Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

California Whooping Cough Cases "an Epidemic"

Posted by timothy on from the hooting-and-hollering-cough-looks-on-enviously dept.

As reported by the San Jose Mercury News, the state of California is "in the throes of a whooping cough epidemic, state health department officials announced Friday. Dr. Ron Chapman, director of the California Department of Public Health, said 3,458 cases of whooping cough have been reported since Jan. 1 -- including 800 in the past two weeks. That total is more than all the cases reported in 2013." Public broadcaster KPBS notes that of the 621 people known to have come down with whooping cough in San Diego county, the vast majority (85 percent) were up to date on their immunizations.

65 of 387 comments (clear)

  1. So there's 100 or so unimmunized? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So there's 100 or so unimmunized kids who got sick in just that last two weeks?

    Without those kids, would the other 500 or so gotten sick?

    There's a reason it's called herd immunity.

    Fuck Jenny McCarthy. With a 50-year-old telephone pole that's had linemen up and down it with spiked shoes thousands of times. Soaked in gasoline. On fire. Up the ass.

    1. Re:So there's 100 or so unimmunized? by houstonbofh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, they ignore the fact that those un-immunized 15% gave a nice reservoir for the illness to mutate and develop stronger strains, like illnesses do. And lets not bring in the fact that most Americans have piss poor immune systems to begin with, and the shots just make one facet stronger, not invincible.

    2. Re:So there's 100 or so unimmunized? by mysidia · · Score: 5, Informative

      im one of those 15%, I'm allergic to the pertussis shot

      Then the other 95% of that 15% are putting you in danger for no great reason, because they have no medical reason to not have the proper vaccinations.

    3. Re:So there's 100 or so unimmunized? by LifesABeach · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Maybe you could site a reference, other than your body's exit point for your food. When one is immunized, one can handle the real thing quickly. That means the sickness cannot take hold, or not for long. There is a group of dumb ass American parents that believe that immunizing their children is a bad thing. These parents will face outcomes like child mortality, and child cripplings for the unlucky. The immunized children will not understand that their close friend is forever negatively altered because their friend's parents are so short sighted that because they don't see it, therefore it doesn't exist.

      This idea is applicable to other things. Short Sigtedness paralleled with business shows rapid depletion of its resources in exchange for an increase in profit; like a child that has more free time because it doesn't have to wait in line for a vaccine shot. Then when the resources run out, the business colapses; the outcome is the abandonment of its employees, and its customers; now the community is damaged, also the death of the business. The survivers must now spend time, money, and resources that they would not have to before; the impact cripples.

    4. Re:So there's 100 or so unimmunized? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There are precisely two viruses like this that have been "eradicated" by medicine, in the entire history of humankind. Two.

      And one of those is suspected of making a comeback in a related form.

      "Immunisation" buys you time, not immunity. We can't get 100% of people to pay taxes or abide by the law, what makes you think we can get 100% immunised?

      Like using one particular chemical in weedkiller or rat poison - doesn't matter how many rats you kill, one will get immune to it and breed a generation immune to it really quickly, or a branch of the same genetic family will evolve to take it over. Even if you legislate (as some countries do) that you MUST use 2 or 3 totally unrelated chemicals at all times and never deploy them singly - still there are rats. And still there will be diseases getting through that are related to those you immunise.

      Hell, we offer flu shots to the elderly for free in my country - hasn't even dented flu-like diseases. Immunisation helps. Blaming those percent that choose to decide what they put into their own bodies is just peer pressure and bullying. And, guess what, if you were actually "immunised" you wouldn't be able to catch it from them, or the evolved strains...

      The biggest issue with the flu is that there are so many strains of it (it mutates quite easily). Your flu vaccination is for the one strain which is believed to be the most common one for that particular year. Unfortunately they could have guessed wrong as to which strain will be the most common or you could just as easily pick up some other strain.

      As for immunisation protecting you from evolved strains, what happens when that one little mutation is a change in the protein coating which makes your immunity a moot point? Vaccines work by giving you a dead or harmless version of the virus so that your immune system knows what it is and that it should react to it. One of the ways this is done is via the protein coating of the virus. If that changes enough then the immune system no longer recognises the virus as being one it has encountered already. Tying back into the flu virus, it mutates quite easily and more often then not the protein coatings change, hence why the flu vaccine does not always stop you from getting the flu.

      It is the ease that viruses mutate that makes getting as many people as possible vaccinated important. The fewer hosts a virus can infect mean the less likely hood of the virus getting to mutate.

      As for your comment on only 2 viruses being eradicated via vaccinations, how many people do you know or have heard of catching stuff like german measles, rubella, smallpox, pertussis, tuberculosis, mumps, etc? And how many of those live in countries where vaccination is readily available (eg, most non-thirdworld nations). Myself, I don't know anyone who has had any of these diseases outside of outbreaks in the UK and the USA due mostly to the anti-vaccination crowd...

    5. Re:So there's 100 or so unimmunized? by russotto · · Score: 3, Funny

      Or maybe it's because the current acellular pertussis vaccine just doesn't work all that well.

    6. Re:So there's 100 or so unimmunized? by magamiako1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There are many reasons the flu vaccine "doesn't work", for the most part, because it's only around 80% effective to begin with. They also target specific strains that they think will be the most common in a given region. They do not target every strain of the flu out there.

