Measles Cases Triple in U.S., Vaccine Refusal Here and Elsewhere to Blame | Hacker News Reader

Measles Cases Triple in U.S., Vaccine Refusal Here and Elsewhere to Blame

wired.com

58 pointsgrannyg00se81 comments

This kind of behavior needs to be publicly shamed and banished back to the pre-industrial age. Immense social pressure should be brought to bear. Failure to vaccinate your children against something like measles should be viewed as one notch down from child abuse.

I'd also support eliminating all public welfare programs for people that refuse core vaccinations. If you want to be a voluntary threat to society, you shouldn't get to piggy back on it.

It's beyond an absurdity that America should be drifting backwards on something like this, given the progress we've made in the last century toward understanding why/how vaccines work. Gates will help eliminate polio in India, just as we're reacquiring it here.

I support Murder charges for anyone failing to vaccinate there children resulting in an infection and death even if it's indirect. Aka your kid infects Sam who infects Bob who dies, your now up on Murder charges.

Extreme and stupidly ignorant of how vaccines actually work... no vaccine is 100% effective - the MMR vaccine is claimed 95% effective with 1 dose and near 100% with 2. But the MMR vaccine is one of the oldest and most effective.

Other vaccines have as low as 67% immunity (or even worse) - so, out of a class of 30 kids, with 1 kid not vaccinated, there would still be 10 possible "suspects".

And you would automatically charge the unvax'ed - turning many of the foundational concepts of law upside down in your hysterical crusade.

> Extreme and stupidly ignorant of how vaccines actually work... no vaccine is 100% effective - the MMR vaccine is claimed 95% effective with 1 dose and near 100% with 2. But the MMR vaccine is one of the oldest and most effective.

Your kid is unvaccinated, should have been, and transmits something to somebody else who is then injured? You should have some degree of liability.

Your kid is unvaccinated, could not be vaccinated *(too young, or had an existing medical condition that made it impossible) , and transmits something to somebody else who is then injured? Well, that's a shit situation, but there is not much that should be done in that situation.

Your kid is vaccinated, catches something anyway, and transmits something to somebody else who is then injured? Well, that's a shit situation, but there is not much that should be done in that situation.

These complexities are not intractable.

How do you intend to "prove" in a court of law, on a murder charge (which of course has a high degree of proof required), that a child in a room with 30 kids, in a school with say 600, that traveled on a bus with 60+ other kids, only had contact with exactly 1 kid?

Given that you cannot necessarily determine the exact day of exposure in many cases, and that the kid who gets sick could have gone to e.g. McDonald's (exposure to another 100-200 visitors during busy times) or the mall (how many 1000s)... what sane person could be convinced?

That is a problem for the lawyers and any expert witnesses they can find to solve. If such a thing cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt (if we are talking criminal charges) or beyond a preponderance of the evidence (if we are just talking about a lawsuit), then the case would not go through. If it could be proven, then such cases should be permitted.

We are actually quite good at tracing infections back to their source, but that is not my specialty.

Only sick people are disease vectors. So, in a normal outbreak they track who infected whom with a fair amount of accuracy. Granted, nothing is perfect but the legal system is designed for an imperfect world so that's hardly a problem. Also, if for some reason your child can't be vaccinated due to say immune issue well that's a reasonable exception, but trusting in herd immunity while failing to contribute to it is not.

Edit: As to why it's important, not vaccinating your children risks their heath, but the larger risks are to society and not you. So, much as vehicular manslaughter is far more serious than a simple speeding ticket if you take the risks and someone dies then it's your fault. Because, despite the fact thousands of people may do the same thing without issue, if you do it and someone dies then your responsible and they where unreasonably risking others lives end of story.

PS: Personal responsibility anyone?

> Only sick people are disease vectors.

That is not true for the casual meaning of "sick"; Typhoid Mary is the classic example of an asymptomatic carrier.

