The toll of the anti-vaccination movement, in one devastating graphic

guy incognito · Mar 19, 2014

racerboy71 said:
i don't get if why vaccines work they way they claim they do, why is the disease(s) spreading to people(s) who were previously vaccinated?
seems to me the only people who would be getting sick were the ones who never got the vaccines, or am i missing something here??

Let's say hypothetically that there are some people in the population that can't receive vaccines for various reason (allergies, compromised health, etc)

Now let's say a small fraction of vaccines don't work as intended. It's not a 100% guarantee to be immune from the disease, but more like 99%, and there is no way for you to know if you are in the 1%.

Now let's say your risk of contracting a disease is proportional to your exposure to the disease. The more you are exposed to infected people the greater chance you have of contracting the disease.

So in a population of 100 people, 2 people can't get vaccinated for medical reasons, and 1 person will be vaccinated but will still be able to contract the disease (and maybe about <0.01 will have negative reactions or possibly die from the vaccine). That leaves 97 people immune to the disease and unable to serve as incubaters to spread the infection. Those 3 people that are at risk are now at a substantially reduced risk of contracting the disease because they will most likely never encounter it because 97% of the population can't get it or spread it.

Now suppose that same population of 100 people has 2 people who can't get vaccinated, and 1 person who it won't be effective for, and 50 more people that have their heads up their collective asses and allow jenny mcarthy to give them medical advise. Now those 3 people who legitimately can't protect themselves from the disease will be exposed to massive amounts of the bug, which will spread like wildfire if it is introduced to the population. Now that 1 person that was vaccinated but not protected is fucked because they got the disease anyway because of other people's ignorance. Also those 2 that couldn't get vaccinated are fucked, whereas they weren't in the other scenario above.

These were all hypothetical made up numbers by the way, but I think you can get the gist of it.

minnesmoker · Mar 19, 2014

guy incognito said:
Let's say hypothetically that there are some people in the population that can't receive vaccines for various reason (allergies, compromised health, etc)

Now let's say a small fraction of vaccines don't work as intended. It's not a 100% guarantee to be immune from the disease, but more like 99%, and there is no way for you to know if you are in the 1%.

Now let's say your risk of contracting a disease is proportional to your exposure to the disease. The more you are exposed to infected people the greater chance you have of contracting the disease.

So in a population of 100 people, 2 people can't get vaccinated for medical reasons, and 1 person will be vaccinated but will still be able to contract the disease (and maybe about <0.01 will have negative reactions or possibly die from the vaccine). That leaves 97 people immune to the disease and unable to serve as incubaters to spread the infection. Those 3 people that are at risk are now at a substantially reduced risk of contracting the disease because they will most likely never encounter it because 97% of the population can't get it or spread it.

Now suppose that same population of 100 people has 2 people who can't get vaccinated, and 1 person who it won't be effective for, and 50 more people that have their heads up their collective asses and allow jenny mcarthy to give them medical advise. Now those 3 people who legitimately can't protect themselves from the disease will be exposed to massive amounts of the bug, which will spread like wildfire if it is introduced to the population. Now that 1 person that was vaccinated but not protected is fucked because they got the disease anyway because of other people's ignorance. Also those 2 that couldn't get vaccinated are fucked, whereas they weren't in the other scenario above.

These were all hypothetical made up numbers by the way, but I think you can get the gist of it.

Great scenario, except the bigger, long term danger. When 97% of the population is effectively immune as both victim or carrier, the virus has no point of entry... and therefore can't host within the immune population. When less that 80% of the population is immune, or partially immune, you get hosts. The one or two that were injected but not immunized now become the biggest danger. Because they allow for evolution to combat the immunity... once that happens, the herd has the classic 15-35% immunity, and everyone else dies or suffers long term.

kelly4 · Mar 19, 2014

We could use some thinning of the Monkeys.

racerboy71 · Mar 19, 2014

guy incognito said:
Let's say hypothetically that there are some people in the population that can't receive vaccines for various reason (allergies, compromised health, etc)

Now let's say a small fraction of vaccines don't work as intended. It's not a 100% guarantee to be immune from the disease, but more like 99%, and there is no way for you to know if you are in the 1%.