      So yes, 80% effective, only targeting key specific seasonal strains they think will cause the most havoc.

      But, at the end of the day, it's a gamble. Do you want to take your life or the lives of loved ones at such risk? I don't get a flu vaccine, in part because I haven't had the flu in a long, long time (Colds and I, however, have problems). Also because I'm not around little kids or super elderly folks, and don't work in a hospital/doctor's office, etc. But it's a choice I make. If I were to get the flu more often, I'd probably get vaccinated.

    7. Re:So there's 100 or so unimmunized? by Trepidity · · Score: 4, Informative

      When one is immunized, one can handle the real thing quickly. That means the sickness cannot take hold, or not for long.

      Unfortunately that appears to be no longer be as true for whooping cough as it used to be: the currently circulating strains have diverged from the strains that were used to develop the vaccine, so protection is worse than it used to be.

      --
      10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
    8. Re:So there's 100 or so unimmunized? by io+bus · · Score: 2

      If it were for me, you can die as a life choice. Any medication has tradeoffs. You have to decide what is more important at the time. Getting rid of a flu or having an upset stomach. If immunization were so bad, how come we overcome all those illnesses that caused trouble for our civilization pre 20th century? Before, babies and teens did not survive into adulthood. Some died on some illnesses that we since overcome. But i see. Overconfidence is key here. Science is just bad. But maybe its time that people die again like flies. So go ahead and don't vaccinate, please.

    9. Re:So there's 100 or so unimmunized? by Sarten-X · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The 'flu shots' are one of the best proofs of the total and utter fraud of 'vaccination', since they simply DON'T WORK, and figures from hundreds of thousands of sufferers of the flu prove this.

      Congratulations on your complete failure to understand influenza.

      Flu shots "don't work" because influenza is such a simple organism. Most big organisms (pretty much anything you can see with the naked eye) have mechanisms to protect their DNA from changing too much. Cells that mutate are killed off, and offspring that mutate too much can't grow. That's why it takes thousands of years for even small changes. The benefit, of course, is that once such an organism thrives, it stays that way. There are practically no single-individual species out there (some exceptions apply).

      Influenza completely lacks those mechanisms. It is free to mutate rapidly, often leading to significant differences in only a few years. Part of those significant differences are the proteins exposed to the body's immune system, so the particular strain of virus that was most aggressive one year may give way to a completely different strain for the next winter season (when human immune systems are at their weakest).

      To produce a flu shot each year, researchers track the incidence rates of many different strains, and the ones that seem most troublesome for the coming year are what the vaccine protects against. There is a balance that must be struck between providing enough material for the body to develop immunity, and providing too much material, such that the person actually gets sick.

      Flu shots, therefore, are not an absolute shield against the diverse array of viruses we call "influenza".

      This whole article PROVES that 'vaccination' is a massive fraud

      No, it only provides still more evidence that vaccines work exactly as we expect them to. There is only a good chance that a person will develop an immunity from a vaccine, and only a good chance that an immunity will protect them from the actual pathogen, so we hope to also give them a good chance to never encounter the pathogen in the first place. Skipping vaccinations increases the likelihood that you will be a safe harbor for the pathogen, greatly increasing the chances of exposure for someone whose immunity is ineffective or not even present.

      Immunity is a collective endeavor. You're undermining it.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    10. Re:So there's 100 or so unimmunized? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There are precisely two viruses like this that have been "eradicated" by medicine, in the entire history of humankind. Two.

      No, they have not been eradicated.

      1. One lives in labs
      2. The other one is still in wild because of fucked up Islamists.

      Aside from that, your comment is stupid. You do not require 100% immunization to eradicate a disease. You only require good enough level of immunization. And comparing this to some specific strain flu vaccine, really? Flu vaccine has nowhere the same effectiveness as polio vaccine.

      "Immunisation" buys you time, not immunity.

      What a gem.

    11. Re:So there's 100 or so unimmunized? by ganjadude · · Score: 4, Funny

      If only there was a shot which cured idiocy.

      cyanide?

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    12. Re:So there's 100 or so unimmunized? by Bowling+Moses · · Score: 2

      From your link: "cowpox bears no analogy to smallpox." Cowpox and smallpox viruses are very similar, assigned to the same viral genus. We have sequenced the entire genome of each and their close relationship is undeniable. Here's an article for exampleAnalysis of the complete genome of smallpox variola major virus strain Bangladesh-1975. From the abstract: "Most of the virus proteins correspond to proteins in current databases, including 150 proteins that have > 90% identity to major gene products encoded by vaccinia virus, the smallpox vaccine." I'm sure if I spent more than 10 seconds on google I could find a lot more.

    13. Re:So there's 100 or so unimmunized? by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 2

      There are many reasons the flu vaccine "doesn't work", for the most part, because it's only around 80% effective to begin with. They also target specific strains that they think will be the most common in a given region. They do not target every strain of the flu out there.

      Not quite. The 80% effective rate is only when the correct strain is targeted by the vaccine. And that's only about 33% of the time. That means the overall effective rate for any given year is actually around 16%.

      There have even been studies of the H1N1 vaccine in Canada that showed that the people that received the vaccine were slightly more likely to become infected.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    14. Re:So there's 100 or so unimmunized? by marcello_dl · · Score: 2

      I don't see why the illness should mutate more where it encounters less resistance, that is in the not immunized hosts.
      But OK, somebody will sure have studies on this, and hopefully they have been independently confirmed.

