Wealthy Liberal Science Deniers...

[Lord Jim]

Rich, educated and stupid parents are driving the vaccination crisis

The most shocking and disheartening story you'll read in the Los Angeles Times today may be our piece on the stunning decline in vaccination rates among California's kindergarten-age children.

Kids are coming to school with immunization exemptions at twice the rate of seven years ago. As my colleagues Paloma Esquivel and Sandra Poindexter document, high rates of "personal belief" exemptions from child immunizations are correlated with high median incomes. They write:

"In Los Angeles County, the rise in personal belief exemptions is most prominent in wealthy coastal and mountain communities, The Times analysis shows. The more than 150 schools with exemption rates of 8% or higher for at least one vaccine were located in census tracts where the incomes averaged $94,500 — nearly 60% higher than the county median."

That 8% exemption level is the point at which lack of immunization threatens herd immunity, an important factor in preventing and constraining disease outbreaks.

We can see signs of damaged herd immunity in stark statistics: California, which has experienced 61 cases of measles so far this year, four times the level at this point a year ago, has been identified by the Centers for Disease Control as a national trouble spot. California is also currently dealing with a whooping cough epidemic, at least partially because of declining vaccination rates.

State law requires entering kindergartners to be vaccinated against measles, whooping cough, polio, mumps, rubella, hepatitis B, chicken pox, diphtheria and tetanus. Parents can get personal belief exemptions, but the standards for allowing these have clearly become unacceptably loose in recent years. Nor does the state appear to have a policy governing the circumstances under which an unvaccinated child be permitted to attend school.

Let's be plain about a personal belief exemption: It's based on nothing. Parents may claim it because of something they've heard, or something they've read, or something they've been told by an indulgent pediatrician whose license should be scrutinized with great care by medical regulators. But it's not based on science, which tells us that, except under certain very specific conditions, vaccines are safe. (Those with medical reasons to forgo vaccinations can also obtain exemptions, but these are rare and often temporary.)

The childhood diseases that immunizations guard against are what are dangerous, and allowing inchoate personal beliefs to introduce unimmunized children into schools is a distinct threat to public health.

Esquivel and Poindexter quote Tammy Murphy, superintendent of the Montecito Union School District in Santa Barbara, a district that has an astonishing 27.5% exemption rate, stating that she tries to respect parents' decisions.

"I don't think they make this decision out of a place of ignorance," Murphy told them. "It's one they've thought about deeply. They're reading all about this and making what they feel is the best-informed decision they can for their child."

Murphy sounds like she may be part of the problem; the district itself has been irresponsibly tolerant in handing out exemptions. The parents are indeed making this decision out of ignorance. They haven't thought about it deeply -- certainly they haven't given a dime's worth of thought to the effect their anti-immunization decision has on their neighbors, on other children, and on their own children.

The median income in the Montecito district is nearly $103,000, and the median home price is more than $1 million: proof that you can be rich and successful, yet not have a clue.

If we were talking about parents without access to healthcare or adequate medical information, the decline in vaccinations might be understandable; anti-vaccination claptrap has been hawked by television personalities such as Katie Couric and Jenny McCarthy as though it's just another entertainment segment. They should be ashamed. (We discussed Couric's peculiar brand of irresponsibility here and here.) But for it to take root among parents with access to established scientific facts is inexcusable.

But there's no reason for state and local school officials to buy into this trend. The rules for personal belief exemptions should be tightened up and made crystal clear. Citing something you've heard on Katie Couric's show won't cut it.

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik ... olumn.html

[Sue U]

Wealthy science deniers, ok, but I don't see anything to indicate that they are "liberal" or that political orientation has anything to do with this issue.

That said, I have no problem with the MMR and DPT vaccines, but I was disappointed when my state began requiring chicken pox immunization. I always felt getting the disease was a better option.

[Guinevere]

Not necessarily if you're over about 10. I was 13 when I finally got them, and sick as a dog with a very high fever.

[Lord Jim]

Wealthy science deniers, ok, but I don't see anything to indicate that they are "liberal"

If you're familiar with the voting patterns of the areas being discussed, this becomes obvious. (Marin County here in Northern California is another big "opt out" of vaccines know-nothing locale)

These aren't right-wing religious yokels..

These are well heeled, liberal new-agey types who have bought into the snake oil about vaccines being an autism causing plot by "Big Pharma"...

[Lord Jim]

Here's another example:

The anti-vaccination movement is centered along California's wealthy coastal and mountain communities; the highest numbers of personal-belief exemptions are among children who attend private schools. At a Santa Cruz Montessori school in Aptos, for example, 22.6 percent of kindergartners had belief exemptions from vaccination. In 2007, the number was seven percent.

These aren't parents who don't have access to information - they're true believers who can't be convinced.

http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/editorial ... 732013.php

I can guarantee you that the parents at that school vote overwhelmingly Democratic...

[BoSoxGal]

The two things which have most improved the human condition over the past century - vaccinations and antibiotics - have both been undermined, in large part, due to the insanity of 'know-it-all' parents.

[Big RR]

Well, one thing I do think has contributed to the vaccine backlash is the push by big pharma to mandate more and more vaccines. At one point vaccines were mandated for potentially deadly and crippling diseases which threatened nearly everyone (like polio, or diphtheria, even measles), then for significant public health concerns (like rubella which is linked to birth disease). Now vaccines are routinely mandated for convenience (like chicken pox, even though it can be more severe if contracted later in life, ditto for mumps), diseases unlikely to be contracted in children at the ages the vaccines are mandated (like hepatitis), and serious diseases which are rarely life threatening and not quite as prolific (like the combo pneumonia vaccines).