Of course she is also an example of how responsibility can be traced even when asymptomatic carriers are involved, and an example of how negligence and refusal to take measures to prevent the spread of disease is antisocial behavior that can (or even must) be dealt with harshly.

That's extreme. Vaccines are not without risks, even if they vast majority of society believes they're tiny risks with massive benefits. By all means seek to educate people, use public funds to subsidize them, but murder charges because you refuse to inject a substance in your child's body? No.

edit: I'm biased because yesterday my daughter had a mild reaction to a vaccine that was not listed on any of the information materials our doctor had given us. But believe me that's a bias I'll take to my grave. I'm not going to refuse all vaccines over that - but it's never your decision to make for us.

It is an extreme view, but I disagree with your assessment that it should be entirely the parents' choice. In not vaccinating a child, parents are not just making a decision about their own child, they're making a decision that can potentially affect many other people's children too.

At least where I live, education is compulsory and vaccination is not, so it's illegal to refuse entry to a school based on vaccination status - I think this is wrong. I would like to be able to choose to send my children to a school where I feel like parents are taking responsible steps to not just protect their own children but those around them as well.

I'm also biased because I live near a town with a large hippie population and very low rates of vaccination for things like whooping cough. For the last two years there has been an outbreak of whooping cough, our doctor was pleased that they hadn't had a new case in two weeks. The child of a friend of my parents died age 1 1/2 from whooping cough. For young children the vaccination takes 3 injections over a course of months as they build up immunity - it's a dangerous thing, and I know people who think twice about taking newborn children outside here. If my child died of whooping cough (or something similar) because people around me didn't feel like being responsible members of society, you'd better believe I'd feel like pressing manslaughter charges. Whether I actually could or not is another matter, but it would feel massively unjust if I couldn't.

I understand your reason for "bias" as well, and I agree it's unfortunate. But let's take the flu as an example. People die from that, but are all the people who didn't get a flu-shot responsible? Do you take into account how often the victims washed their hands, and how well they developed their immune systems beforehand? And who's going to be deciding what vaccinations are and aren't required? My doctor's recommendations change all the time based on the latest evidence. Why are we even suggesting removing an individuals right to make their own decision based on their own research? Yes, you can label it as "irresponsible" and I'd probably agree, but setting a precedent that the government can mandate that you inject you and your child with an agent derived from lethal diseases? That's not many steps away from mandatory abortions for undesirable genetic traits.

...are all the people who didn't get a flu-shot responsible?

Sure, if by getting a flu shot you can reliably prevent infection. That's nowhere near as true for flu as it is, say, for polio.

Why are we even suggesting removing an individuals right to make their own decision based on their own research?

You're assuming there that most people make their decisions based on research - they don't. People's irrational fears affect their ability to accurately estimate statistical risk tremendously.

Plus we already do this - education is mandatory. What if I decide that my child would be happier not being educated? Should I have the right to make that decision?

That's not many steps away from mandatory abortions for undesirable genetic traits.

Of course it is - one is performed purely for the benefit of the individual (and perhaps their family) whereas the other is performed to try to eradicate communicable diseases which cause untold misery across the world for the benefit of everyone.

News flash, you do have a right to homeschool your child.

Why wouldn't you abort a fetus if you knew it was going to be a fiscally bad decision as it would need help to breath it's entire life. We don't need loafers that can't function on their own.

Killing someone while driving and texting isn't murder in most (all?) jurisdictions AFAIK.

Wow, Yes of course it is! Usually it it is coded under law as vehicular manslaughter; generally, it involves death that results from the negligent operation of a vehicle. Same as if you killed someone while drinking and driving or if you just decided to run them over cause you were driving recklessly.

Anyone can be charged with murder even if there isn't a specific vehicular manslaughter statue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicular_homicide

Oh yeah, and if you don't believe me:

http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/local/new_jer...

http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/06/justice/massachusetts-texting-...

http://host.madison.com/news/local/crime_and_courts/sun-prai...

http://www.fox11online.com/news/local/fox-cities/little-chut...

http://www.wbaltv.com/news/maryland/anne-arundel-county/woma...

http://www.ktvu.com/news/news/woman-who-killed-toddler-in-te...

http://www.nbc4i.com/story/20746093/1st-vehicular-homicide-w...

http://www.mygeorgiadefenselawyer.com/2010/02/12/vehicular-h...

