Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

California Whooping Cough Cases "an Epidemic"

timothy posted about a month and a half ago | from the hooting-and-hollering-cough-looks-on-enviously dept.

Medicine 387

As reported by the San Jose Mercury News, the state of California is "in the throes of a whooping cough epidemic, state health department officials announced Friday. Dr. Ron Chapman, director of the California Department of Public Health, said 3,458 cases of whooping cough have been reported since Jan. 1 -- including 800 in the past two weeks. That total is more than all the cases reported in 2013." Public broadcaster KPBS notes that of the 621 people known to have come down with whooping cough in San Diego county, the vast majority (85 percent) were up to date on their immunizations.

cancel ×

387 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Illegal aliens, the gifts that just keep on giving (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47240437)

Thanks Mexico.

Mexico Vaccinates Better Than The US (5, Informative)

CritterNYC (190163) | about a month and a half ago | (#47240595)

Mexico's vaccination rates are higher than the US.

Re:Mexico Vaccinates Better Than The US (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47240737)

BS

Re:Mexico Vaccinates Better Than The US (0, Flamebait)

Curunir_wolf (588405) | about a month and a half ago | (#47240935)

Mexico's vaccination rates are higher than the US.

I know nobody reads the articles, but at least take a look at the summary before making stupid comments:

of the 621 people known to have come down with whooping cough in San Diego county, the vast majority (85 percent) were up to date on their immunizations.

Re:Mexico Vaccinates Better Than The US (4, Interesting)

Nemesisghost (1720424) | about a month and a half ago | (#47241195)

of the 621 people known to have come down with whooping cough in San Diego county, the vast majority (85 percent) were up to date on their immunizations.

Here's the problem with that statistic: If 90% of the people in San Diego county are up to date on their vaccinations, and the per capita of individuals was equal, then you'd end up with about 63 of the 621(or 90%) of whooping cough individuals as having their vaccinations. To truly see how well the whooping cough vaccination is working, you need to compare it to the percentage of total vaccinations. If the % is higher than the vaccinations total, you've got a problem, otherwise we can continue to blame un-vaccinated individuals as the problem.

Re:Mexico Vaccinates Better Than The US (0)

rubycodez (864176) | about a month and a half ago | (#47240995)

for the ones that stay in Mexico, yes. How about the illegals here, what is their immunization rate?

Re:Mexico Vaccinates Better Than The US (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47241279)

Bingo. Rate parent up. Whooping cough is just the beginning of what 'undocumented imporatation' is bringing to California/elsewhere. TB anyone?

Re:Mexico Vaccinates Better Than The US (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47241455)

Bingo. Rate parent up. Whooping cough is just the beginning of what 'undocumented imporatation' is bringing to California/elsewhere. TB anyone?

According to the agendista's, "illegal" immigrant is misleading bad-speak done by haters; "undocumented" immigrant is proper. I prefer to call them citizen's of other countries who think of themselves as a citizen of another country illegally entering this country to get a better life that isn't being offered in their country.

There isn't any incentive for other countries to improve their society. It's a sweet deal for all parties that benefit from it, inside and outside of the US. If anyone complains, the bigot, fascist, racist, anti-catholic, or whatever card is pulled. We can't continue to give benefits to all of the other country's citizens without going bankrupt.

Carlos Mendez said it best: Quit hiring illegals!

Re:Mexico Vaccinates Better Than The US (2)

PapayaSF (721268) | about a month and a half ago | (#47241059)

Mexico's vaccination rates are higher than the US.

Are you sure? A few years ago when I was rather ill I went to a doctor who decided I needed a chest X-ray to rule out tuberculosis, which he described as (IIRC) "common" in San Francisco. I expressed surprise, and he said it was due to illegal immigration. Of course, it might have been due to illegal immigration from Honduras, Guatemala, etc., but most illegals around here are from Mexico.

So there's 100 or so unimmunized? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47240443)

So there's 100 or so unimmunized kids who got sick in just that last two weeks?

Without those kids, would the other 500 or so gotten sick?

There's a reason it's called herd immunity.

Fuck Jenny McCarthy. With a 50-year-old telephone pole that's had linemen up and down it with spiked shoes thousands of times. Soaked in gasoline. On fire. Up the ass.

Re:So there's 100 or so unimmunized? (4, Insightful)

houstonbofh (602064) | about a month and a half ago | (#47240455)

Yes, they ignore the fact that those un-immunized 15% gave a nice reservoir for the illness to mutate and develop stronger strains, like illnesses do. And lets not bring in the fact that most Americans have piss poor immune systems to begin with, and the shots just make one facet stronger, not invincible.