      Still it is the opposite phenomenon of what happens in hospitals: pathogens that manage to survive there become way difficult to remove. I also wonder what Darwin would have thought of less selective pressure leading to more mutations.

      --
      ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
    15. Re:So there's 100 or so unimmunized? by superdana · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I know it's very fashionable to have allergies these days but a tummy ache is not anaphylaxis. Try taking it with food next time.

    16. Re:So there's 100 or so unimmunized? by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The US have one of the highest rates of antibiotics (ab)use. I'd be surprised if you found worse strains of germs in our hospitals than you find in the average US hotel air condition.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    17. Re:So there's 100 or so unimmunized? by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      Did they finally legalize the use on morons?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    18. Re:So there's 100 or so unimmunized? by ChromeAeonium · · Score: 2

      And one of those is suspected of making a comeback in a related form.

      Thanks to people who oppose vaccinations. Boy, I love it when stupidity is used to justify itself. Criticizing that is like looking at the state of the chicken pox vaccine (you remember chicken pox right?) and saying 'Anti-vaxxers' kids still get it, therefore the vaccine is bad because it doesn't work if you don't use it!'

    19. Re:So there's 100 or so unimmunized? by Anubis+IV · · Score: 2

      He just got done explaining how vaccinations don't always take, so some percentage of vaccinated individuals are still susceptible to the pathogen, meaning that those people unknowingly depend on the successful vaccinations of those around them to protect them. Did you really just skip right by that?

    20. Re:So there's 100 or so unimmunized? by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If it was just for him, I'd be cheerleader for the vaccine-naysayers. Darwin should be right at least sometimes and all that.

      But sadly it's not just about him. There are people who cannot get immunized, who cannot get vaccines, for various reasons. Very real reasons, unlike that anti-vac crowd. Some people would love to get vaccinated because they do not want to get sick. But simply cannot. For them, we "vaccinated ones" are the protective shield. Because if there is no strain to infect them (because we don't carry it around since our vaccinated immune system kills them), we effectively protect them.

      Those anti-vac nuts endanger them.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    21. Re:So there's 100 or so unimmunized? by level_headed_midwest · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There are at least two things you wrote which are generally medically incorrect. First of all, having only a stomach ache after ingesting a drug is very unlikely to be an allergy. True (IgE/T-cell-mediated) allergies usually cause things like hives, throat/lip/face swelling, low blood pressure, and trouble breathing. You simply describe a very well known NON-ALLERGIC adverse effect common to all opioids. True allergies are generally not heritable either, so the "my relative was allergic to X, so I can't take it" is nonsense. Your aunt and uncle simply had the same very common NON-ALLERGIC adverse effect you did. The exception to this is in people who have things like celiac disease who have a T-cell-mediated response to gluten in the medication which is an allergy. But you'd have a telltale set of symptoms involving more than just nausea if that was indeed the case for you. The only reason I mention this is because many people say they're "allergic" to vaccinations for similar nonsense reasons. A moderate fever and redness/aching at the injection site is a known adverse effect due to how vaccines work. You have symptoms of an immune response because you have to elicit an immune response for vaccines to work.

      --
      Just "gittin-r-done," day after day.
    22. Re:So there's 100 or so unimmunized? by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, personally I'd rather get vaccinated than die.

      You know, if vaccination is wrong, then it's wrong in a really right way. Let's put theory to a rest for a moment and ponder reality. Some diseases vanished entirely. Others have been pushed back considerably. All just due to a better sanitary situation? Certainly that is a factor too. But not sufficient to explain everything. Take tetanus. It's a fairly well understood disease, mostly because it used to be very troublesome before we understood it fully. And all cases of tetanus since WW2, at least, have been in people who were not vaccinated against it, despite the bacterium responsible for tetanus still being pretty much ubiquitous (it's fairly impossible to eliminate it from our life).

      So if vaccination doesn't work, how would you explain this?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    23. Re:So there's 100 or so unimmunized? by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The US have one of the highest rates of antibiotics (ab)use. I'd be surprised if you found worse strains of germs in our hospitals than you find in the average US hotel air condition.

      It's not so much an issue of them not being in the hotel air as them not being trivial to find. But as it turns out, they're all over the hospitals, which are typically nowhere near as sanitary as they're alleged to be, mostly by health care professionals. Basically nothing in the typical hospital aside from some of the purpose-built equipment can actually be properly cleaned for the variety and load of contaminants which pass through it.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    24. Re:So there's 100 or so unimmunized? by Greyfox · · Score: 2

      What the fuck is up with that anyway? When I was growing up, they wouldn't even let you in the school if you didn't have your immunization papers. I don't care if you are afraid of "toxins" and use Cherokee hair tampons, if you're not getting your kids their shots you're endangering them and everyone else's kids. That should be enough grounds for child services to decide that you're an unfit parent and remove your kids to protective custody. We need to stop coddling stupid bitches in this country.

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    25. Re:So there's 100 or so unimmunized? by Kaenneth · · Score: 2

      He explains it by not taking his anti-psychotic medication.

    26. Re:So there's 100 or so unimmunized? by houstonbofh · · Score: 2, Funny

      If only there was a shot which cured idiocy.

      There are several... 9mm .45 cal 7.62x39

    27. Re:So there's 100 or so unimmunized? by houstonbofh · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I know it's very fashionable to have allergies these days but a tummy ache is not anaphylaxis. Try taking it with food next time.