Now let's say your risk of contracting a disease is proportional to your exposure to the disease. The more you are exposed to infected people the greater chance you have of contracting the disease.

So in a population of 100 people, 2 people can't get vaccinated for medical reasons, and 1 person will be vaccinated but will still be able to contract the disease (and maybe about <0.01 will have negative reactions or possibly die from the vaccine). That leaves 97 people immune to the disease and unable to serve as incubaters to spread the infection. Those 3 people that are at risk are now at a substantially reduced risk of contracting the disease because they will most likely never encounter it because 97% of the population can't get it or spread it.

Now suppose that same population of 100 people has 2 people who can't get vaccinated, and 1 person who it won't be effective for, and 50 more people that have their heads up their collective asses and allow jenny mcarthy to give them medical advise. Now those 3 people who legitimately can't protect themselves from the disease will be exposed to massive amounts of the bug, which will spread like wildfire if it is introduced to the population. Now that 1 person that was vaccinated but not protected is fucked because they got the disease anyway because of other people's ignorance. Also those 2 that couldn't get vaccinated are fucked, whereas they weren't in the other scenario above.

These were all hypothetical made up numbers by the way, but I think you can get the gist of it.

thanks for that guy..

just a few questions.. i know you're numbers are made up for the fact of just making it easier for a dummy like me to grasp what you're talking about.. i understand..
my question is, what do you think the real % of the anti=vaccine crowd really are? do you think even 1% of the population are on the anti-vaccine band wagon and don't vaccinate?
idk the numbers, but to me, the anti vac crowd should be small enough, even today, that the widespread of disease shouldn't really ever be an issue, unless of course, i'm way off on my assumptions on the number of people who don't vaccinate..

guy incognito · Mar 19, 2014

racerboy71 said:
thanks for that guy..

just a few questions.. i know you're numbers are made up for the fact of just making it easier for a dummy like me to grasp what you're talking about.. i understand..
my question is, what do you think the real % of the anti=vaccine crowd really are? do you think even 1% of the population are on the anti-vaccine band wagon and don't vaccinate?
idk the numbers, but to me, the anti vac crowd should be small enough, even today, that the widespread of disease shouldn't really ever be an issue, unless of course, i'm way off on my assumptions on the number of people who don't vaccinate..

I am inclined to believe it is larger than 1%. I have encountered them in real life, and also all over the internet. And I don't seek them out. The caption is missing from the article pad copied, but if you go to the website the caption under the infographic reads "Measles outbreaks (purple) worldwide and whooping cough (green) in the U.S., thanks in part to the anti-vaccination movement. (Council on Foreign Relations)"

So all those green dots are outbreaks of whooping cough. Those dots should not exist if everyone was vaccinated, which everyone in the usa should be.

minnesmoker · Mar 19, 2014

racerboy71 said:
thanks for that guy..

just a few questions.. i know you're numbers are made up for the fact of just making it easier for a dummy like me to grasp what you're talking about.. i understand..
my question is, what do you think the real % of the anti=vaccine crowd really are? do you think even 1% of the population are on the anti-vaccine band wagon and don't vaccinate?
idk the numbers, but to me, the anti vac crowd should be small enough, even today, that the widespread of disease shouldn't really ever be an issue, unless of course, i'm way off on my assumptions on the number of people who don't vaccinate..

It's not whole population demographics that matter. It's herd demographics. So, while the Minneapolis heard may be at 2%-10% unvaccinated (a safely low number, if we accept the 1-2% compromised immunity post injection, and the 2-3% medically unable to receive vaccinations. It keeps us under that 80% safety range I made up earlier.)

But, let's look at the 90210 and surrounding herd. They are likely closer to 30% unvaccinated. And the hippie herds outside San Francisco, where 90%+ unvaccinated exist.

The problem isn't in the stupid, they'll die and we'll laugh. The problem is in evolution, and the opportunity we give disease to evolve, specifically to our defenses, in the split herds. So, while Minnesota is safe, and San Francisco burns, everyone laughs, and then the virus evolves, and the herd immunity in Minneapolis becomes a weakness. In the long run, it seems logical that it will end worse for the previously immune herd.