Re:So there's 100 or so unimmunized? (1)

Shakrai (717556) | about a month and a half ago | (#47240491)

And lets not bring in the fact that most Americans have piss poor immune systems to begin with

Huh?

Re:So there's 100 or so unimmunized? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47241389)

because they are all fat, diabetic and addicted to prescription drugs.

Re:So there's 100 or so unimmunized? (2, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | about a month and a half ago | (#47241443)

The US have one of the highest rates of antibiotics (ab)use. I'd be surprised if you found worse strains of germs in our hospitals than you find in the average US hotel air condition.

Re:So there's 100 or so unimmunized? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47240547)

im one of those 15%, I'm allergic to the pertussis shot

Re:So there's 100 or so unimmunized? (5, Informative)

mysidia (191772) | about a month and a half ago | (#47240553)

im one of those 15%, I'm allergic to the pertussis shot

Then the other 95% of that 15% are putting you in danger for no great reason, because they have no medical reason to not have the proper vaccinations.

Re:So there's 100 or so unimmunized? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47240717)

I have no immune system. Injecting me will kill me. Your assertion that there is no medical reason to not have proper shots is insensitive and ignorant.

Re:So there's 100 or so unimmunized? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47240753)

If only there was a shot which cured idiocy. If you truly lack an immune system, then you got a fucking MEDICAL REASON. Now, STFU moron.

Re:So there's 100 or so unimmunized? (4, Funny)

ganjadude (952775) | about a month and a half ago | (#47240893)

If only there was a shot which cured idiocy.

cyanide?

Re: So there's 100 or so unimmunized? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47241171)

I make my case for darwinian evolution. And cyanide would help.

Re:So there's 100 or so unimmunized? (2)

Opportunist (166417) | about a month and a half ago | (#47241453)

Did they finally legalize the use on morons?

Re:So there's 100 or so unimmunized? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47240771)

Then the other 95%... have no medical reason to not have the proper vaccinations.

The post you replied to was directly acknowledging that some people have reasons they can't be vaccinated (the other 5%), but a large number of those without vaccines are not because of medical reasons and they are increasing the risks to people like you who can't be vaccinated.

Re:So there's 100 or so unimmunized? (1, Interesting)

magamiako1 (1026318) | about a month and a half ago | (#47240709)

Ugh, I'm with you on this one. I'm allergic as well, and I have respiratory issues as-is. Just found out I'm allergic to codeine, too, this week...(I've taken it before, never had issues, but I took it this week and it did quite a number on my stomach. The next day I had been talking to my mother and said I was taking codeine and she said "You need to watch that, your aunt and uncle can't take it as it gave them severe stomach issues."

Thanks mom...

Re:So there's 100 or so unimmunized? (4, Insightful)

superdana (1211758) | about a month and a half ago | (#47241299)

I know it's very fashionable to have allergies these days but a tummy ache is not anaphylaxis. Try taking it with food next time.

Re:So there's 100 or so unimmunized? (1)

mmell (832646) | about a month and a half ago | (#47241201)

Boy - I'll bet you're as jumpy as a Christian Scientist with appendicitis.

Re:So there's 100 or so unimmunized? (1)

Anubis IV (1279820) | about a month and a half ago | (#47241447)

im one of those 15%, I'm allergic to the pertussis shot

That's okay. Thanks to herd immunity, so long as there aren't too many people avoiding vaccinations, you should still be able to enjoy all the benefits of immunity. In fact, you, more than most people, should have good reason to support vaccinations and encourage others to get them, given that a significant risk to your health is directly related to the vaccination rate of those around you. Herd immunity can generally support a small population that isn't immunized, such as yourself. The problems begin when that minority population gets too large, which is the case we're seeing here with the anti-vaxxers, who are ruining things not only for you, but for everyone else as well.

Re:So there's 100 or so unimmunized? (1, Interesting)

ledow (319597) | about a month and a half ago | (#47240599)

There are precisely two viruses like this that have been "eradicated" by medicine, in the entire history of humankind. Two.

And one of those is suspected of making a comeback in a related form.

"Immunisation" buys you time, not immunity. We can't get 100% of people to pay taxes or abide by the law, what makes you think we can get 100% immunised?

Like using one particular chemical in weedkiller or rat poison - doesn't matter how many rats you kill, one will get immune to it and breed a generation immune to it really quickly, or a branch of the same genetic family will evolve to take it over. Even if you legislate (as some countries do) that you MUST use 2 or 3 totally unrelated chemicals at all times and never deploy them singly - still there are rats. And still there will be diseases getting through that are related to those you immunise.

