IS there a trend to decreasing vaccination of children for measles?

[Hannah Bell]

Some people seem to believe fundamentalists are refusing vaccination in significant numbers, such that it has been causing increasing numbers of cases & risk to children.

Is this true? Let's look at CDC's data. The % = percent of vaccination-age children covered. The () = the number of cases of measles that year.


1967: 60% (62,705)

1970: 58.4% (47,351)

1975: 65.5% (24,374)

1980: 66.6% (13,506)

1985: 61.2% (2,822)

1991: 82% (9,643)

1992: 82.5% (2,237)

1993: 84.1% (312)

1994: 89% (963)

1995: 87.6% (309)

1996: 90.7% (508)

1997: 90.5% (138)

1998: 92% (100)

1999: 91.5% (100)

2000: 90.5% (86)

2001: 91.4% (116)

2002: 91.6% (44)

2003: 93% (56)

2004: 93% (37)

2005: 91.5% (66)

2006: 92.4% (55)

2007: na (30)


http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/G/cases&deaths.pdf

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/G/coverage.pdf

[napi21]

1. That doesn't look like the number of children being vaccinated is decreasing,

but more like the vaccinations have worked and the number of measles cases have decreased to nearly zero. That's a good thing! My two children were born in 1965 & 1958 and they both had measles. It's not a fun thing! I'm glad that it is being obliterated!

[Hannah Bell]

9. you're right. you don't have an axe to grind, so you can see what's obvious

to any impartial observer.

[depakid]

2. Survey data are often years behind vaccination trends

And so the magnitude damage to the public health that the anti-vaccination fundies have been perpetrating here and elsewhere may known for several years down the line.

As the NY Times notes:

government officials say the growing number of measles outbreaks suggests that overall vaccination rates may be on the decline.

Because it is virulently contagious, measles is often the first vaccine-preventable disease to reappear when vaccination rates decline. In the decade before the measles vaccination program began, each year nearly 4 million people in the United States were infected, 48,000 were hospitalized, 1,000 were chronically disabled and nearly 500 died.

Autism and antivaccines advocates are unapologetic about the return of measles.

“Most parents I know will take measles over autism,” said J. B. Handley, co-founder of Generation Rescue, a parent-led organization that contends that autism is a treatable condition caused by vaccines.

It is an attitude that pediatricians say they are increasingly having to confront.

“All pediatricians are spending more time speaking with parents about the rationale for vaccines,” said Dr. Andrew D. Racine, director of the division of general pediatrics at the Children’s Hospital at Montefiore in the Bronx.

Responding to parents’ concerns, manufacturers in 2001 almost entirely removed a preservative containing mercury from all routinely administered childhood vaccines. The incidence of autism has shown no drop.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/22/health/research/22measles.html

[Hannah Bell]

3. Wrong. The data presented is THE OFFICIAL CDC DATA

current to 2006.

The trend is clear.

[depakid]

4. Public health officials disagree

and note the data lags behind the trends.

Yet another misuse of data by the anti-vaccination folks.

One would also note that your gardasil hysteria has only been on the web since around 2006, so one wouldn't expect to see results of that fallout in the survey for several years.

[Hannah Bell]

5. the data is official cdc data, complete to 2006.

I note the name-calling: "your gardasil hysteria"

& apparent disregard for the facts.

I also note the topic is MMR, not gardasil.

[depakid]

7. Calling a spade a spade

The gardisil hysteria has been at a fevered pitch since 2006. Some folks are utterly obsessed with it- and it's spred like a virus on the web. My guess is that you'll see results from all that work in the years to come.

Which is why public health officials cited in the Times are concerned.

[Hannah Bell]

8. "Your guess" isn't data. Neither are anecdotal reports, even from

"public health officials".

[depakid]

10. All one can do is make educated guesses as to future trends

based on reports from people actually out in the public health community.

Seems to me a reasonable guess that we'll see problems down the line (of course, the anti-vaccibation folks don't think prevenrable diseases are a problem- so that would be a good result from their perspective).

[mhatrw]

13. You seem to be big on "reasonable guesses" and short on

factual backing.