Now big pharma has a point, they will not develop vaccines that generally do not have a big market, and the market is all but guaranteed if they are mandated (indeed, when I worked as part of the vaccine team in a major US pharma company a significant effort was made to get vaccines mandated while they were in development, and some were abandoned while they were not. but they have not played fair; they have stretched the truth, even lied when they were pushing for the mandate (remember Merck's ad where the kid died from chickenpox; while this happens, it is very rare), and it has left a bad taste in many people's mouths; and so they seize on the conspiracy and fight back. Sure it's junk science, but so is saying no one ever died from a vaccine (it's rare, but it does happen for a variety of reasons); people who might well be happy to vaccinate their children against infantile paralysis (polio) given the downside of not being vaccinated, are not so sanguine about routinely vaccinating against pneumonia or chickenpox--and they resent being forced to do so. If they want them to, the government (and big pharma) have to do a better job of explaining to the public the benefits and the risks, and have to be honest with them.

Now don't get me wrong, vaccination, along with sanitation and antibiotics, have benefitted the entire population of the world greatly, and I happily vaccinated my children against the required (and some not required) diseases; but I was also happy I had a choice. Both were vaccinated with Gardasil, but I explained the vaccine to them and gave them the choice.

[TPFKA@W]

There are pools of stupid all over that are not exclusive to liberals or conservatives and include people who ought to know better. I work with many nurses who do not understand that getting a flu shot cannot and will not cause you to get the flu. I work with nurses who do not understand that there is no such thing as stomach flu, that flu is short for influenza which is a respiratory illness and that "stomach flu" is a slang term for gastroenteritis.

When I do the weekend manager job I sometimes do in a small nursing home I have a patient there who has been in the same bed for over 22 years. When she was a young woman and had just had her kids, they got the polio vaccine. She had not had the vaccine and contracted polio. For many years her mother-in-law took care of her and her children. She is essentially a functional quad, having some limited use of one arm and her hands and her breathing makes one think of a fish out of water. She is one step from needing to be on a vent. A bi-pap is used on her at night and keeps her from smothering to death in her sleep. Her hands and feet are contracted. Her skin is in pretty good shape for someone who spends most of her time in bed. I was talking to her the other day and I said that I thought we ought to force parents who were anti-vaccine to come in and spend a day with her doing her care. It might open a few minds but I don't know, stupid has deep roots.

[Guinevere]

I think that's a GREAT idea.

[Gob]

Agreed.

[Big RR]

Couldn't hurt.

[Jarlaxle]

Wealthy science deniers, ok, but I don't see anything to indicate that they are "liberal" or that political orientation has anything to do with this issue.

That said, I have no problem with the MMR and DPT vaccines, but I was disappointed when my state began requiring chicken pox immunization. I always felt getting the disease was a better option.

My doctor agrees...the vaccine is only ~60% effective. You WANT to get chicken pox while young! (I was six.)

[TPFKA@W]

The shingles vaccine isn't particularly effective either and is grossly expensive.
I wonder, since chicken pox and shingles are from the same viral cause, what makes it so difficult to make an effective vaccine.

[Joe Guy]

The shingles vaccine isn't particularly effective either and is grossly expensive.
I wonder, since chicken pox and shingles are from the same viral cause, what makes it so difficult to make an effective vaccine.

Maybe because in order to get shingles the virus is already present within you. Chicken pox vaccination might be more like a guard at the door and more effective than a shingles bouncer for those viruses that have already been inside and caused problems.

[rubato]

Immunity to herpes zoster is nor perfect nor permanent which is why roughly 1/3 of people who have had chickenpox will get shingles without the vaccine. Some people can even get multiple episodes of shingles. The immunity is a lot better than the risk of shingles and $150.00 (which is what it costs here if you pay cash) is cheap.



yrs,
rubato

[rubato]

Science denialism typifies Republicans and Conservatives. You can easily prove this by their party platform is based on rejection of science in multiple respects and their appeal to antique superstitions as their 'authority'.


yrs,
rubato

[TPFKA@W]

Immunity to herpes zoster is nor perfect nor permanent which is why roughly 1/3 of people who have had chickenpox will get shingles without the vaccine. Some people can even get multiple episodes of shingles. The immunity is a lot better than the risk of shingles and $150.00 (which is what it costs here if you pay cash) is cheap.



yrs,
rubato

It's $300 here and it only promises 41% chance of working. (Some sources site higher odds.) My husband has a genetic disorder which one of the side effects is multiple outbreaks of shingles. Fortunately they tend to only be small outbreaks but it is pretty annoying for him. Even his doctor said it wasn't worth it for most people.

[Lord Jim]

Science denialism typifies Republicans and Conservatives. You can easily prove this by their party platform is based on rejection of science in multiple respects and their appeal to antique superstitions as their 'authority'.


yrs,
rubato

Here we have an excellent example of the type of garbage that served as the inspiration for starting this thread...

From the article in the OP we can see that Republicans and Conservatives don't have a monopoly on "science denial" and from the post quoted above, we can see that they don't have a monopoly on ignorance, simplistic thinking, or bigotry either...

[oldr_n_wsr]

My wife didn't get chicken pox while a child. She got it when the kids brought it home form school. No worse for the wear and tear. Gave me some time off from work when I had to take care of the three for them. I didn't know they vaccinate kids for chicken pox now-a-days.

The real question is are we over vaccinating? Don't know how many people died from chicken pox for it to be included standard vaccinations. And I remeber growing up seeing commercials about rubella and pregnent women so if one had rubella not to go near expecting mothers.
I'm sure big pharma and big pharma lobbiests have their hand in this also.
The medical field and science should dictate the bottom line but I'm sure some in those fields are in on this too.
Where's my hat?

[Crackpot]

Btw Jim you forgot about GMOs.