Hell, we offer flu shots to the elderly for free in my country - hasn't even dented flu-like diseases. Immunisation helps. Blaming those percent that choose to decide what they put into their own bodies is just peer pressure and bullying. And, guess what, if you were actually "immunised" you wouldn't be able to catch it from them, or the evolved strains...

Re:So there's 100 or so unimmunized? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47240681)

The 'flu shots' are one of the best proofs of the total and utter fraud of 'vaccination', since they simply DON'T WORK, and figures from hundreds of thousands of sufferers of the flu prove this.

But still you'll carry on calling people who don't want filth and pus injected into them 'anti science', and of course, 'a danger to everybody else' - but if your 'vaccines' work, how come you are afraid of catching the disease your 'vaccine' is supposed to protect you from? This whole article PROVES that 'vaccination' is a massive fraud, yet the Slashdot Sheep are still defending this snake oil... Unbelievable.

Re:So there's 100 or so unimmunized? (3, Insightful)

magamiako1 (1026318) | about a month and a half ago | (#47240749)

There are many reasons the flu vaccine "doesn't work", for the most part, because it's only around 80% effective to begin with. They also target specific strains that they think will be the most common in a given region. They do not target every strain of the flu out there.

So yes, 80% effective, only targeting key specific seasonal strains they think will cause the most havoc.

But, at the end of the day, it's a gamble. Do you want to take your life or the lives of loved ones at such risk? I don't get a flu vaccine, in part because I haven't had the flu in a long, long time (Colds and I, however, have problems). Also because I'm not around little kids or super elderly folks, and don't work in a hospital/doctor's office, etc. But it's a choice I make. If I were to get the flu more often, I'd probably get vaccinated.

Re:So there's 100 or so unimmunized? (2)

Curunir_wolf (588405) | about a month and a half ago | (#47241051)

There are many reasons the flu vaccine "doesn't work", for the most part, because it's only around 80% effective to begin with. They also target specific strains that they think will be the most common in a given region. They do not target every strain of the flu out there.

Not quite. The 80% effective rate is only when the correct strain is targeted by the vaccine. And that's only about 33% of the time. That means the overall effective rate for any given year is actually around 16%.

There have even been studies of the H1N1 vaccine in Canada that showed that the people that received the vaccine were slightly more likely to become infected.

Re:So there's 100 or so unimmunized? (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about a month and a half ago | (#47241487)

In other words, the chance rose from 0.0000000001 percent to 0.00000000011?

Re:So there's 100 or so unimmunized? (2)

io bus (3685815) | about a month and a half ago | (#47240849)

If it were for me, you can die as a life choice. Any medication has tradeoffs. You have to decide what is more important at the time. Getting rid of a flu or having an upset stomach. If immunization were so bad, how come we overcome all those illnesses that caused trouble for our civilization pre 20th century? Before, babies and teens did not survive into adulthood. Some died on some illnesses that we since overcome. But i see. Overconfidence is key here. Science is just bad. But maybe its time that people die again like flies. So go ahead and don't vaccinate, please.

Re:So there's 100 or so unimmunized? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47241307)

"If immunization were so bad, how come we overcome all those illnesses that caused trouble for our civilization pre 20th century?"

Sanitation and nutrition. Where did smallpox outbreaks occur in the U.K., when Jenner, the fraudster, was around? In densely populated areas, which had poor (or NO) sanitation. Open sewers in the streets.

Jenner was a fraudster, and idiots like you would rather die than THINK.

Still waiting for ONE person on the planet to rebut Dr. Hadwen's talks on 'vaccination':

http://www.whale.to/v/hadwen1.html

Go on, try.

Re:So there's 100 or so unimmunized? (3, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | about a month and a half ago | (#47241519)

If it was just for him, I'd be cheerleader for the vaccine-naysayers. Darwin should be right at least sometimes and all that.

But sadly it's not just about him. There are people who cannot get immunized, who cannot get vaccines, for various reasons. Very real reasons, unlike that anti-vac crowd. Some people would love to get vaccinated because they do not want to get sick. But simply cannot. For them, we "vaccinated ones" are the protective shield. Because if there is no strain to infect them (because we don't carry it around since our vaccinated immune system kills them), we effectively protect them.

Those anti-vac nuts endanger them.