Besides, what does vehicular manslaughter have anything to do with this?

Manslaughter != murder. They are two separate crimes. Manslaughter is a lesser crime. The difference is that murder requires the intent to kill, while manslaughter requires only that the person acted negligently.

Murder has a specific meaning, and is distinguished from other forms of homicide by the presence of intent. None of the many links you have provided concern murder charges.

Manslaughter and murder have separate meanings. Especially in a legal sense.

>This kind of behavior needs to be publicly shamed and banished back to the pre-industrial age. Immense social pressure should be brought to bear.

That is already the case. It (shaming others) may feel good to some people but it doesn't appear to be effective.

Did you even read the article? Western Europe has 25,000 per year and America has 175 this year mostly from Europeans who don't vaccinate.

Did you?

“It is not a failure of the vaccine,” Frieden said. “It’s a failure to vaccinate. Around 90 percent of the people who have had measles in this country were not vaccinated either because they refused, or were not vaccinated on time.”

Are you trying to imply that 25,000 cases in Europe is less important than 175 cases in the US?

What are you talking about?

The reason the vast majority of those 175 cases exist is due to the lack of vaccination. That's exactly the point the article makes, and that's exactly the point I've made.

Europe has had a measles problem for a while. It's hitting America now precisely due to the reduction in vaccination rates.

The worst thing about people refusing to vaccinate their children is the fact that they themselves probably had all the vaccines in their childhood and did not suffer any consequences.

I support banning of unvaccinated children from kinder gardens and schools as I think it's unacceptable to compromise herd immunity because of selfish non-scientific beliefs that verge on ideology at this point.

My wife and I have given our children all the vaccines we had as children and it was an enormous struggle to do so. Children now receive many more vaccines than we did, and many of them are delivered in combination; up to four or more at a time.

Autism aside there is a very real danger of a reaction when you combine so many vaccines. Others are completely unnecessary, like Hep B at birth.

If the governing bodies went back to a sane vaccine schedule I think some of the refusers would come back into the fold.

Autism aside...

You know that's been totally and utterly discredited, right? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMR_vaccine_controversy

there is a very real danger of a reaction when you combine so many vaccines.

Citation?

Others are completely unnecessary, like Hep B at birth.

Citation? Wikipedia suggests it's been very successful: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hepatitis_B_vaccine

> there is a very real danger of a reaction when you combine so many vaccines

[citation needed]

I'd like to see the studies that say that combos are worse than individual. I'm not trying to be a dick, but when you make claims, you gotta back it up with data.

I think kreek may be referring to the practice of administering several vaccines at once.

If one fears additives, preservatives, or contamination then combined vaccines may be safer by potentially reducing the number of injections, and possibly the volume of preservatives.

The vaccination program here in Spain seems fairly simple and straight forward. Vaccines at 2, 4, 6, 12, 15 and 18 months. Most of the vaccines are booster shots for the initial sets. Here they are 2 shots for each step. 1 combination vaccine and one for Meningitis.

They only give the Hep B vaccine if the mother is positive for Hep B.

So are you saying that if you only wanted to give your child the vaccines that you had received as a child, you couldn't do that without also giving them a bunch of other unwanted vaccines?

Can you not vaccinate your child by your own selection and timeline?

Nope. Very difficult to pick and choose vaccines. Hello, drug-resistant pertussis [1]. Wish we could leave that one out and not make things worse in the future. Also, really wish I could choose just measles and mumps and not rubella. Rubella is a non-issue for most people [2].

