Take-up of MMR vaccine falls for fourth year in a row.

[Oakey]

Have your kids been vaccinated?

Also, what's your take on the eradication of smallpox?

Edited by Oakey on Thursday 27th September 19:16

[hairykrishna]

Jasandjules said:

Nope, checked there before.

There are a few papers which appear to be devoid of scientific integrity with assertions such as "vaccine rate increased in this area by X% and that year deaths were down by y% therefore the vaccine was a success" - A 5 year old with their first science book would see the causality issue there.

So, do you have proof of causality, yes or no?

There are lots of randomised, placebo controlled trials showing that vaccines work. Random example; https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/... If those aren't good enough then you're basically dismissing all modern medicine.

[The Mad Monk]

Jasandjules said:

my plumber told me

That's all you need to know.

[Jasandjules]

hairykrishna said:

There are lots of randomised, placebo controlled trials showing that vaccines work. Random example; https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/... If those aren't good enough then you're basically dismissing all modern medicine.

Do you have one for the MMR as that is what is the subject is it not?

So far we know that the data does not show that a reduction in vaccine uptake correlates to any increase in disease notification - based on your page (assuming that is accurate) and the ONS data (again, assumptions have to be made that it is the most accurate evidence of numbers in the UK).

[Oakey]

Would you have your kids vaccinated or not?

[_dobbo_]

Jasandjules said:

Do you have one for the MMR as that is what is the subject is it not?

So far we know that the data does not show that a reduction in vaccine uptake correlates to any increase in disease notification - based on your page (assuming that is accurate) and the ONS data (again, assumptions have to be made that it is the most accurate evidence of numbers in the UK).

You keep saying correlation is not causation but are you not guilty of this here?

A reduction in take up of the MMR vaccine not correlating with an increase in incidences of diseases does not mean the vaccine isn't effective.

[hairykrishna]

Jasandjules said:

hairykrishna said:

There are lots of randomised, placebo controlled trials showing that vaccines work. Random example; https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/... If those aren't good enough then you're basically dismissing all modern medicine.

Do you have one for the MMR as that is what is the subject is it not?

So far we know that the data does not show that a reduction in vaccine uptake correlates to any increase in disease notification - based on your page (assuming that is accurate) and the ONS data (again, assumptions have to be made that it is the most accurate evidence of numbers in the UK).

My page? What?

I thought you were banging on about vaccines in general. Are we now solely looking at MMR? Do some work and not others? I doubt there's a placebo trial of MMR. There's probably combined vaccine vs individual but nobodies going to get ethical approval to give a placebo measles vaccine.

[Some Gump]

It is quite clear to me that he is trolling. No-one is that stupid.

[anonymous-user]

Jasandjules said:

Nope, checked there before.

There are a few papers which appear to be devoid of scientific integrity with assertions such as "vaccine rate increased in this area by X% and that year deaths were down by y% therefore the vaccine was a success" - A 5 year old with their first science book would see the causality issue there.

So, do you have proof of causality, yes or no?

For simplicity, is your argument against the efficacy of all vaccines or specifically MMR, or the separate parts of MMR. So it is it;

1.) All vaccines
2.) MMR
3.) The individual components of MMR

I'm sure if you were discussing a PTRC you would not expect 'I don't believe in PTRC' to be a useful position from either side. So in similar form, which clause specifically and why?

[wc98]

esxste said:

There is a common theme in homeopaths, creationists, anti-vaxers, climate change deniers, chemtrailers.

- Deny the science.

- Ask "where is the evidence!?"

- Refuse to accept the evidence when it is presented.

- Ask again ""where is the evidence!?"

Repeat ad nauseum.

It's insidious.

i must be special, been vaccinated, had my kids vaccinated, think homeopathy is a load of ste, creationism is for s ,think chemtrailers are fruitloops but have a major problem with the "evidence" regarding the effects of the anthropogenic component of co2 in the atmosphere. i don't deny climate change and know of no one that does. catastrophic anthropogenic global warming is the debate, and to date the evidence says it ain't happening.

[Norfolkit]

Oakey said:

Would you have your kids vaccinated or not?

All of my children were vaccinated (all adults with their own children now), none of them suffered any side effects or subsequently caught M, M or R.

When I was growing up (I'm 65) there was no vaccination, I caught measles when I was 16, put me flat on my back for 3 weeks, 6 weeks off school. Still to this day the most ill I've ever felt.

[Jasandjules]

hairykrishna said:

My page? What?

There's probably combined vaccine vs individual but nobodies going to get ethical approval to give a placebo measles vaccine.

Apologies the page you helpfully linked to which showed the uptake of childhood MMR as linked below.

No evidence in support is a touch disconcerting in the circumstances.

ONS measles rates

2010 2,235
2011 2,355
2012 4,210
2013 6,102
2014 1,851
2015 1,193
2016** 1,642

With this

https://thumbsnap.com/Szhn2B4V

That confirms that the rates of infection as per the ONS data is unrelated (to the extent there is no correlation) to the uptake of the MMR vaccine. That was after all the point of the "expert" quote on the OP and the assertion made, posited as "fewer MMR vaccines means more measles cases" - manifestly incorrect on the data and therefore appears to be fairly typical "press"....In short, fake news designed to keep the intellectually inferior in fear. 1984 at best.