Re:So there's 100 or so unimmunized? (5, Interesting)

Sarten-X (1102295) | about a month and a half ago | (#47240859)

The 'flu shots' are one of the best proofs of the total and utter fraud of 'vaccination', since they simply DON'T WORK, and figures from hundreds of thousands of sufferers of the flu prove this.

Congratulations on your complete failure to understand influenza.

Flu shots "don't work" because influenza is such a simple organism. Most big organisms (pretty much anything you can see with the naked eye) have mechanisms to protect their DNA from changing too much. Cells that mutate are killed off, and offspring that mutate too much can't grow. That's why it takes thousands of years for even small changes. The benefit, of course, is that once such an organism thrives, it stays that way. There are practically no single-individual species out there (some exceptions apply [wikipedia.org] ).

Influenza completely lacks those mechanisms. It is free to mutate rapidly, often leading to significant differences in only a few years. Part of those significant differences are the proteins exposed to the body's immune system, so the particular strain of virus that was most aggressive one year may give way to a completely different strain for the next winter season (when human immune systems are at their weakest).

To produce a flu shot each year, researchers track the incidence rates of many different strains, and the ones that seem most troublesome for the coming year are what the vaccine protects against. There is a balance that must be struck between providing enough material for the body to develop immunity, and providing too much material, such that the person actually gets sick.

Flu shots, therefore, are not an absolute shield against the diverse array of viruses we call "influenza".

This whole article PROVES that 'vaccination' is a massive fraud

No, it only provides still more evidence that vaccines work exactly as we expect them to. There is only a good chance that a person will develop an immunity from a vaccine, and only a good chance that an immunity will protect them from the actual pathogen, so we hope to also give them a good chance to never encounter the pathogen in the first place. Skipping vaccinations increases the likelihood that you will be a safe harbor for the pathogen, greatly increasing the chances of exposure for someone whose immunity is ineffective or not even present.

Immunity is a collective endeavor. You're undermining it.

Re:So there's 100 or so unimmunized? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47241087)

Immunity is a collective endeavor. You're undermining it.

Immunity is a personal endeavor. Want immunity? Get vaccinated.

Re:So there's 100 or so unimmunized? (2)

Anubis IV (1279820) | about a month and a half ago | (#47241475)

He just got done explaining how vaccinations don't always take, so some percentage of vaccinated individuals are still susceptible to the pathogen, meaning that those people unknowingly depend on the successful vaccinations of those around them to protect them. Did you really just skip right by that?

Re:So there's 100 or so unimmunized? (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about a month and a half ago | (#47241473)

We have found a vaccine that is not 100% perfect. So we need to throw away vaccination altogether!

Great, I found a reason do dump religion on the compost heap. I prayed for chocolate fudge yesterday and there was none for dinner in the cafeteria. So religion doesn't work. Anyone wanna come along burning down churches?

Re:So there's 100 or so unimmunized? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47240689)

There are precisely two viruses like this that have been "eradicated" by medicine, in the entire history of humankind. Two.

And one of those is suspected of making a comeback in a related form.

"Immunisation" buys you time, not immunity. We can't get 100% of people to pay taxes or abide by the law, what makes you think we can get 100% immunised?

Like using one particular chemical in weedkiller or rat poison - doesn't matter how many rats you kill, one will get immune to it and breed a generation immune to it really quickly, or a branch of the same genetic family will evolve to take it over. Even if you legislate (as some countries do) that you MUST use 2 or 3 totally unrelated chemicals at all times and never deploy them singly - still there are rats. And still there will be diseases getting through that are related to those you immunise.

Hell, we offer flu shots to the elderly for free in my country - hasn't even dented flu-like diseases. Immunisation helps. Blaming those percent that choose to decide what they put into their own bodies is just peer pressure and bullying. And, guess what, if you were actually "immunised" you wouldn't be able to catch it from them, or the evolved strains...

The biggest issue with the flu is that there are so many strains of it (it mutates quite easily). Your flu vaccination is for the one strain which is believed to be the most common one for that particular year. Unfortunately they could have guessed wrong as to which strain will be the most common or you could just as easily pick up some other strain.

As for immunisation protecting you from evolved strains, what happens when that one little mutation is a change in the protein coating which makes your immunity a moot point? Vaccines work by giving you a dead or harmless version of the virus so that your immune system knows what it is and that it should react to it. One of the ways this is done is via the protein coating of the virus. If that changes enough then the immune system no longer recognises the virus as being one it has encountered already. Tying back into the flu virus, it mutates quite easily and more often then not the protein coatings change, hence why the flu vaccine does not always stop you from getting the flu.