The other issue at hand is that drug companies make a pretty penny if everyone gets Hep B at birth "just to be safe." Motivations become difficult to pull apart and people become suspicious. Exhibit B. The chicken pox vaccine, who's addition to the vaccine cocktail at birth no doubt helps Merck's bottom line, despite the fact that one does is only effective for five years and even at the height of protection afforded, you are still likely to contract varicella, but with lessened symptoms [3].

1: http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/18/6/12-0091_article.htm 2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubella#Prognosis 3: http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/varicella-vaccine/pages/introdu...

Is there a real danger from combining vaccines? That's something people keep mentioning but I've yet to see any data on it. Is it actually safer to spread them out, or is that just another myth?

There are some possible dangers of combined vaccines but none that I've found for any of the standard vaccines you get in your childhood. If you want to educate yourself about virology and vaccines I suggest the following podcast.

This week in viruses

http://www.twiv.tv/

"I think it's unacceptable to compromise herd immunity because of selfish non-scientific beliefs that verge on ideology at this point."

I don't understand this point of view. We literally live in a country where our government uses vaccinations as part of secret assassination campaigns. Reluctance to get vaccinated doesn't necessarily mean ignorance about science.

If science allows us to determine patient-0, I think it's reasonable that people be allowed to sue the culprit parents for tort, if not criminality, at this point.

Except for that patient-0 could easily have been vaccinated.

So in those cases there would not be grounds for a lawsuit. Why is this a problem?

> We literally live in a country where our government uses vaccinations as part of secret assassination campaigns.

WTF? What campaigns are these? They have programs where they assassinate people with vaccines?

Nobody (that I'm aware of) who refuses to vaccinate their childern, does so for this reason.

>The worst thing about people refusing to vaccinate their children is the fact that they themselves probably had all the vaccines in their childhood and did not suffer any consequences.

Even though you're supporting a good cause, that doesn't make this line of reasoning correct. That's purely anecdotal.

And this is what I'm talking about. It's pure pseudo-science at this point and everyone involved has an emotional attachment to the cause.

"Those assholes who don't vaccinate ... "

"Those assholes who require me to vaccinate ... "

We're all gonna die of something, and damned if most of the time it will have been somewhat preventable. Surely declining vaccination is not the greatest negligent act someone in a developed country can choose (hello, texting and fucking driving).

Anyone else notice Yahoo's new Global News Anchor Katie Couric is one of those helping spread doubts about vaccines, the HPV vaccine in this case[1]. HPV is responsible for more than 25,000 cancers in the US each year[2] and around 6,000 deaths[3]. Worldwide figures are probably 15 times greater.

[1] http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/tv/showtracker/la-et-st...

[2] http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/hpv/statistics/cases.htm

[3] http://www.kegel.com/hpv/deaths/

I think we should also be vaccinating males for HPV, they spread it, and it also causes cancer in men (though it is less likely) such as penile and anal cancer.

Right now we are only vaccinating women.

It is now available to all boys aged 12-13 through a school based vaccination program in Australia. Same as girls.

In the United States it is FDA approved for use in men however it still isn't widely used in boys.

25k cases in Europe every year? Can anyone provide any context around what appears to be a shockingly high number?

It's almost exclusively due to the lack of vaccination.

"In 2007, 3,104 (87%) measles cases in Europe were unvaccinated"

"However, this controversy [autism claims] resulted in the proportion of children in the United Kingdom who received their first vaccine dose by 2 years of age decreasing from a high of 92.5% during April–June 1995 to a low of 78.9% during the same period in 2003."

http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/204/suppl_1/S353.long

And

"In the year ending April 30, 2012, a total of 17,448 measles cases were repoted in the European Union and Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway"

"Vaccination status was known for 84 percent of the cases, of which 82 percent had never received the vaccine, 13 percent had received one dose, and 4 percent had received two or more doses"

http://www.forbes.com/sites/gerganakoleva/2012/07/02/what-re...

1. In the UK the tabloids (Daily Mail, Mirror, Sun et al) publicized bogus scare stories about the MMR vaccine and autism.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/apr/25/mmr-scare-ana...