It also shows that the rates of measles infection were significantly higher in previous years with higher uptakes of MMR. On that note of course correlation once more is non-existent however.


Dobbo I presume that is rhetorical or do you really not understand the difference?

[anonymous-user]

Jasandjules said:

Apologies the page you helpfully linked to which showed the uptake of childhood MMR as linked below.

No evidence in support is a touch disconcerting in the circumstances.

ONS measles rates

2010 2,235
2011 2,355
2012 4,210
2013 6,102
2014 1,851
2015 1,193
2016** 1,642

With this

https://thumbsnap.com/Szhn2B4V

That confirms that the rates of infection as per the ONS data is unrelated (to the extent there is no correlation) to the uptake of the MMR vaccine. That was after all the point of the "expert" quote on the OP and the assertion made, posited as "fewer MMR vaccines means more measles cases" - manifestly incorrect on the data and therefore appears to be fairly typical "press"....In short, fake news designed to keep the intellectually inferior in fear. 1984 at best.

It also shows that the rates of measles infection were significantly higher in previous years with higher uptakes of MMR. On that note of course correlation once more is non-existent however.


Dobbo I presume that is rhetorical or do you really not understand the difference?

So, once again

For simplicity, is your argument against the efficacy of all vaccines or specifically MMR, or the separate parts of MMR. So it is it;

1.) All vaccines
2.) MMR
3.) The individual components of MMR

I'm sure if you were discussing a PTRC you would not expect 'I don't believe in PTRC' to be a useful position from either side. So in similar form, which clause specifically and why?

[hairykrishna]

Jasandjules said:

Apologies the page you helpfully linked to which showed the uptake of childhood MMR as linked below.

No evidence in support is a touch disconcerting in the circumstances.

ONS measles rates

2010 2,235
2011 2,355
2012 4,210
2013 6,102
2014 1,851
2015 1,193
2016** 1,642

With this

https://thumbsnap.com/Szhn2B4V

That confirms that the rates of infection as per the ONS data is unrelated (to the extent there is no correlation) to the uptake of the MMR vaccine. That was after all the point of the "expert" quote on the OP and the assertion made, posited as "fewer MMR vaccines means more measles cases" - manifestly incorrect on the data and therefore appears to be fairly typical "press"....In short, fake news designed to keep the intellectually inferior in fear. 1984 at best.

It also shows that the rates of measles infection were significantly higher in previous years with higher uptakes of MMR. On that note of course correlation once more is non-existent however.


Dobbo I presume that is rhetorical or do you really not understand the difference?

I don't think I linked to that. Not that it matters.

It's not as simple as lower uptake of MMR one year, more measles cases that year. There's a lag and a cumulative effect. Less uptake of MMR means more measles cases over time.

The idea that there's no evidence it works is laughable. Try looking for case control studies.

[Jasandjules]

hairykrishna said:

It's not as simple as lower uptake of MMR one year, more measles cases that year. There's a lag and a cumulative effect. Less uptake of MMR means more measles cases over time.

Ah no apologies correct that was Moonhawk who provided the helpful link.

The article says this:

"Resurgence of deadly measles blamed on low MMR vaccination rates

and continues

Experts have said the impact of this is already playing out, with an ongoing measles outbreak in England. So far this year 876 cases have been confirmed, more than three times the number for the whole of 2017."

The expert position cited is that the impact of a reduced MMR uptake is "already playing out" - yet the numbers say something else.

Do you have different information to the experts quoted? And proof that the measles somehow lags vaccination rate and will suggest that no other factor is relevant that vaccination rates, if so, what factors?

Then taking the ONS data, that is not showing what you claim at all - Unless you are going to suggest a five year lag?

[durbster]

Jasandjules said:

...Unless you are going to suggest a five year lag?

OK, it seems you don't know what a vaccination is.

It's not a cure for something you are already suffering, it's a preventative measure that prevents getting a disease in the future.

If you are vaccinated today, it will protect you from contracting the disease at any time in the future.

You might come into contact with measles the next day, or in 2 months, or a year, or five years, or any combination of them. If you're vaccinated, your body just deals with it and you never even know. If you're not vaccinated, you will contract the disease.

[glazbagun]

American kid gets Tetanus. Suffers lots. Parents still refuse vaccine.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/09/well/oregon-chi...

[gregs656]

glazbagun said:

American kid gets Tetanus. Suffers lots. Parents still refuse vaccine.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/09/well/oregon-chi...

Shocking.

The prevalence of this bunk in the US is absurd, and I fear it is a growing trend in the UK.

[dvs_dave]

It’s child abuse to knowingly expose a child to circumstances under which the chances of said child suffering extreme pain, and/or death are greatly increased.

It’s literally no different to not putting seatbelts on your child, because you believe that in an accident it’ll be safer as they will be thrown from the vehicle to safety.

Any parent that knowingly makes such epically retarded choices doesn’t deserve their children.

[shed driver]

glazbagun said:

American kid gets Tetanus. Suffers lots. Parents still refuse vaccine.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/09/well/oregon-chi...

$800,000? Would that be covered by health insurance, or would they refuse to pay as it could have been avoidable? The article doesn't say and I can't seem to find much else online.

SD.