California Whooping Cough Cases "an Epidemic"

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.

Comments

So there's 100 or so unimmunized?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:So there's 100 or so unimmunized?

[houstonbofh]

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.

Re:So there's 100 or so unimmunized?

[mysidia]

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.

Re:So there's 100 or so unimmunized?

[LifesABeach]

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.

Re:So there's 100 or so unimmunized?

[Anonymous Coward]

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...

Re:So there's 100 or so unimmunized?

[russotto]

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

Re:So there's 100 or so unimmunized?

[magamiako1]

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.

Re:So there's 100 or so unimmunized?

[Trepidity]

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.

Re:So there's 100 or so unimmunized?

[Sarten-X]

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.

Re:So there's 100 or so unimmunized?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:So there's 100 or so unimmunized?

[ganjadude]

If only there was a shot which cured idiocy.

cyanide?

Re:So there's 100 or so unimmunized?

[superdana]

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.

Re:So there's 100 or so unimmunized?

[Opportunist]

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.

Re:So there's 100 or so unimmunized?

[level_headed_midwest]

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.

Re:So there's 100 or so unimmunized?

[Opportunist]

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?

Re:So there's 100 or so unimmunized?

[drinkypoo]

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.

Re:So there's 100 or so unimmunized?

[houstonbofh]

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.

Re:So there's 100 or so unimmunized?

[mysidia]

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.

Re:So there's 100 or so unimmunized?

[dmr001]

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.

Re:So there's 100 or so unimmunized?

[Belial6]

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

Re:So there's 100 or so unimmunized?

[Opportunist]

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.

Stay in the basement!

[ColdWetDog]

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.)

Mexico Vaccinates Better Than The US

[CritterNYC]

Mexico's vaccination rates are higher than the US.

Re:Mexico Vaccinates Better Than The US

[Nemesisghost]

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.

Re:Mexico Vaccinates Better Than The US

[refinch]

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

Re:Mexico Vaccinates Better Than The US

[AthanasiusKircher]

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.

Re:Mexico Vaccinates Better Than The US

[PapayaSF]

"...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.

Re:Mexico Vaccinates Better Than The US

[sjames]

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.

Re:Mexico Vaccinates Better Than The US

[Miamicanes]

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.

Re:Mexico Vaccinates Better Than The US

[Barsteward]

" 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

I like your style!

[Anonymous Coward]

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!

Re:Adults are the carriers

[EvilSS]

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.

Re:I don't think we need to immunize child so earl

[magamiako1]

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

Real information on the pertussis vaccine.

[Vellmont]

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