It is the ease that viruses mutate that makes getting as many people as possible vaccinated important. The fewer hosts a virus can infect mean the less likely hood of the virus getting to mutate.

As for your comment on only 2 viruses being eradicated via vaccinations, how many people do you know or have heard of catching stuff like german measles, rubella, smallpox, pertussis, tuberculosis, mumps, etc? And how many of those live in countries where vaccination is readily available (eg, most non-thirdworld nations). Myself, I don't know anyone who has had any of these diseases outside of outbreaks in the UK and the USA due mostly to the anti-vaccination crowd...

I like your style! (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47240727)

Blaming those percent that choose to decide what they put into their own bodies is just peer pressure and bullying. And, guess what, if you were actually "immunised" you wouldn't be able to catch it from them, or the evolved strains...

So, only the stupid and superstitious people who refuse to get vacinated will get sick and hopefully die and clean up the gene pool?

I like it!

Re:So there's 100 or so unimmunized? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47240869)

There are precisely two viruses like this that have been "eradicated" by medicine, in the entire history of humankind. Two.

No, they have not been eradicated.

1. One lives in labs
2. The other one is still in wild because of fucked up Islamists.

Aside from that, your comment is stupid. You do not require 100% immunization to eradicate a disease. You only require good enough level of immunization. And comparing this to some specific strain flu vaccine, really? Flu vaccine has nowhere the same effectiveness as polio vaccine.

"Immunisation" buys you time, not immunity.

What a gem.

Re:So there's 100 or so unimmunized? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47241263)

You are disturbingly ignorant. It's painful to read your post. Please /suicide.

Re:So there's 100 or so unimmunized? (2)

ChromeAeonium (1026952) | about a month and a half ago | (#47241461)

And one of those is suspected of making a comeback in a related form.

Thanks to people who oppose vaccinations. Boy, I love it when stupidity is used to justify itself. Criticizing that is like looking at the state of the chicken pox vaccine (you remember chicken pox right?) and saying 'Anti-vaxxers' kids still get it, therefore the vaccine is bad because it doesn't work if you don't use it!'

Re:So there's 100 or so unimmunized? (4, Insightful)

LifesABeach (234436) | about a month and a half ago | (#47240643)

Maybe you could site a reference, other than your body's exit point for your food. When one is immunized, one can handle the real thing quickly. That means the sickness cannot take hold, or not for long. There is a group of dumb ass American parents that believe that immunizing their children is a bad thing. These parents will face outcomes like child mortality, and child cripplings for the unlucky. The immunized children will not understand that their close friend is forever negatively altered because their friend's parents are so short sighted that because they don't see it, therefore it doesn't exist.

This idea is applicable to other things. Short Sigtedness paralleled with business shows rapid depletion of its resources in exchange for an increase in profit; like a child that has more free time because it doesn't have to wait in line for a vaccine shot. Then when the resources run out, the business colapses; the outcome is the abandonment of its employees, and its customers; now the community is damaged, also the death of the business. The survivers must now spend time, money, and resources that they would not have to before; the impact cripples.

Re:So there's 100 or so unimmunized? (4, Informative)

Trepidity (597) | about a month and a half ago | (#47240775)

When one is immunized, one can handle the real thing quickly. That means the sickness cannot take hold, or not for long.

Unfortunately that appears [informahealthcare.com] to be no longer be as true for whooping cough as it used to be: the currently circulating strains have diverged from the strains that were used to develop the vaccine, so protection is worse than it used to be.

Re:So there's 100 or so unimmunized? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47241449)

There is a group of dumb ass American parents that believe that immunizing their children is a bad thing. These parents will face outcomes like child mortality, and child cripplings for the unlucky.

Yeah, but while you're busy triaging out those evil U.S. parents of kids aged 0-14 who in a recent year may have caused the deaths of 25 of those kids due to pertussis, you're letting off a larger percentage still of parents implicated directly or indirectly in 1781 deaths of those kids from various injuries, 1244 deaths from road traffic accidents, 957 deaths from homicide, 726 deaths from drownings, 303 deaths from fires, 274 deaths from suicide, 94 deaths from poisoning and 62 deaths from falls.
Furthermore, these figures overlook 5912 deaths from congenital anomalies and 5189 deaths from low birth weight -- a portion of which may be linked to bad habits in parents (alcohol, smoking, drugs, malnutrition, etc.)