[depakid]

15. Until the data's in- all you can do is guess

What see are lagging survey's- so no one can say anything definitive at this point.

Though I'm sure you must be proud of all the measles cases- for you may well have had a hand in those.

[Hannah Bell]

18. The data is complete to 2006, & partially complete to 2007 (30 cases,

revised to 42, i read elsewhere.).

So my "educated guess" would be that there's unlikely to be a sudden large decline in the % vaccinated in 2008 beyond the ranges in the historic record (+/- <5%): & that a one-year bump either way says NOTHING about the general trend.

[mhatrw]

24. I'm happy the measles cases have been trending down.

How about you?

[chicagomd]

43. Measles cases

are trending up according to the CDC this year.

But thanks for trying.

[Hannah Bell]

50. "This year". They also trended up in 1991 (+242%), 1994 (+209%),

1996 (+64%), 2001 (+35%), 2005 (+78%).

But for that entire time period, the overall trend is DOWN.

From 9000+ cases to 66.


1967: 60% (62,705)

1970: 58.4% (47,351)

1975: 65.5% (24,374)

1980: 66.6% (13,506)

1985: 61.2% (2,822)

1991: 82% (9,643)

1992: 82.5% (2,237)

1993: 84.1% (312)

1994: 89% (963)

1995: 87.6% (309)

1996: 90.7% (508)

1997: 90.5% (138)

1998: 92% (100)

1999: 91.5% (100)

2000: 90.5% (86)

2001: 91.4% (116)

2002: 91.6% (44)

2003: 93% (56)

2004: 93% (37)

2005: 91.5% (66)

2006: 92.4% (55)

2007: na (30)

[beam me up scottie]

30. Thank you. I was wondering if anyone else would actually cite the CDC.

Of course, DU's panel of expert epidemiologists have it all figured out.

I wonder why they're not working for the CDC?

[Hannah Bell]

32. The stats cited have all been from CDC.

You & depakote seem not to comprehend basic statistical principles.

is it pretense, or do you really not get it?

not snark - it's difficult for me to believe you don't get it.

[beam me up scottie]

34. Let me know when you've informed the CDC, I'm sure they'll want you to do a press release.

From the NY Times today:

Public health advocates have become alarmed in recent years over a growing number of people who contend that vaccines cause illnesses, particularly autism. The number of parents who claim a philosophical exemption to mandatory vaccine laws has grown.

Nonetheless, vaccination rates have remained relatively high in the United States. In 2006, 95 percent of school-age children received at least one shot of the combined measles, mumps and rubella vaccine, according to the C.D.C. But such surveys are often years behind vaccination trends, and government officials say the growing number of measles outbreaks suggests that overall vaccination rates may be on the decline.


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/22/health/research/22measles.html?ref=us

[Hannah Bell]

36. i don't need to inform cdc. they know.

why they're hyping the data, i'm not sure, but the effect is to confuse & divide people.

sorry, you're willfully blind. it doesn't take a job at cdc to interpret the data.

oooh, only those important scientists can understand this harrrrd stuff. we little people are tooooo dumb! wait for them to tell us what to think, even if it contradicts the obvious.

[beam me up scottie]

37. Oh, right, I forgot. You know the real truth and they're just making shit up.

Again, forgive me for not believing you but I prefer to get my science from scientists.

[Hannah Bell]

38. the numbers are FROM CDC.

SORRY YOU DON'T GET IT.

[beam me up scottie]

39. Thank you for your contribution.

[Hannah Bell]

42. My contribution: copying the numbers from CDC's table.

Too bad you think CDC data is bogus.

[beam me up scottie]

45. I already complemented you once on your skill.

Don't be greedy.

[Hannah Bell]

16. So long as it's clear you're guessing, based on anecdotal evidence

with nothing in the long-term trend line that would support your conclusion.

[notadmblnd]

11. I've read post here where people have spoken out against one particular vaccine

so tell me, how does that equate them all to be anti- vaccine fundies? And why do you paint with such a broad brush? If I am wrong, please point me to these other anti-vaccine posts.

[depakid]

12. That's just lately- now that the thimerisol scare didn't pan out in the Autism data

It doesn't take much searching to realize that some of these folks are OBSESSED- and have been that way for years.

