The devil is in the details though. Covid vaccines are not a good example of this as they mostly reduce the risk of dying from Covid. You can still get sick and distribute the virus, it is just a ton milder and much less dangerous (which is still useful and you should get vaccinated obviously, just saying before anyone thinks I am anti vaccine). The measles vaccine however prevents people from getting sick at all, unless I am mistaken.
I hate that people in charge were never able to properly communicate this subtle difference.
Some vaccines give you immunity, others resistance.
Some people thought the vaccine for covid was supposed to give immunity and when it didn’t they thought they were lied to and started to distrust vaccines 😕
I hate that people in charge were never able to properly communicate this subtle difference.
It was communicated just fine. I got that info. You got that info. It was out there. But the signal to noise ratio was unreal. People seem to prefer soundbites and false dichotomies over accurate, nuanced information. Sprinkle in a metric shitton of wedge issue misinformation delivered via sledgehammer and you get what we got:
VACCINE BAD!
VACCINE GOOD!
GRANDPA HAVE VACCINE BUT STILL DIE!
VACCINE STILL GOOD!
I HAVE VACCINE BUT STILL GET SICK AND BOSS MAKE ME STAY HOME AND NO GET MONEY! VACCINE BAD!
No. The measles vaccine is around 97% effective at preventing the disease. Yes, some who got the vaccine are still at risk, but the vast majority of them have effective protection.
Is it 97% on the basis that herd immunization makes your exposure unlikely, so that you’d at best be exposed to a single person that could contract it to you?
Or is it 97% on the basis that you are submerged in an atmosphere full of people sick from measles?
So either it refers to a clinical trial with a defined exposure, or it referes to empircal data that is based on the conditions in the real world, which critically includes the herd immunity.
Herd immunity is a critical factor and it works exponentially. E.g. from 100% to 95% is less of an issue than from 95% to 90% The critical point for measles is at around 92% to prevent exponential infections. This included the risk for people who are vaccinated
Measles are among the most contagious diseases. To interpret the graph. Because of the high R rate w.o. immunization, you need 92% immunization rates to have one measle case cause another measle case, e.g. reproduction = 1. You go below and it goes exponential.
If nursing a patient with measles, there is a reason why gloves and hand hygine is still required.
Medically, we consider the 97% effective as a population average besed upon “usual exposure”. That means 3 in 100 vaccinated children are likely to contract measles this way. If your. local exposure is higher, then there are higher infection rates in that peer group.
If you sit next to me for 5 mins you have one risk of exposure. If we are kids in a classroom together for several hours, then the transmission risk is higher. So yes, just like COVID, the higher the proportion of infective people and the longer the contact time the greater the risk of infection and also transmission.
Measles also correlates highly with a loss of immune system strength, meaning being unvaccinated and catching it technically gives people AIDs as well.
deleted by creator
The devil is in the details though. Covid vaccines are not a good example of this as they mostly reduce the risk of dying from Covid. You can still get sick and distribute the virus, it is just a ton milder and much less dangerous (which is still useful and you should get vaccinated obviously, just saying before anyone thinks I am anti vaccine). The measles vaccine however prevents people from getting sick at all, unless I am mistaken.
You aren’t mistaken.
Afaiu it also saves them from https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subacute_sclerosing_panencephalitis, which is a delayed death sentence.
Exactly. Long measles is like slow rabies
Yah, less contagious, but as deadly, which is kinda horrible 😕
I hate that people in charge were never able to properly communicate this subtle difference.
Some vaccines give you immunity, others resistance.
Some people thought the vaccine for covid was supposed to give immunity and when it didn’t they thought they were lied to and started to distrust vaccines 😕
It was communicated just fine. I got that info. You got that info. It was out there. But the signal to noise ratio was unreal. People seem to prefer soundbites and false dichotomies over accurate, nuanced information. Sprinkle in a metric shitton of wedge issue misinformation delivered via sledgehammer and you get what we got:
VACCINE BAD!
VACCINE GOOD!
GRANDPA HAVE VACCINE BUT STILL DIE!
VACCINE STILL GOOD!
I HAVE VACCINE BUT STILL GET SICK AND BOSS MAKE ME STAY HOME AND NO GET MONEY! VACCINE BAD!
VACCINE… BAD?
DOCTOR LIED! SCIENCE BAD!
Well actually…
YOU STUPID, VACCINE BAD!
VACCINE BAD!
COVID OVER, NO NEED VACCINE!
HOORAY!
Sadly, ou are mistaken. The 89% of vaccinated kids are at risk of measles as it is circulating in that community.
No. The measles vaccine is around 97% effective at preventing the disease. Yes, some who got the vaccine are still at risk, but the vast majority of them have effective protection.
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/measles/index.html
Is it 97% on the basis that herd immunization makes your exposure unlikely, so that you’d at best be exposed to a single person that could contract it to you?
Or is it 97% on the basis that you are submerged in an atmosphere full of people sick from measles?
WHO information on these numbers
So either it refers to a clinical trial with a defined exposure, or it referes to empircal data that is based on the conditions in the real world, which critically includes the herd immunity.
Herd immunity is a critical factor and it works exponentially. E.g. from 100% to 95% is less of an issue than from 95% to 90% The critical point for measles is at around 92% to prevent exponential infections. This included the risk for people who are vaccinated
Measles are among the most contagious diseases. To interpret the graph. Because of the high R rate w.o. immunization, you need 92% immunization rates to have one measle case cause another measle case, e.g. reproduction = 1. You go below and it goes exponential.
Wikipedia - Herd immunity
So 89% of children have a 3% risk of catching measles if exposed, that’s 30 children given the article numbers, out of 1100 total children.
I believe this is called a risk, given you can’t know which children the vaccine won’t work.
Pretty shitty version of Russian Roulette, and yet both involve getting shot.
If nursing a patient with measles, there is a reason why gloves and hand hygine is still required. Medically, we consider the 97% effective as a population average besed upon “usual exposure”. That means 3 in 100 vaccinated children are likely to contract measles this way. If your. local exposure is higher, then there are higher infection rates in that peer group. If you sit next to me for 5 mins you have one risk of exposure. If we are kids in a classroom together for several hours, then the transmission risk is higher. So yes, just like COVID, the higher the proportion of infective people and the longer the contact time the greater the risk of infection and also transmission.
Measles also correlates highly with a loss of immune system strength, meaning being unvaccinated and catching it technically gives people AIDs as well.
3% risk is really freaking high when there’s lots of virus around you
3% of the 89% times how many students? That’s a hell of a lot of suffering invaccinated individuals.
deleted by creator
That’s a silly argument to make.
Each disease is different, some you can be immune from and some you lower the chance of getting. Some lower the impact.
Clearly, you haven’t learnt shit.
How does a greater immunity make you not susceptible? It decreases your susceptibility, but doesn’t eliminate it
Friend, I don’t think you’ve ever known shit
deleted by creator