2. In The Netherlands, certain groups reject vaccines on religious grounds. Specifically the Dutch Reformed.

http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2013/06/measles_outbre...

I'd assume that the cases in "rich" Europe are related.

There are some pretty poor countries in Europe so I'd guess that that the majority of the cases will originate from there..

A friend of mine works for the New York City Department of Health and closely follows the current measles outbreak. According to him, the outbreak (and the rejection of vaccination) can be tied very strongly to certain religious group.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6236a5.htm?mobile...

Wait....this is the largest outbreak since 1996 and all that happened was one kid got pneumonia and one woman had a miscarriage? These things happen every day. Seems like a lot of money, work, and debate over a relatively minute issue.

Even in that larger 1996 outbreak nobody died.

And we've got people comparing vaccine refusal to child abuse! If that's child abuse, you're going to have to take a serious look at every parent of an illiterate grade schooler. And while you're at it, your child abuse radar should be going crazy whenever you see an obese toddler.

"And while you're at it, your child abuse radar should be going crazy whenever you see an obese toddler."

What makes you think it doesn't?

Whn says that more than 95% of measles mortality was in low income areas. Is the low mortality rate in higher income areas due to a higher rate of vaccination, or does better medical infrastructure itself lower the moratality? Genuinely interested to hear what knowledgeable people think.

I am disappointed that no one answered my question. With the number of comments i read expressing very strong opinions, i had hoped someone would have investigated that point.

From my understanding, fear of vaccines is closely tied to Thimerosal content, which is a derivative of Ethyl Mercury. The idea is, "there's Mercury in the vaccine, and Mercury causes Autism" - which is scary thought for a parent. If there was empirical data showing zero correlation between Autism rates, and Thimerosal, I think we'd see more people accepting vaccines.

> If there was empirical data showing zero correlation between Autism rates, and Thimerosal, I think we'd see more people accepting vaccines.

There is, and they're not. People trust random myths on the internet over the CDC.

You cannot prove an impossibility, so demonstrating no correlation between Autism and Thimerosal is not going to happen. The possibility, however, is so miniscule as to be drastically outweighed by the benefits of vaccination.

It is also a completely irrational fear stoked by celebrities with axes to grind and discredited medical "professionals." Acetaminophen can cause liver failure but people give that to their children all the time and can easily give an overdose that will be fatal to children yet not at all harmful to an adult. If a parent buys a house built prior to 1978, the lead paint in the rooms can cause brain damage and hearing problems in children, but people buy those houses all the time. People even fail to install safety seats properly (or at all). These are all dangers proven to kill or harm children far more often and far more dramatically than the hypothetically miniscule risk of getting Autism from a vaccine.

My child's pediatrician flatly refuses to have vaccine deniers as patients. Summaries of studies rebutting Jenny McCarthy are posted in exam rooms and the full studies are available as free handouts to anyone who asks. If a parent declines vaccines that are on the standard "minimum required vaccinations for public school enrollment" list, the parent is invited to seek another doctor. And, for me and my kid, I'm thrilled that she has that stance.

> The possibility, however, is so miniscule as to be drastically outweighed by the benefits of vaccination

Good point - there's a societal gain to vaccination.

> If a parent declines vaccines that are on the standard "minimum required vaccinations for public school enrollment" list, the parent is invited to seek another doctor. And, for me and my kid, I'm thrilled that she has that stance.

It sounds like you've looked at the evidence, and made a rational decision.

I plan to vaccinate my children too, on a healthy schedule. :)

There's still a lot of value in discussing the beliefs of those who don't. They are people, with free will, and yelling at them / labeling them doesn't solve a whole lot. Though you / other HN commenters might have a different view on this.

> There's still a lot of value in discussing the beliefs of those who don't. They are people, with free will, and yelling at them / labeling them doesn't solve a whole lot. Though you / other HN commenters might have a different view on this.