The logic in that last statement. A number of us, of Irish/Celtic, southwest native, and northeast coastal native decent have immunity, in varying degree. In the immunized herd, those people will flourish during sickness. In the immunized herd, those same people will become horrible carriers, unsuspected because they're part of the immunized herd.

gR33nDav3l0l · Mar 19, 2014

Down here getting vaccines used to be class thing. Now, after years of outbreaks, (most) vaccines are free in health centers and hospitals. Only those that are unable to get vaccines because of the place they live, could get some diseases. Now, with the arrival of the fucking jehova's witnesses and their ridiculous creed, more and more middle to upper class peeps get tuberculosis and shit. Fucking cults, even indigenous traditionalists understand the use of vaccines for the prevention of white man diseases.

Padawanbater2 · Mar 19, 2014

minnesmoker said:
Do you think they should be mandatory?

Absolutely not

racerboy71 · Mar 19, 2014

minnesmoker said:
It's not whole population demographics that matter. It's herd demographics. So, while the Minneapolis heard may be at 2%-10% unvaccinated (a safely low number, if we accept the 1-2% compromised immunity post injection, and the 2-3% medically unable to receive vaccinations. It keeps us under that 80% safety range I made up earlier.)

But, let's look at the 90210 and surrounding herd. They are likely closer to 30% unvaccinated. And the hippie herds outside San Francisco, where 90%+ unvaccinated exist.

The problem isn't in the stupid, they'll die and we'll laugh. The problem is in evolution, and the opportunity we give disease to evolve, specifically to our defenses, in the split herds. So, while Minnesota is safe, and San Francisco burns, everyone laughs, and then the virus evolves, and the herd immunity in Minneapolis becomes a weakness. In the long run, it seems logical that it will end worse for the previously immune herd.

The logic in that last statement. A number of us, of Irish/Celtic, southwest native, and northeast coastal native decent have immunity, in varying degree. In the immunized herd, those people will flourish during sickness. In the immunized herd, those same people will become horrible carriers, unsuspected because they're part of the immunized herd.

you bring up a point i was also wondering about, but pardon if this comes of as my being completely uninformed as to how this type of stuff works, as i openly admit i pretty much am, lol...
what about mutations to virus' like you brought up? i know we now have some virus' that i think i have heard are immune to the cures that killed them before? or are they more bacterial then viral? like i always hear about these new super bugs that have become resistant, or mrsa, which is really bad in a lot of jails and even my mom had to be tested for mrsa before she had her hip replaced..
are things like vaccines and people taking tons of anti-biotics the cause for some of these new super bugs, or are these things more bacterial and not viral like i asked earlier??

thanks for the 411 btw minne, much appreciate your knowledge and the way you put it accross..

minnesmoker · Mar 19, 2014

Padawanbater2 said:
Absolutely not

Thank you. Glad to hear that even amongst the vaccine supporters, the right to refuse is still acceptable.

What do you think should happen, though, in the event that little Tommy contracts Polio, because of his parents' desire to travel and give him "world exposure" but lie and fake immunizations for that travel?

Little Tommy, coming back with a strong variant of the Polio virus, or worse, spreads it to his other free range neighbors, who all know better than science... What then? Who's liable, and can we finally HOLD someone liable? Would Tommy's parents be guilty of the deaths that ensued, if his Polio mutated past an immunization in an immune-compromised, but vaccinated person?

Do we HAVE to provide triage medical, when preventative was scoffed, or do we get to point, laugh, and say "Haha, fuck you, die. No science for you!"

Padawanbater2 · Mar 19, 2014

minnesmoker said:
Thank you. Glad to hear that even amongst the vaccine supporters, the right to refuse is still acceptable.

What do you think should happen, though, in the event that little Tommy contracts Polio, because of his parents' desire to travel and give him "world exposure" but lie and fake immunizations for that travel?

Little Tommy, coming back with a strong variant of the Polio virus, or worse, spreads it to his other free range neighbors, who all know better than science... What then? Who's liable, and can we finally HOLD someone liable? Would Tommy's parents be guilty of the deaths that ensued, if his Polio mutated past an immunization in an immune-compromised, but vaccinated person?

Do we HAVE to provide triage medical, when preventative was scoffed, or do we get to point, laugh, and say "Haha, fuck you, die. No science for you!"