[notadmblnd]

14. That's not an answer to my questions. That's a run around

I would greatly appreciate you providing links where anti-vaccine fundies have posted their protests against all vaccines. You seem to follow many thread in regards to vaccines (at least one particular one). It should be an easy task for you.

[depakid]

17. Run some searches on the forum

The same 5 or 6 posters have been spreading anti-vaccine quackery for years.

[Hannah Bell]

19. Is this data from CDC also "anti-vaccine quackery"? I note you're

exceedingly reluctant to accept it, since it doesn't support your contention that fundamentalist nuts are refusing to vaccinate their children in ever-increasing numbers.

But the CDC's data, which comes from its surveillance system (MMWR), is THE authoritative data on vaccine coverage & cases.

[Hannah Bell]

21. Furthermore, if you examine the data for ALL the childhood vaccines,

there's no trend to decline in vaccination rates for any of them. The trend is increasing, not decreasing coverage.

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/G/coverage.pdf


So I don't see the evidence for this terrible army of fundies refusing to vaccinate their children & endangering everyone else that folks on this forum are constantly ranting about, & use to justify their own rudeness & hostility.

[mhatrw]

26. Because there isn't any. It's all based on faith.

There is a fundamentalist refusal among "science" worshippers to recognize the legitimacy of any scientific data the does not conform to their religion.

[notadmblnd]

20. That's just sad

I would expect the one making the accusation to provide evidence to back up their argument, just as your so called "anti-vaccine fundies" do when they post,(often without any personal comments). So, just to make sure I understand, according to you, anyone that speaks up against any vaccine, is an anti-vaccine fundie? If you can't make a better argument than name calling and ridicule, you'll never silence them.

Tell me something, why do you think it is that they haven't shown up here on this thread yet, crying and wailing in their hysteria? Is it because they are all in bed now? Fundies don't stay up late because they want to be fresh for the rapture? I'd really like your expert opinion on this.

[depakid]

23. Actually, if Americans had ridiculed the fundies- rather than enabled and legitimized them

during the 80's and 90's, the states would be a very different place.

[notadmblnd]

25. that is your expert opinion?

[mhatrw]

27. What makes for a fundamentalist?

Is it someone who sticks to his preconceived notions despite clear and compelling scientific evidence to the contrary as you have done in this thread?

[Hannah Bell]

28. good question. who's the fundie in this case? depakid.

he just knows his belief will be shown to be true.

sometime in the future.

there's precious little evidence for it now, but all sorts of anecdotal sightings.

Like angels.

[depakid]

63. People who parrot "Concerned" Women of America and Judicial Watch

and aid and abet their crusades.

http://www.cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp?id=14982&department=CWA&categoryid=life

[mhatrw]

65. How about people who parrot Laura Bush? n/t

[Trillo]

6. Seems like a "social pressure" tactic. n/t

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

22. Why do you hate our children?

[mzmolly]

55. LOL

:hi:

[Jim__]

29. The CDC undermines its own message when it puts out press releases that are ...

... not supported by its own published data. The incidence of measles are up ( slightly), but vaccination rates have increased over the last 20 years, and held steady over the last 10. So, what does this slight increase in measles have to do with people questioning the risks involved with certain vaccines?

[Hannah Bell]

31. nothing, most likely. so why do they put out the articles focusing on

religious objectors & implying it's some huge problem?

serious misrepresentation, which - as is obvious from these threads - ramps up antagonism between various groups.

since that's the effect, there's the presumption that's the reason for the misleading info: to divide people.

very effective, if you judge from these threads.

[mzmolly]

47. Absolutely. And you can PROVE to people this is what they are doing, yet they post recent propaganda

in reply?

[Hannah Bell]

51. Because they don't really give a damn about the science?

Because they're just enjoying messing with people?

Because they're scientific illiterates?

Who knows.

[trotsky]

33. Classic misuse of statistics.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26333787/

Childhood measles vaccination rates have stayed above 92 percent, according to 2006 data. However, the recent outbreaks suggest potential pockets of unvaccinated children are forming. Health officials worry that vaccination rates have begun to fall — something that won’t show up in the data for a couple of years.