      Anaphylaxis is not the only allergic reaction. Not even the only life threatening one. And NVD (Nausa, vomiting, diarrhea) during a respiratory illness is very deadly.

    28. Re:So there's 100 or so unimmunized? by mysidia · · Score: 4, Informative

      Perhaps they can't afford it? Immunizations used to be dirt cheap but these days, not so much.

      The DTaP vaccine is available free of charge through state health departments particularly to low-income families and to those without without health insurance; in addition, many private doctors participate in the Vaccines for children program.

      Even if it's not free the price is not particularly high; basically $50/dose for immunization against Diptheria, Tetanus, Pertussis, and Polio; add another $60/dose for MMR.

    29. Re:So there's 100 or so unimmunized? by dmr001 · · Score: 4, Informative
      Mexican kids tend to have at least as high vaccination uptake as US kids. (I say this based on personal experience as a primary care physician taking care of a population with lots of Mexican immigrants who keep their vaccination cards, and based on data you can Google easily: http://www.vaccinationnews.org..., and http://www.unicef.org/infobyco... which shows Mexican DTP rates around 99%, compared to the United States, which is 93% by the third dose.)

      So, I wouldn't look so strongly at Mexico, as I would at San Diego, which is the backyard of Dr Bob Sears and his Vaccine Book. He promulgates a non-evidence-based Alternative Schedule that more or less gives privileged white parents permission to be suspicious of the pro-science crowd. (See http://pediatrics.aappublicati... for cogent commentary on the same.)

      With a panel of about 2000 patients, I've got more or less 0 vaccine refusers among my Mexican and Central American population, which correlates well with the Unicef data cited above.

    30. Re:So there's 100 or so unimmunized? by Belial6 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm pretty sure that equating vaccination to religion isn't going to convince people into thinking what you want them to think.

    31. Re:So there's 100 or so unimmunized? by geekoid · · Score: 2

      It should be modded as mean, short sighted, egotistical and troll.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    32. Re:So there's 100 or so unimmunized? by Millennium · · Score: 2

      It doesn't sound to me like the grandparent was an antivaxxer. The rather unkind things they said about Jenny McCarthy should stand as a pretty strong argument that he (she?) isn't.

      But it's true: vaccines are not perfect. They give a big boost, and they can help a lot of people, but the fact is that some of their effectiveness really does depend on having very high participation: herd immunity helps the immunized almost as much as it helps the un-immunized. Which only makes it more of a travesty that the antivaxxers are pulling this BS. It's not just that they're screwing their own kids out of immunity, though that would be bad enough on its own. But they're even managing to reduce the protection that the properly-immunized have. One could draw parallels to secondhand smoke.

      There's also the fact that some people actually have a legitimate need to be leaning on herd immunity. For example, I've got all my shots except one. I reacted very badly to my first dose of whooping cough vaccine (which needs three doses), so the docs tried a half-dose for my second but I reacted just as badly, so they stopped it entirely. I'm vaccinated against everything else; they even found separate vaccines for measles and mumps (which are usually done alongside whooping cough in a combined vaccine called MMR) and gave me those, and I got through those just fine. But I've got that one hole in my immunity, and I had to get all kinds of waivers for exceptions and stuff going through school because of it. But I'm glad that the waiver system is there, and that I needed to go through it.

      I keep up on the rest of my shots, partly out of a sense of duty: I must depend on the herd for protection from one disease, so it's even more important that I contribute back to the herd's immunity from every other disease. I've got no quarrel with those who actually react badly to a given vaccine (being one myself), and I don't even mind the relatively few people who avoid vaccines for religious reasons (though I'm not one of them). But the McCarthyite antivaxxer is another matter entirely: honestly, I'm starting to think that they should be classified as a public menace.

      So yes, dear antivaxxers: stop spoiling herd immunity. Some of us need that. No love, me.

    33. Re:So there's 100 or so unimmunized? by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Informative

      Pages 4 and 5. Page 5, somewhere in the middle:

      Almost all reported cases of tetanus are in persons who have either never been vaccinated, or who completed a primary series but have not had a booster in the preceding 10 years.

      Page 7 goes into detail with vaccination.

      Of course this is only a credible source if you're not convinced that the government and the center of disease control and prevention aren't in on this whole pro-vac conspiracy.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    34. Re:So there's 100 or so unimmunized? by Rich0 · · Score: 2

      Good advice. An even bigger problem is when people report allergies to antibiotics that they aren't really allergic to (granted, doctors who are afraid of being sued and don't bother to confirm this don't help). If you report 10 antibiotic allergies to the doctor and end up in the hospital with sepsis for some reason, you may very well die from it. They're going to treat you with antibiotics that are rarely used because they don't work well and have nasty side-effects that will hit you hard while you're already weak, but they can't treat you with any of the stuff that is more appropriate because you reported allergies and they don't want to risk it while you're already ill.

      So, if you think you're allergic to multiple classes of antibiotics do yourself a favor and talk to a doctor who will help you to confirm whether this is in fact the case. That knowledge just might save your life when you're in bad shape and the doctor knows how to treat you.

