Hacker News Reader

Comment by amasad | Hacker News Reader

Not sure if vaccines are relevant here because -- as per the CDC data, and contrary to popular belief -- child mortality rates were on a downward trend well before the introduction of vaccines in the mid 1960s. The CDC claim it's had a "modest" effect:

Infant mortality: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4838a2.htm

Edit: children mortality follows similar trend: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/child-mortality?tab=chart...

View on HN

The statement about "modest" effect was, by my reading, about the 1990s, and the link to the study "[9]" seems to verify this.

"Although improvements in medical care were the main force for declines in infant mortality during the second half of the century, public health actions played a role. During the 1990s, a greater than 50% decline in SIDS rates (attributed to the recommendation that infants be placed to sleep on their backs) has helped to reduce the overall infant mortality rate (8). The reduction in vaccine-preventable diseases (e.g., diphtheria, tetanus, measles, poliomyelitis, and Haemophilus influenzae type b meningitis) has reduced infant morbidity and has had a modest effect on infant mortality (9)."

9 = https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/PDF/wk/mm4629.pdf

> The reduction in vaccine-preventable diseases (e.g., diphtheria, tetanus, measles, poliomyelitis, and Haemophilus influenzae type b meningitis) has reduced infant morbidity and has had a modest effect on infant mortality

It says infant mortality, which I assume is 0-1 years of age. What about the effect on child mortality altogether?

Infant mortality is probably the biggest factor in "under 5 years old" mortality rate. However, even if you look at children mortality overall, it follows a similar trend: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/child-mortality?tab=chart...

So is it your position that things would go just fine if we followed the anti-vaxxers advice?

I didn't even say anything against vaccines. Simply, it's not the primary driver of decrease in childhood mortality. You're blinded by ideology if you can't have a conversation with resorting to name-calling and reductios.

No, I didn't say that's your position, I asked.

The reason I asked is your position that vaccines are of minimal importance for childhood mortality is one the anti-vaxxers take, but I am aware that doesn't prove you are one, so I asked. And I am happy to learn you are not an anti-vaxxer.

I think where your mind is going is a form of Mccarthyism or "guilt by association." In a public conversation, connecting someone to a label like "anti-vaxxer" or "truther," even if you don't make the actual accusation is a form of slander. Then holding someone intellectually hostage and saying "I'm glad you're not X," as if I'm beholden to what you think of me, is sleazy to say the least.

You might not be doing this consciously, but you are doing it nonetheless.

Well, ok, you're right. I should have said something more like, "you are presenting an argument that is normally made by anti-vaxxers, so that makes me think you are one. But perhaps I am completely wrong about that." Or maybe said nothing at all.

I'm confused by your post. Did the original comment suggest that vaccines were the only cause of this trend? The comment even states that "They’ve never had to watch a child die from something that was readily preventable with cheap, nearly risk-free medicine," which doesn't only include vaccines. In either case, vaccines for certain things like polio were being used before 1960, https://www.historyofvaccines.org/index.php/content/us-polio..., so I don't understand your comment.

> Did the original comment suggest that vaccines were the only cause of this trend?

Did I say they said that? They brought it up and I simply said it's largely irrelevant.

> vaccines for certain things like polio were being used before 1960

From the CDC:

> Before 1962, no formal nationwide immunization program existed.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/su6004a9.htm

It's not largely irrelevant because this discussion isn't about how much of an effect vaccinations had on child mortality rates.

You either cherry picked that quote or you missed the sentence right after that which talks about private practices and local health department programs. Look at the source I linked, please.

Why is CDC research being downvoted?

If I had to guess, because it's about infant mortality but the poster presented it in support of an assertion about child mortality; which of course, it says very little about.

Note that vaccines were introduced in the late 1700s, not the mid 1960s.

I think its misleading to equate what was available then - both in quality and quantity - with what has been available in the modern world for the last 70 years.

I think it’s misleading to act like vaccines weren’t saving kids’ lives until my parents’ generation.

I think it's fair to say that the uptick in lives that were saved made a huge leap forward with the arrival of industrialized medicine which is to say mass produced vaccines made available to the many and of course the arrival of vaccines for even more diseases that were not previously covered.

I hope we can agree that the recent down tick in the rate of vaccinations is a step backwards.

I’m not sure about that. The death rate from smallpox was unbelievably high before the vaccine, and it was eliminated or nearly so in many countries well before this supposed 1960s date.

Certainly more recent advancements have been wonderful, and the anti-vaux movement is callously throwing away lives and the hard-fought victories of our ancestors.

No.

Yes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_vaccines

This is like saying we've been 'programming' since Ada Lovelace wrote the first program in the 1840, which is silly to say the least. The CDC starts measure after a vaccine has passed the 'licensure' process: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/su6004a9.htm

Programming wasn’t saving thousands of lives in the 1840s. Vaccines were is fairly wide use long before the 1960s. Deaths from smallpox dropped sharply though the 1800s and it was eliminated entirely in many countries.

I think you're missing a basic understanding of what an "analogy" is. Hard to keep this conversation going.

Programming had essentially zero real-world impact before the 1950s. The analogy you’re trying to make is that vaccines existed but had virtually no real world impact before the 1960s. Did I get that right? Because that’s what I understood, and it’s severely wrong.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com