[Hannah Bell]

40. yep, the insinuation that vaccination rates are falling, based on

anonymous "worries," when the data show them rising - is truly a misuse of statistics.

[Hannah Bell]

41. but it's the usual way the media lead us by the nose.

"MAY have wmd, MAY end in a mushroom cloud" - did y'all fall for that one too?

[trotsky]

44. "something that won’t show up in the data for a couple of years."

You are misusing the statistics. In two years, repost those updated stats and THEN you can make conclusions about 2008.

[Hannah Bell]

46. Let's see: in 1991, there were 9,643 cases, a 241% jump from 1985. But vaccination coverage

was 20% higher.

Between 1980 & 1985, vaccination coverage dropped 5% - but cases dropped 79%.

The notion that a 1 year blip from 42 to 123 cases warrants the frigging soap opera WHEN VACCINATION RATES WERE ~93% 2003-2007, THE HIGHEST COVERAGE ON RECORD FOR ANY? FIVE-YEAR PERIOD is absurd.

The notion that "in a couple of years" we'll "know something" we don't already know, like maybe coverage will miraculously revert to pre-1967 levels or something, is also absurd.

If it blips down a %, BFD. If it blips down/up 4%, BFD. It's done worse. ONE BLIP isn't a trend.

How to lie with statistics: "In 2005, there were 66 cases - the HIGHEST NUMBER SINCE 2001! DOCTORS WORRY...."

"In 2001, there were 116 cases, THE HIGHEST SINCE 1997. DOCTORS WORRY..."


One data point isn't a trend, & there's no fricking need for such lousy, scare-mongering, fundametntally stupid reporting.


But y'all just wait for CDC to tell you what to think.


1967: 60% (62,705)

1970: 58.4% (47,351)

1975: 65.5% (24,374)

1980: 66.6% (13,506)

1985: 61.2% (2,822)

1991: 82% (9,643)

1992: 82.5% (2,237)

1993: 84.1% (312)

1994: 89% (963)

1995: 87.6% (309)

1996: 90.7% (508)

1997: 90.5% (138)

1998: 92% (100)

1999: 91.5% (100)

2000: 90.5% (86)

2001: 91.4% (116)

2002: 91.6% (44)

2003: 93% (56)

2004: 93% (37)

2005: 91.5% (66)

2006: 92.4% (55)

2007: na (30)

[trotsky]

48. "something that won’t show up in the data for a couple of years."

I understand you have an agenda here, but I'll stick with what the experts are saying. You are making unwarranted conclusions from THIS data, that is the point.

You are evidently having difficulty understanding the idea of a lag effect. If a child doesn't get the MMR vaccine, they don't go out the next day and get measles. Could be, but it also could be a year later, or 5 years later, or even 10 years later. There are factors involved like introduction of the virus, clustering of unvaccinated individuals, etc. I realize these are just pesky details and since they don't help with your agenda you're not interested in them.

But unless you are a trained epidemiologist, you are the one making stuff up.

[Hannah Bell]

52. "You are evidently having difficulty understanding the idea of a lag effect."

You are evidently having difficulty with the idea of statistical noise.

[trotsky]

54. Whatever you say, resident epidemiologist.

You ARE an epidemiologist, right? I mean anyone who expects their conclusions on this topic to be the final word would be one, right?

[mhatrw]

66. The "experts" were lying. We currently have the data through 6/07.

So how in the hell will it take "a couple of years" to the get the data through 6/08?

[trotsky]

68. Read the part again about the lag effect.

Let me know if you don't understand that the unvaccinated don't always get measles immediately.

[mhatrw]

69. We have the VACCINATION RATES through 6/07.

:eyes:

[trotsky]

70. I'll just let that stand as the best evidence I can provide for what I said.

Thanks.

[mhatrw]

71. By all means let your dyslexia stand for us of all to see. n/t

[Hannah Bell]

72. Coverage over the last 5 years is the highest-ever. I guess the

big failure to vaccinate just started after Q2 2007.

[mzmolly]

53. Thanks for expanding on my post in a succinct fashion.

:hi:

The misuse of the public trust with the scapegoating of a few parents has bothered me for sometime. If there were evidence to support these claims, that would be understandable, but there isn't.