    35. Re:So there's 100 or so unimmunized? by philip.paradis · · Score: 2

      Please reference the following resources:

      While these resources alone do not paint an absolute picture of the global problem of large scale antibiotic misuse, there is no question that the United States is indeed among the highest ranked nations and regions for these problems. As for the GP's second sentence regarding particularly nasty germs in hospitals versus hotels, his statement is overzealous at present, but the problem is rapidly worsening in the United States.

      In light of this information, please explain why you believe the GP's statement to be speculative, wrong, stupid, "not nice at all" and wildly ignorant. Judging by your recent posting history, you appear to place higher value on your opinion of whether things sound "nice" and much less value on facts.

      --
      Write failed: Broken pipe
    36. Re:So there's 100 or so unimmunized? by philip.paradis · · Score: 2

      I'm guessing you've never been out of the US then, otherwise you'd know that the vast majority of "AB resistant diseases" are mainly from the 3rd world, or developing countries where people simply stop taking it.

      With that, you were attempting to dismiss the GP's assertion that "the US have one of the highest rates of antibiotics (ab)use." He's actually correct, and you've missed the mark with your reply. Please reference my other reply on this subject.

      The problem with hospitals is it being such a sterile environment, it makes a prefect breeding ground for aggressive strains when there are no other bacteria or virii to keep them in check.

      Hospitals are anything but sterile environments, but the reasons for cross infection can be complex. Please review the following resources:

      Where are you getting your information?

      --
      Write failed: Broken pipe
    37. Re:So there's 100 or so unimmunized? by arth1 · · Score: 2

      You do not require 100% immunization to eradicate a disease. You only require good enough level of immunization.

      This is true. However, that doesn't imply vaccination.

      1: A disease can be eradicated from overexposure. If nearly everyone has caught it and developed active immunity, no one will be around to catch it. This is the same way inoculation works.
      However, this doesn't work well for diseases with rapid mutation rates, ability to jump species, or virus forms that can survive for long periods of time. And again, that's the same whether the immunity was acquired through a vaccine or by having had the disease.

      2: A genetic resistance can develop and spread when that gives an advantage over others. There are hundreds of diseases you can't get because of the HLAs your genetic heritage produces. Many of them don't exist anymore.
      However, vaccination defeats that, by taking away the evolutionary advantage of genetic immunity.

    38. Re:So there's 100 or so unimmunized? by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 2

      Not sure why you're so indoctrinated on this issue you feel compelled to not just ignore factual information, but to launch personal attacks against anyone that would point them out.

      Others have already posted the issues with the H1N1 / H1N2 interactions, so I won't bother repeating that. I would point you to some information from the CDC

      :

      What do recent vaccine effectiveness studies show? CDC conducts studies each year to determine how well the flu vaccine protects against flu illness. These estimates provide more information about how well this season’s vaccine is working. Recent studies show vaccine can reduce the risk of flu illness by about 60% among the overall population during seasons when most circulating flu viruses are like the viruses the flu vaccine is designed to protect against.

      And from a very large study in Europe for 2012 / 2013:

      Our results suggest an overall low to moderate AVE against influenza B, A(H1N1)pdm09 and A(H3N2), between 42 and 50%.

      And, finally, this report from the University of Minnesota:

      On the basis of our review, we conclude that the currently licensed influenza vaccines can provide moderate protection against virologically confirmed influenza, but such protection is greatly reduced or absent in some seasons. It also supports the conclusion that, Based on a track record of substantial safety and moderate efficacy in many seasons, we believe the current influenza vaccines will continue to have a role in reduction of influenza morbidity until more effective interventions are available. However, evidence for consistent high-level protection is elusive for the present generation of vaccines, especially in individuals at risk of medical complications or those aged 65 years or older.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    39. Re:So there's 100 or so unimmunized? by Reziac · · Score: 2

      I'm 59, and I qualified just for breathing. Here in enlightened Montana the county runs an RV around to all the little rural burgs and vaccinates anyone they can corner, at no charge, with everything they have on hand. Last year I got pertussis (combo, don't recall all that was in it), tetanus, flu, and pneumonia vacs (all on the same day -- and lived!) The only reason they didn't offer shingles vac is because it needs to be kept frozen and they weren't equipped for that.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  2. Stay in the basement! by ColdWetDog · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It's much safer. Stock up on Doritos and Dr. Pepper and wait the epidemic out.

    Pertussis is a big deal and, as usual, the media is Doing It Wrong. For most adults, pertussis is annoying (very annoying) but not life threatening. It is also rather contagious and worse, it is most contagious early on when one's symptoms are mild and non specific. So when you are sick, stay in the basement. Wash your hands. Communicate with the rest of the world via Slashdot.

    For young children it can be fatal, hence the importance of immunizations.

    What is pretty clear is that the primary immunization series works pretty well (not perfectly). Immunizations of adults doesn't work well at all. What TFA didn't make clear was how immunized the adults were. They would be up to date if they had received their primary children's series but no adult Dtap (typically given as part of a tetanus immunization, not directly 'for' pertussis). But we know that the pertussis component of Dtap wanes after five years. So even if you were technically up to date by tetanus standards, you'd be behind for pertussis.

    We've known this for decades. What I can't figure out is why a pertussis only booster hasn't been marketed. We have the vaccine, we have much of the data. It would be fairly easy to do. (Insert favorite rant about the Medical Industrial Complex here.)

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    1. Re:Stay in the basement! by sconeu · · Score: 2, Informative

      I actually *had* pertussis back in 2001 (my '60s vintage vaccine wore off). It is horrible, I was coughing to the point of vomiting.

