? But I can appreciate that if you’ve had to deal with anti-vaxxers more any discussion about them could be exhausting.
It appears that separate vaccines of dubious effectiveness existed circa 2001 in the UK (Separate vaccines could endanger children), so there’s probably not much need to develop new ones. But the point I’m getting at is that is — per that letter — they’re less safe than an MMR vaccine, so we should weigh the pros and cons of offering them if parents are going to turn down the combined vaccine and expose us all to measles.
Of course we could also remove all exemptions to vaccination policy and shoot anyone (with vaccine-loaded darts) who dares refuse. But that might be an unpopular policy, and it’d be nice to just get on with life without worrying about infectious diseases coming back from the dead and avoiding civil unrest.
(edit)
Sorry; I don’t follow American politics (unless they’re talking about invading), so I can’t comment on this. Vaguely knowing of the guy, though, I’m sure it’s something very dumb that he promoted.
I thought you meant to study on efficacy, not a survey of the vibes of anti-vaxxers. You would, however, also need to also survey vaccinating parents for example and find out if they would switch from the MMR shot to an individual vaccine and reduce the overall vaccination rate for all three diseases. Promoting an individual vaccine option likely reduces faith in the combined vaccine.
If they are of dubious effectiveness, it would be unethical to give them as if they were effective. They are also not approved in the UK according to this which would require research to get them approved. And as noted in this study, it is dangerous practice to switch to individual ones.
I mean this is such an unreasonable statement. I don't know what point you're trying to make. Yeah we could also just spray measles across the country side and let survivable of the fittest win out.
As for peace and health, if people are still choosing to refuse any number of these individual vaccines you're going to still have the risk of contagious disease like we do now. Public Health experts need to regain control of messaging, and IMO anyone promoting debunked research like Wakefield should be held liable for outbreaks. I'm not in charge of that so who knows if that's effective. But "offer dubious vaccines" is not the answer.
Point by point:
Questions requiring research:
That’s it. I’m not a public health practitioner, I’m not a doctor, and I’m fully vaccinated against everything I can get jabbed for. I’m an internet commenter who brought up a point about four questions (listed above) that were raised by thinking about this point in order to have a discussion on the internet.
I get the impression that discussion is unwanted, so I’ll take my leave.
I meant that I didn't know what point you were making with the hyperbolic comment.
I'm also just an internet commenter, but I'm saying what you're asking both in terms of a survey and in medical research and practice is much much more complicated and as the article you linked noted, potentially dangerous. It's no guarantee it ends with more vaccinated people overall instead of the same or even lower rates.
Research studies are very expensive, and again you cannot ethically leave people unvaccinated - if your participants are testing the measles vaccine they ethically have mumps and rubella go unvaccinated, and scientifically can't get all three test shots. You'd have to go somewhere the individual vaccines are already tested and approved or where the MMR vaccination isn't the standard and this is likely all separate from the social impact research you're going to be doing.
It's not a quick fix and it's almost certainly a detriment to public health.
If the "problem" with MMR is "fear of side effects" instead of spending billions on research and vaccine development, would it not be better to improve the public health messaging about those side effects? Which we know are minimal and do not include autism! Because any new vaccine is as susceptible to fear-mongering as MMR. The COVID vaccine does not connect one to the 5g network. New mRNA vaccines don't turn you into a furry (or whatever the current fear-mongering is).
As I said, if those vaccines exist and are safe, I think it's not the worst thing to offer them. But it still undermines the trust in a very safe and effective vaccine for ones that offer less protection per shot, at a minimum
The only point at which I found something unwanted was setting up "vaccine dart guns" as the hyperbolic alternative to lower risks of infectious disease and having a lack of social unrest and that's what I said I didn't understand your point.
iirc a large part of the reason for the original "mmr vaccines cause autism" ruse was because the guy who wrote that paper was selling separate vaccines that he didn't want the combined mmr vaccine to outcompete.
I lived in Canada for the first half of my life, and it could mostly be due to the fact that my parents were/are very embedded in it, but it always seemed to me that non-science-based "alternative" and "holistic" medicine there is much more widespread and accepted than here in the USA. For example it's not uncommon for health insurance to cover stuff like accupuncture, homeopathic medicines, chiropractic (and yes I know there are arguably some science-based chiropractic practitioners, but I am referring here specifically to the unscientific subluxation and "energy medicine" forms), and even stuff like Reiki, which I don't imagine many insurance companies in the states would even consider covering. Just going on (admittedly probably biased) vibes it felt like a lot more people either fully embraced or at least considered those things as valid forms of therapy in Canada, and that whole world of non-scientific medicine kind of comes bundled with a propensity to buy into conspiracy theories about the evils of "western" medicine that can lead to stuff like anti-vax and belief in debunked ideas like MMR leading to autism. I feel like it's one thing that the privatized health care system in the states actually gets right--by strictly limiting coverage to only things that are scienteficially proven to provide a benefit it probably helps curb some of the public acceptance and buy-in to the "gateway" therapies that can lead down the path to more dangerous beliefs.
Chiropractors and acupuncture are absolutely covered in the US. I used Medicare because in many ways that's a standard. Employer plans may vary but chiropractic has always been covered on mine. Ironically physical therapist delivered dry needling isn't covered but acupuncture is.
Reiki is rarely covered in what I've seen.
I'm not sure if you mean "homeopathic" medicines are covered as those are expensive filtered water, vs other "alternative" medications but it's too broad a category to compare.
So bad news, we're the same