A handful of parents were blamed for Pertussis making a comeback a few years ago as well. It was total BS. The CDC recommended wider testing (before recommending an adult booster) so of course the surveillance showed an increase in cases. However, what did not match the propaganda were vaccine coverage levels. (AGAIN HIGHER THAN EVER) In other words, they lied about that too. We now know that an adult booster is recommended, but how many adults who promote vaccine mandates for children comply?

What's especially troubling to me is, essentially we are all walking around coughing in public places (around babies) with a false sense of security because we've had a DPT shot as children. Pediatricians were a common carrier group as well, and spread pertussis to patients (unknowingly) as the did not have an adult vaccine available until recently.

We can't all be vaccinated. Even if we are, we don't know how long vaccination offers protection for any given person. The science behind the science isn't as scientific as we'd like to believe. I've found something else of interest too. I'm about to post a reply here.

[Hannah Bell]

49. in two years, there will be coverage data up to Q2 2008.

One new data point, which will give no useful information about trend.

[mhatrw]

67. Right now we have the data through 6/07.

So it should take less than one year to get the data through 6/08. As if that will change anything ...

[beam me up scottie]

35. NYT: Measles Cases Grow in Number, and Officials Blame Parents' Fear of Autism

Measles Cases Grow in Number, and Officials Blame Parents' Fear of Autism
By GARDINER HARRIS
Published: August 21, 2008

More people had measles infections in the first seven months of this year than during any comparable period since 1996, and public health officials blamed growing numbers of parents who refuse to vaccinate their children.

Many of these parents say they believe vaccines cause autism, even though multiple studies have found no reputable evidence to support such a claim. In Britain, Switzerland, Israel and Italy, measles outbreaks have soared, sickening thousands and causing at least two deaths.

***

Public health advocates have become alarmed in recent years over a growing number of people who contend that vaccines cause illnesses, particularly autism. The number of parents who claim a philosophical exemption to mandatory vaccine laws has grown.

Nonetheless, vaccination rates have remained relatively high in the United States. In 2006, 95 percent of school-age children received at least one shot of the combined measles, mumps and rubella vaccine, according to the C.D.C. But such surveys are often years behind vaccination trends, and government officials say the growing number of measles outbreaks suggests that overall vaccination rates may be on the decline.

***

Autism and antivaccines advocates are unapologetic about the return of measles.

"Most parents I know will take measles over autism," said J. B. Handley, co-founder of Generation Rescue, a parent-led organization that contends that autism is a treatable condition caused by vaccines.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/22/health/research/22measles.html?ref=us

[mzmolly]

56. Compelling reason to support vaccine choice?

http://tinyurl.com/56z9lj

Here's another article from Canada that addresses the issue with a sense of integrity:
http://novanewsnet.ukings.ca/nova_news_3588_7452.html

“Between the years 1998 and 2005 we had approximately nine mumps cases in total,” says Hatchette, whose lab performs all tests for the virus in the Maritime region.

But a lack of vaccination doesn’t explain the outbreak at Dalhousie, says health officials, since Canada reports vaccination rates of over 95 per cent. Canada was one of the first countries to introduce routine MMR vaccination in 1968.

A more likely explanation, says Hatchette, is waning immunity in those vaccinated before 1995, when health officials recommended Canadians begin receiving a second vaccination."

[Hannah Bell]

57. yep. but so much easier to scapegoat "fundies" & hype 1-year

blips than to deal with the evidence thoughtfully.

[beam me up scottie]

58. I think most folks on both sides of the issue believe in vaccination choice.

There is a lot of middle ground here. :)

[mzmolly]

59. That's my position.

But when public officials attempt to mislead and blame a few who are not vaccinating, for a resurgence of disease, it might actually be counter productive?

[beam me up scottie]

60. That would be an opinion.

We all draw our own conclusions.

[mzmolly]

61. Unfortunately the CDC doesn't tout their position

as such.

[beam me up scottie]

62. It is pointless to debate conspiracies.

I don't automatically trust any organization, but I do trust the scientific method and respect research scientists.

[mzmolly]

64. Like the scientists I noted

above?