      I hope the anti-vaxxers all get it and drop dead from it.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
  3. Mexico Vaccinates Better Than The US by CritterNYC · · Score: 5, Informative

    Mexico's vaccination rates are higher than the US.

    --
    Portable versions of Firefox, GIMP, LibreOffice, etc
    1. Re:Mexico Vaccinates Better Than The US by PapayaSF · · Score: 2

      Mexico's vaccination rates are higher than the US.

      Are you sure? A few years ago when I was rather ill I went to a doctor who decided I needed a chest X-ray to rule out tuberculosis, which he described as (IIRC) "common" in San Francisco. I expressed surprise, and he said it was due to illegal immigration. Of course, it might have been due to illegal immigration from Honduras, Guatemala, etc., but most illegals around here are from Mexico.

      --
      Q: What does the "B." in Benoit B. Mandelbrot stand for? A: Benoit B. Mandelbrot
    2. Re:Mexico Vaccinates Better Than The US by Nemesisghost · · Score: 4, Interesting

      of the 621 people known to have come down with whooping cough in San Diego county, the vast majority (85 percent) were up to date on their immunizations.

      Here's the problem with that statistic: If 90% of the people in San Diego county are up to date on their vaccinations, and the per capita of individuals was equal, then you'd end up with about 63 of the 621(or 90%) of whooping cough individuals as having their vaccinations. To truly see how well the whooping cough vaccination is working, you need to compare it to the percentage of total vaccinations. If the % is higher than the vaccinations total, you've got a problem, otherwise we can continue to blame un-vaccinated individuals as the problem.

    3. Re:Mexico Vaccinates Better Than The US by zugmeister · · Score: 2

      Couldn't agree more. If someone has snuck across the border and evaded the established legal process to come here by doing so, that would make them an immigrant who has entered the country illegally. While it is technically correct to say they are "undocumented", it's also technically correct to say that Japan was "splashed" or "moistened" by that tsunami in 2011.

    4. Re:Mexico Vaccinates Better Than The US by refinch · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The proper, legal term is "illegal alien." Everything else is politically-corrected propaganda.

    5. Re:Mexico Vaccinates Better Than The US by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 5, Informative

      To truly see how well the whooping cough vaccination is working, you need to compare it to the percentage of total vaccinations.

      THIS. The reporting in TFA is potentially making a false inference.

      If this is unclear, think about it this way: If 85% of the 621 infected have been vaccinated, that means that 528 were vaccinated, and 93 were not.

      Now, consider a hypothetical population of 10,000 people. And suppose (for the sake of argument) 99% of them are vaccinated. That means that 9900 people are vaccinated, and only 100 people are not.

      Look at those statistics again for infections. If 93 of unvaccinated people were infected, that would constitute 93% of the entire unvaccinated population. In comparison, 528 out of the other 9900 would only be 5.33%.

      In this hypothetical 99% vaccinated scenario, going without vaccinations means you are over 17 TIMES more likely to get infected if you are unvaccinated.

      I doubt we can assume a 99% fully vaccinated rate, but as long as that rate is greater than 85%, the vaccine has some apparent effect. To wit:

      Percentage of population vaccinated - relative risk
      99% - 17.4 times higher risk for unvaccinated
      97% - 5.7
      95% - 3.3
      90% - 1.6
      85% - equal risk
      less than 85% - vaccine is apparently not effective

      You can't compare the incidence of things happening in two different subgroups without knowing the overall proportion of the subgroups within the population in general. Basic stats error.

    6. Re:Mexico Vaccinates Better Than The US by geekoid · · Score: 2

      And you should learn to evaluate the methodology and statistics in a study instead of assuming the abstract is correct.

      Also, you should reread it. It has more to do with closed population group in low income.

      That said, it's irrelevant. We should immunizes everyone.

      People can prattle on and how 'wrong' illegal immigration is bottom line, it happens. If something more the a review study should indicate it is largely due to illegal entry, is that enough not to vaccinate and disease that doesn't care about legal status? Especially since non-vaccinate people are a vector for mutation?

      So maybe the study is on a specific sub group and not on a cross population?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    7. Re:Mexico Vaccinates Better Than The US by PapayaSF · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "...and was speaking from personal experience." This is a huge red flag. He probably is not a trained epidemiologist, and as such his observation bias is no different in that area then anyone else.

      Nonsense. He knows what he sees in his work. He wasn't making an epidemiological statement, he was making an observational one: the TB cases he was seeing were disproportionately illegal immigrants. Observation is not necessarily "observational bias."

      Of course, he wears a white coat so you assume is an expert in all things.

      No, I just assume he's an expert on the characteristics of his patients and their diseases, because that's his job.

      --
      Q: What does the "B." in Benoit B. Mandelbrot stand for? A: Benoit B. Mandelbrot
    8. Re:Mexico Vaccinates Better Than The US by sjames · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Experience at a free clinic would be suggestive of issues faced by the poor and lower middle class in general. To really draw conclusions from experience, he would need to have worked in a free clinic far from immigrant populations and in a clinic (free or not) in a wealthy area.