Re:So there's 100 or so unimmunized? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47240667)

Yes, that's it! It's magic! The "un-immunized 15" were the cause of it all! The magic 'vaccinations' somehow didn't work in the 85% who took them - but it wasn't because 'vaccination' is a fraud, of course not!

Nice try though. Jenner was a fraud. Dr. Hadwen gave several speeches a hundred years ago, when people were fighting against compulsory 'vaccination'. To date, nobody has rebutted any of his speeches. Why is this?

http://www.whale.to/v/hadwen1.html

Come back to me (and the rest of your braindead, holier-than-thou 'vaccine believers'), when you've actually refuted anything in those speeches.

Re:So there's 100 or so unimmunized? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47240823)

The strain mutated to the point where the vaccine is no longer effective. This is only possible when there is a large portion (>5% or so) of the population which refuses vaccination, providing the virus a conduit to live and mutate. If vaccination rates are high enough, then this can't happen and the virus dies slowly - this is called herd immunity and it's the crucial reason why vaccines work.

Re:So there's 100 or so unimmunized? (2)

Bowling Moses (591924) | about a month and a half ago | (#47240983)

From your link: "cowpox bears no analogy to smallpox." Cowpox and smallpox viruses are very similar, assigned to the same viral genus. We have sequenced the entire genome of each and their close relationship is undeniable. Here's an article for exampleAnalysis of the complete genome of smallpox variola major virus strain Bangladesh-1975 [nih.gov] . From the abstract: "Most of the virus proteins correspond to proteins in current databases, including 150 proteins that have > 90% identity to major gene products encoded by vaccinia virus, the smallpox vaccine." I'm sure if I spent more than 10 seconds on google I could find a lot more.

Re:So there's 100 or so unimmunized? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47241343)

WTF?

Here is the abstract: Analysis of the complete genome of smallpox variola major virus strain Bangladesh-1975. "We analyzed the 186,102 base pairs (bp) that constitute the entire DNA genome of a highly virulent variola virus isolated from Bangladesh in 1975. The linear, double-stranded molecule has relatively small (725 bp) inverted terminal repeat (ITR) sequences containing three 69-bp direct repeat elements, a 54-bp partial repeat element, and a 105-base telomeric end-loop that can be maximally base-paired to contain 17 mismatches. Proximal to the right-end ITR sequences are another seven 69-bp elements and a 53- and a 27-bp partial element. Sequence analysis showed 187 closely spaced open reading frames specifying putative major proteins containing > or = 65 amino acids. Most of the virus proteins correspond to proteins in current databases, including 150 proteins that have > 90% identity to major gene products encoded by vaccinia virus, the smallpox vaccine. Variola virus has a group of proteins that are truncated compared with vaccinia virus counterparts and a smaller group of proteins that are elongated. The terminal regions encode several novel proteins and variants of other poxvirus proteins that potentially augment variola virus transmissibility and virulence for its only natural host, humans."

Where is the word 'cowpox' in there? So you're saying that "Analysis of the complete genome of smallpox variola major virus strain" lead them to find "150 proteins that have > 90% identity to major gene products encoded by vaccinia virus, the smallpox vaccine" - and that makes cowpox and smallpox "very similar", when there is no mention of the word COWPOX in the abstract? WTF?

Perhaps you should spend more than 10 seconds on Google.

Please explain why EVERYBODY I know had measles and mumps as a child - EVERYBODY, yet nobody cared in the slightest about it - nobody's parents were terrified they were going to die. What's changed?

Here's some evidence for you, which you can't brush under the carpet (much as you'd like to):

Vaccination in TV programmes and books, pre 1980s:
'The masters or sitcom' by Ray Galton and Alan Simpson, p161:
BILL: Go round kissing all the babies. That'll get the votes. ...
ANDREE: How is he doctor?
KENNETH: Oh, it's nothing to worry about, just a slight case of measles. Plenty of rest, he'll be all right in a week or two. ...
TONY: (Disgusted) Measles. Whose bright idea was it to go round kissing all the babies?
BILL: Well, I'm sorry, Tub.
TONY: 'Don't forget the one with the freckles,' he says. Aaah... If I get half as many votes as I've got spots, I'll sweep the country.