I'd say they would be morally accountable, but I doubt they would ever be held legally accountable

If it got bad enough, after it was over, the remaining people would set the rules for vaccinations. I think a lot of people forget history, not too long ago, millions of people were affected by diseases because there were no viable sources for vaccines. Tens of millions of peoples lives have been saved because of vaccines

gR33nDav3l0l · Mar 19, 2014

There are polio outbreaks every certain time in the poorer islands of the Caribbean.

kinetic · Mar 19, 2014

Vaccinations are probably 33% of the reason why life expectancy has nearly doubled in the last century. Potable water and better working conditions are probably the other 2/3's.

While the anti-vac people certainly may come off as loons they do bring about awareness regarding what people are allowing to be put into their bodies.

Padawanbater2 · Mar 21, 2014

http://health.usnews.com/health-news/news/articles/2013/09/30/whooping-cough-outbreaks-tied-to-parents-shunning-vaccines

A comment on Reddit about this article;

"The problem is that many vaccines aren't just for the person getting them. Rubella for instance is not a terrible disease- unless you're a fetus and your mother contracts it. Then you get to experience the teratogenic effects of congenital rubella syndrome.Basically these selfish fucks are going to kill and mutilate other people's unborn children. Fuck them all. I WISH the worst that happened was just these dumb shits killing themselves but the reality is far sadder.
Oh, and the best part? Congenital rubella can cause autism in the infant." -99639

http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/20yfip/whooping_cough_outbreaks_tied_to_parents_shunning/cg8302b

TonightYou · Mar 21, 2014

It's alarming to me how many seem to mistrust science and the scientific method. Even more alarming is how arm chair scientists seem to think they know better than history or individuals who've gone through years of medical training.

Is pharma wrong and negligent at times? Absolutely and you can thank the private markets for this occurrence. BUT simply because pharma has been wrong doesn't negate the very well documented, studied and proof of elimination and protection of society at large. We've drastically eliminated or contained extremely fatal diseases by the use of vaccines.

To those who doubt, which is fine, I say this as kindly as possible, pull your head out of your ass and pick up some peer reviewed journals. If you honestly can't grasp why peer reviewed journals are a gold standard in science, you are simply choosing to be ignorant (aka dumbass) . Knowledge is power, knowing how to judge sources and understand complex concepts is something I want to believe most here are capable of.

guy incognito · Jul 30, 2014

I think it was some of the stupidity in this thread that caused me to stop posting here as much.

Commander Strax · Jul 30, 2014

Commander Strax · Jul 30, 2014

TonightYou said:
It's alarming to me how many seem to mistrust science and the scientific method. Even more alarming is how arm chair scientists seem to think they know better than history or individuals who've gone through years of medical training.

Is pharma wrong and negligent at times? Absolutely and you can thank the private markets for this occurrence. BUT simply because pharma has been wrong doesn't negate the very well documented, studied and proof of elimination and protection of society at large. We've drastically eliminated or contained extremely fatal diseases by the use of vaccines.

To those who doubt, which is fine, I say this as kindly as possible, pull your head out of your ass and pick up some peer reviewed journals. If you honestly can't grasp why peer reviewed journals are a gold standard in science, you are simply choosing to be ignorant (aka dumbass) . Knowledge is power, knowing how to judge sources and understand complex concepts is something I want to believe most here are capable of.

even MORE alarming is the number of attorney ads there are on TV talking about "if you or a dead loved one take this medication" or your vaginal mesh is failing.

Or the end of every medication ad talking about side effects like stroke, heart attack,sudden death

and I would the fuck vaccine right out of Jenny McCarthy (assuming that can be done in less than 3 minutes)

Hookabelly · Jul 30, 2014

Commander Strax said:
even MORE alarming is the number of attorney ads there are on TV talking about "if you or a dead loved one take this medication" or your vaginal mesh is failing.

Or the end of every medication ad talking about side effects like stroke, heart attack,sudden death

and I would the fuck vaccine right out of Jenny McCarthy (assuming that can be done in less than 3 minutes)

what's with resurrecting this zombie thread? LOL

guy incognito · Feb 16, 2016

Hookabelly said:
what's with resurrecting this zombie thread? LOL

I know right?

The toll of the anti-vaccination movement, in one devastating graphic

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

bud bootlegger

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

bud bootlegger

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member