    9. Re:Mexico Vaccinates Better Than The US by philip.paradis · · Score: 2

      I've read the referenced publication twice in its entirety. You are attempting to minimize the key point "census tracts with lower median incomes, more racial/ethnic minorities, and more immigrants had higher rates of pediatric tuberculosis" by separating the factors for your convenience. I never stated that illegal immigration was the only factor, but it is nonetheless intimately linked with the rate of transmission of tuberculosis. I'll leave it to you to consult additional studies (CDC, etc) that demonstrate similar results. If you are inclined to disagree with the methodology and statistics associated with this or any other studies, you should cite specific objections and include contrary data or alternate interpretation of supplied data. Otherwise, nobody should take you seriously, as you're not adding anything to the conversation other than unfounded conjecture.

      I'm confused why you seem to think I would disagree with your view that we should immunize everyone. In fact, I fully agree with that position, but you have again attempted to divert attention from a legitimate factor. I suspect this is because of your personal views on immigration, but I would encourage you to question where your priorities are in this case. Is reduction of disease transmission in the United States your actual goal here, or is there another agenda you feel ranks higher in terms of social good? If it is the latter, on what terms have you arrived at that decision, and have you considered tradeoffs and interrelated concerns involved with the picture as a whole?

      --
      Write failed: Broken pipe
    10. Re:Mexico Vaccinates Better Than The US by philip.paradis · · Score: 2

      Why are you assuming the physician in question worked exclusively at the free clinic? This is quite unlikely. I have known many physicians who worked rounds at free clinics in addition to their duties at other medical facilities in various metropolitan areas, but I cannot recall having known a physician who only did free clinic work for any prolonged period of time. I have seen a couple of cases where doctors who were very financially secure (not the normal "paying off medical school, dealing with other debt as well just like everyone else" conditions) only worked free clinics in urban or very rural areas for a matter of months, this does not appear to be the norm. Residencies are also typically much more balanced in the demographic mix sense.

      Even assuming a physician only works at a free clinic, it seems unlikely that he would have no communication with other physicians servicing alternate socioeconomic groups. This really goes back to my request that you perform a bit of research before voicing what appear to be unfounded suppositions.

      --
      Write failed: Broken pipe
    11. Re:Mexico Vaccinates Better Than The US by Miamicanes · · Score: 3, Informative

      For what it's worth, "anchor babies" is another misleading term.

      A baby born on US soil to a Mexican citizen in the US illegally enjoys automatic US citizenship, but it was established by the Supreme Court a few decades ago that being a child with US citizenship does NOT automatically convey a right to GROW UP on US soil unless at least one parent or legal guardian has US citizenship or residency. (I believe the Supreme Court's rationale was that a child needs a legal guardian, and since the constitution doesn't grant automatic citizenship to the PARENTS of US citizens, the child can't independently exercise his rights as a US citizen until he or she is legally an adult).

      Under the best circumstances for the mother, her baby will be born in the US, get an official US birth certificate, then both will be deported to Mexico. 18 years later, the child can move to the US at will, but bringing his mother (or any other extended family member) will require demonstration of financial ability to support and sponsor the immigrant parent. In the end, all having an "anchor baby" really gives the mother is the ability to cut in front of other Mexican citizens and move to the front of the immigration line ahead of them.
      immigration status.

    12. Re:Mexico Vaccinates Better Than The US by Barsteward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      " I have an aversion to people taking from our country and giving nothing back."

      You have to be careful with making statements like that .e.g.

      do you ever buy from places that use aliens as cheap labor to keep prices low?
      do you pay every cent of tax you are supposed to?
      the Rich are bigger freeloaders than the aliens because they don't pay their fair share of personal tax and do their best to avoid it.
      Global companies do their level best to avoid paying any tax.

      Aliens are a very small part of any problem

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
  4. I like your style! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Blaming those percent that choose to decide what they put into their own bodies is just peer pressure and bullying. And, guess what, if you were actually "immunised" you wouldn't be able to catch it from them, or the evolved strains...

    So, only the stupid and superstitious people who refuse to get vacinated will get sick and hopefully die and clean up the gene pool?

    I like it!

  5. Re:3,458? by jellie · · Score: 2

    It depends on how many cases you expect. Smallpox has been eradicated worldwide, so a single case is considered an epidemic. Ebola is so rare and deadly that a small number is needed for it to be called an outbreak or an epidemic. Whooping cough is more common, but this recent outbreak is at a much higher rate than normal.

    http://www.washoecounty.us/hea...

  6. Re:Adults are the carriers by EvilSS · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Having had had family members with whooping cough I looked into this. Adults are believed to be carrier's with silent symptoms. This year (2014) when adults get their physical they will very likely be offered an immunization for whooping cough. I just got mine since I was exposed to it. Although vaccines after the fact may not be useful for protection, the wisdom apparently is that the vaccine helps your body supress the silent infection. Not sure I understand why.

    This. The immunity imparted by the pertussis vaccine was not as long lived as previously thought. Combine that with a larger community of unvaccinated children (some due to medical reasons but many due to parents choosing not to) and we get a resurgence of whooping cough. This problem has been know and building for quite a while now but the other problem is that adults tend to not keep up on their tetanus boosters. I know back in 2007 when I got my last booster they had already started giving adults Tdap (Tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis), as opposed to the Td vaccine that used to be the norm for adults.

    --
    I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
  7. Re:I don't think we need to immunize child so earl by magamiako1 · · Score: 3, Informative

    There is no credible evidence that early vaccinations cause issues with children. That's a bunch of horse shit.