Doctor at Large, Series 1 Ep. 25, 2:14 Dr. Upton is taken ill and says "Feels like mumps. I had mumps. I had it when I was eight."
Catweazle, series 1, final part, 'The Trickery Lantern', 2:30 Flo (Mr. Bennett's sister); "You were just like this with chickenpox." Mr. Bennett; "Chickenpox?" Flo; "When you were nine." Mr. Bennett; "When I was? ...Really, Flo, you can't possibly remember that." Flo; "I can! Of course I can, George. Mother let me stay up to read you Treasure Island."
Catweazle, Series 1, Episode 4, 'The Witching Hour', 22:20, Miss Bonnington says "My arch enemy, Mrs. Willougbhy wasn't there." Mr. Bennett (Carrot's father); "Wasn't there?" Miss Bonnington; "Terribly funny, you'd never believe it. She's suddenly gone down with measles!" Carrot; "Measles?" Miss Bonnington; "Funny that - so sudden - several cases in the village of course, but she was perfectly alright this afternoon in the hairdressers. Hope I don't catch it!" (laughing out loud)
Steptoe and Son Christmas Special - Chickenpox, last five minutes.
Robin's Nest, Series 2, Episode 7, 10:10, Robin's brother's got mumps.
Robin's Nest, Series 3, Episode 4, 18:20 - Mr Nicholls said he hadn't had mumps.
The Famous Five - Five Go Adventuring Again, 2:00 - George says "And what with that, and my being ill, he thought it would be a good idea if we all have lessons", Anne says "Your spots have all gone", George replies "I know, I was officially de-measled this morning".
Man About the House - Series 1, Episode 3 - After the Monopoly game, Chrissie says "I haven't had so much fun since I had the mumps".
Larry Grayson on Pebble Mill said he had measles twice.
'The Adventures of Tom Sawyer' directed by Selznick. 10:33,
Tom: Where have you been such a long time. I haven't seen you since we got engaged.
Girl: I had the chickenpox.
Tom: You haven't got it now, have you?
Girl: No, silly, think my ma would let me out if I wasn't all cured?
Oliver Postgage book "Seeing things", page 12: (When he was six or seven) "but I saw little of the place because I almost immediately came down with measles... a day or two later when Grandad himself turned up, really just to pat me and wish me well because by then I was over the worst of the measles."
(This was in 1930-1932)

Re:So there's 100 or so unimmunized? (3, Funny)

russotto (537200) | about a month and a half ago | (#47240719)

Or maybe it's because the current acellular pertussis vaccine just doesn't work all that well.

Re:So there's 100 or so unimmunized? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47240939)

Have you ever heard of herd immunity?

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

Re:So there's 100 or so unimmunized? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47241043)

... those un-immunized 15% gave a nice reservoir for the illness to mutate and develop stronger strains ...

Yeah, as if the rest of the planet can't contribute.

Re:So there's 100 or so unimmunized? (2)

marcello_dl (667940) | about a month and a half ago | (#47241207)

I don't see why the illness should mutate more where it encounters less resistance, that is in the not immunized hosts.
But OK, somebody will sure have studies on this, and hopefully they have been independently confirmed.

Still it is the opposite phenomenon of what happens in hospitals: pathogens that manage to survive there become way difficult to remove. I also wonder what Darwin would have thought of less selective pressure leading to more mutations.

Re:So there's 100 or so unimmunized? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47241393)

Steady, you're questioning their 'holy cow', and how ironic, since the word 'vaccine' comes from the French 'vache' for 'cow'...

Next you'll be asking difficult questions about the so-called 'boosters'... LOL. If only Jenner had thought of that one, he and his bunch of corrupt 'doctors' back over 160 years ago could have made even more money out of selling their FILTH.

Let's go back to the days of Jenner, when medicine was still archaic - HOW did they make 'vaccines' in those days? Anybody like to discuss that? How are 'vaccines' made today? Isn't it funny how the vaccine industry doesn't show the public what sort of FILTH they are actually being injected with?

Next it will be yearly 'boosters', then six monthy 'boosters', then quarterly 'booster's, then monthly 'boosters', then weekly 'boosters', then DAILY 'boosters'. The whole thing is a giant, disgusting scam, and it's sickening reading the arrogant comments from the "Oh look at me, I'm 'pro science' so I'll blindly follow whatever the TV tells me, and wish DEATH on 'heretics' who disagree with me" crowd... (Look at the numerous comments where the 'vaccine' believers wish that people who disagree with them DIE. Charming.)

Let's talk about Edward Jenner, and whether he was qualified to make the 'discovery' that he claimed...

http://www.thedoctorwithin.com/smallpox/smallpox-bringing-a-dead-disease-back-to-life/

"– Jenner was no physician. He never passed a medical exam in his life, completed any course of medical study, or received a diploma from any medical school.
– Jenner bought his medical degree for £15 from St Andrew’s College in Scotland, which he never attended (Hume, p 174 [17], also Hadwen [14])
– Jenner “tested” his theory on one patient, and then immediately claimed that he had “immunized” the patient against smallpox for life. Jenner also claimed that the vaccine would work universally. That’s it. No controlled clinical trials, no years of research, nothing! One patient."