Maybe most people are tired of having this conversation because the people that choose to believe that vaccines are harmful, don't want to educate themselves or care to be swayed by any amount of science. At this point it is more beneficial to label them and move on with our lives, because interacting with "reality disbelievers" is a fruitless exercise. Either way, reality always wins in the end.

That isn't how science works. You have to demonstrate a link between measles vaccines and autism. You can't just wait for someone to disprove it forever, because that is not possible.

This is medicine. You have to demonstrate that a treatment is safe and effective before you can begin using it. You even have to show that it is likely safe and effective before you even get to test on humans.

The only difference with vaccines is that we have already demonstrated that they are safe and effective, and what they prevent is unusually damaging to society (epidemics). They are also unusual in the sense that not getting vaccinated yourself increase the risk of others, even if they have been vaccinated.

And that isn't how the irrational public works, it seems.

Well said!

I should have wrote originally: "To alleviate irrational fears, we'd need a study showing zero correlation."

That is kind of how medicine was practiced until fairly recently, and by some accounts continues to be practiced today.

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/Concerns/Autism/

Cool, so the studies have been done: http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2004/Immunization-Safety-Review-V...

"The committee concludes that the body of epidemiological evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship between the MMR vaccine and autism. The committee also concludes that the body of epidemiological evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship between thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism."

The studies have been done again and again and again and again. It is well studied. The link was only purposed by one study that used fake data that was done because some greedy assholes wanted to make a profit suing. THAT IS IT. That's the "controversy" that is making people sick.

The study has been retracted from the journal it was published in. Much independent research on Andrew Wakefield (author of the study) revealed he was paid cold hard cash by lawyers. Andrew Wakefield has since been stripped of his medical license.

Fuck them all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMR_vaccine_controversy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiomersal_controversy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wakefield

The cat is out of the bag. It can't be put back in.

But you didn't bother to look it up yourself before continuing to spread FUD about vaccines.

A behavior which is literally killing people.

There's no reason to attach sigma to discussing the beliefs, of people who aren't taking the vaccines.

There is actually plenty of reason to attach stigma to discussing beliefs in an area where there is plentiful hard data.

The dude was a little ignorant (it's surprising how he managed to avoid knowing anything about this given the constant publicity), but at least he's a good sport. Be happy that he'll be on your side from now on - that's how differences are made.

What I think happened is: there was a big pushback against Thiomersal in local antiseptics

So, they create a campaign against its "dangers" while maintaining it in vaccines? It confuses people.

Yes, it has its risks, but the benefits outweigh it.

But it's being phased out in vaccines as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiomersal

And that was because some jerk wanted to sue the vaccine makers, failed multiple times, but his ripples are still seen. The cost of an idiot ignoring critical vaccines in a society is pretty high. Should be made illegal.

Thiomersal (note spelling) is no longer used in vaccines: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiomersal and generally hasn't been in infant vaccines for over a decade: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiomersal_controversy

Thimerosal was removed from vaccines a long time ago. Also Andrew Wakefield has been throughly discredited, his paper retracted, and he has also had his medical license revoked.

The Panic Virus is a great book about the autism/vaccine mess.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/11625150-the-panic-virus

Is there empirical data showing non-zero correlation?

Good question - I'm not aware of any such studies.

I'm assuming you have access to a search engine. Why not use it before spreading doubt? Are you unaware of both the controversy and potential damage? Did you read the article we are discussing?

Why do you phrase the "data showing zero correlation" thing as a hypothetical? That's the world we're in, right now.

>Western Europe has had 25,000 cases of measles every year for the last three years… in great part due to vaccine hesitancy.

Apparently Europe needs to get its act together. They have already caused 175 cases in the US, I hope we don't have to start screening Europeans.

I find it amusing to see articles like this that are up voted because the title paints the US in a bad light, but upon reading casts Europe in a bad light and therefore gets flagged.

Where's the option to display the thoughts of voters and flaggers? I can't seem to find it in my settings.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com