  8. Real information on the pertussis vaccine. by Vellmont · · Score: 5, Informative

    The article is terrible. The CDC has a very good FAQ on the pertussis vaccine.

    http://www.cdc.gov/pertussis/a...

    Q: Can pertussis be prevented with vaccines?
    A: Yes. Pertussis, or whooping cough, can be prevented with vaccines. Before pertussis vaccines became widely available in the 1940s, about 200,000 children got sick with it each year in the US and about 9,000 died as a result of the infection. Now we see about 10,000–40,000 cases reported each year and unfortunately about 10–20 deaths.

    Pertussis vaccines are recommended for people of all ages. Infants and children should get 5 doses of DTaP for maximum protection. A dose is given at 2, 4 and 6 months, at 15 through 18 months, and again at 4 through 6 years. A booster dose of Tdap is given to preteens at 11 or 12 years of age.

    Any adolescents or adults who didn't get Tdap as a preteen should get one dose. Getting Tdap is especially important for pregnant women. It’s also important that those who care for infants are up-to-date with pertussis vaccination. You can get the Tdap booster dose no matter when you got your last regular tetanus booster shot (Td). Also, you need to get Tdap even if you were vaccinated as a child or have been sick with pertussis in the past.

    Learn more about preventing pertussis.

    car

    Whooping cough can be deadly for babies. Learn how to protect them through vaccination. See this infographic.

    Q: Why is the focus on protecting infants from pertussis?
    A: Infants are at greatest risk for getting pertussis and then having severe complications from it, including death. About half of infants younger than 1 year old who get pertussis are hospitalized, and 1 or 2 in 100 hospitalized infants die.

    There are two strategies to protect infants until they're old enough to receive vaccines and build their immunity against this disease.

    First, vaccinate pregnant women with Tdap during each pregnancy, preferably at 27 through 36 weeks. By getting Tdap during pregnancy, mothers build antibodies that are transferred to the newborn, likely providing protection against pertussis in early life, before the baby can start getting DTaP vaccines at 2 months old. Tdap also helps protect mothers during delivery, making them less likely to transmit pertussis to their infants.

    Second, make sure everyone around the infant is immunized. This includes parents, siblings, grandparents (including those 65 years and older), other family members, babysitters, etc. They should be up-to-date with the age-appropriate vaccine (DTaP or Tdap) at least two weeks before coming into close contact with the infant. Unless pregnant, only one dose of Tdap is recommended in a lifetime.

    These two strategies should reduce infection in infants, since health data have shown that, when the source of pertussis could be identified, mothers were responsible for 30-40% of infant infections and all household members were responsible for about 80% of infections.

    It's also critical that healthcare professionals are up-to-date with a one-time Tdap booster dose, especially those who care for infants.

    Learn more about infant complications.

    Top of Page

    Q: Do pertussis vaccines protect for a lifetime? If I've had whooping cough, do I still need a pertussis booster?
    A: Getting sick with pertussis or getting pertussis vaccines doesn't provide lifelong protection, which means you can still get pertussis and pass it onto infants.

    Pertussis vaccines are effective, but not perfect. They typically offer high levels of protection within the first 2 years of getting vaccinated, but then protection decreases over time. This is known as waning immunity. Similarly, natural infection may also only protect you for a few years.

    In general, DTaP vaccines are 80-90% effective. Among kids who get all 5 doses of DTaP on schedule, effectiveness is very high within the year following the 5th dose

    --
    AccountKiller
  9. Re:Yes, be good sheep and take big pharma shots by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Do you mean thiomersal, the mercuric component of which is readily excreted by the body in less than a month with no ill effects

    Still a matter for debate.

    and hasn't been used as a vaccine preservative in US, Europe and elsewhere since 1999?

    False.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  10. People in glass houses... by DerekLyons · · Score: 2

    Maybe you could site a reference, other than your body's exit point for your food. When one is immunized, one can handle the real thing quickly. That means the sickness cannot take hold, or not for long.

    Unfortunately - that's not entirely true, immunization against whooping cough is only partially effective. Worse yet, the effectiveness also fades over time. Even worse.... there's a possibility that the vaccine may not stop an uninfected person from being a carrier.
     

    There is a group of dumb ass American parents that believe that immunizing their children is a bad thing.

    If you're talking about the post-Jenny McCarthy era, you can't blame the current rise in whooping cough cases on her. Pertussis cases began rising in the 1980's, and the current spike takes off in 2003 - four years before she started her campaign.

  11. New strain? by TapeCutter · · Score: 2

    There was an outbreak of whooping cough in Australia a couple of years ago, my immunised ex-wife caught a dose. Turned out it was a new strain of whooping cough the vaccination is still effective but not as effective as it was for the old strain. If the US vaccination rates haven't changed recently then I would put my money on it being the new Aussie strain.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  12. Re:I don't think we need to immunize child so earl by dave420 · · Score: 2

    Where is your freedom when you develop an immunity disorder and can't be vaccinated, and some muppet infects you because they chose to not be vaccinated? Where do your rights end and theirs begin? Not that you've thought this through in any depth, as that's some sort of socialist commie thing to do. BENGHAZI or something.

  13. Re:Once again democrats bring you disease thru . . by dave420 · · Score: 2

    Mexican children usually have comparable (or better) immunization than their US counterparts, but I guess you don't want to let facts get in the way of your muppet-rage.