"With no proof whatsoever, and a sample size of one, Jenner tricked the entire medical profession, then and now, into pretending that cowpox was smallpox in cows – a total scientific inaccuracy. And then he sold the idea that his vaccine was the cure"

Still, the Slashdot Sheep will cling onto their 'vaccination' God, because they would literally rather DIE than THINK.

Re: So there's 100 or so unimmunized? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47240499)

I would fuck her, and I'm sure you would too. Check out those fine titties ;)

Re: So there's 100 or so unimmunized? (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47240593)

I would fuck her, and I'm sure you would too. Check out those fine titties ;)

If she fucks like she "thinks", it doesn't matter how good she looks.

If she did you cowgirl, you'd probably get drooled on.

Adults are the carriers (1)

goombah99 (560566) | about a month and a half ago | (#47240573)

Having had had family members with whooping cough I looked into this. Adults are believed to be carrier's with silent symptoms. This year (2014) when adults get their physical they will very likely be offered an immunization for whooping cough. I just got mine since I was exposed to it. Although vaccines after the fact may not be useful for protection, the wisdom apparently is that the vaccine helps your body supress the silent infection. Not sure I understand why.

Re:Adults are the carriers (3, Interesting)

EvilSS (557649) | about a month and a half ago | (#47240745)

Having had had family members with whooping cough I looked into this. Adults are believed to be carrier's with silent symptoms. This year (2014) when adults get their physical they will very likely be offered an immunization for whooping cough. I just got mine since I was exposed to it. Although vaccines after the fact may not be useful for protection, the wisdom apparently is that the vaccine helps your body supress the silent infection. Not sure I understand why.

This. The immunity imparted by the pertussis vaccine was not as long lived as previously thought. Combine that with a larger community of unvaccinated children (some due to medical reasons but many due to parents choosing not to) and we get a resurgence of whooping cough. This problem has been know and building for quite a while now but the other problem is that adults tend to not keep up on their tetanus boosters. I know back in 2007 when I got my last booster they had already started giving adults Tdap (Tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis), as opposed to the Td vaccine that used to be the norm for adults.

Re:Adults are the carriers (1)

ShadowRangerRIT (1301549) | about a month and a half ago | (#47241527)

The "ap" part of "Tdap" stands for "acellular pertussis", not just "and pertussis". The acellular variant of the vaccine has fewer side-effects, but also provides less protection, and less long lasting protection.

Re:So there's 100 or so unimmunized? (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about a month and a half ago | (#47241435)

And sideways, you forgot!

Stay in the basement! (5, Interesting)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about a month and a half ago | (#47240453)

It's much safer. Stock up on Doritos and Dr. Pepper and wait the epidemic out.

Pertussis is a big deal and, as usual, the media is Doing It Wrong. For most adults, pertussis is annoying (very annoying) but not life threatening. It is also rather contagious and worse, it is most contagious early on when one's symptoms are mild and non specific. So when you are sick, stay in the basement. Wash your hands. Communicate with the rest of the world via Slashdot.

For young children it can be fatal, hence the importance of immunizations.

What is pretty clear is that the primary immunization series works pretty well (not perfectly). Immunizations of adults doesn't work well at all. What TFA didn't make clear was how immunized the adults were. They would be up to date if they had received their primary children's series but no adult Dtap (typically given as part of a tetanus immunization, not directly 'for' pertussis). But we know that the pertussis component of Dtap wanes after five years. So even if you were technically up to date by tetanus standards, you'd be behind for pertussis.

We've known this for decades. What I can't figure out is why a pertussis only booster hasn't been marketed. We have the vaccine, we have much of the data. It would be fairly easy to do. (Insert favorite rant about the Medical Industrial Complex here.)

Re: Stay in the basement! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47240485)

Because it might cause autism or something

Re:Stay in the basement! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47240631)

What I can't figure out is why a pertussis only booster hasn't been marketed. We have the vaccine, we have much of the data. It would be fairly easy to do. (Insert favorite rant about the Medical Industrial Complex here.)

Lack of need. Same reason there aren't separate Measles, Mumps, Rubella shots that are widely available. I find it easier to give 1 shot rather than 2, and it's probably cheaper to give 1 shot than 2.

Re:Stay in the basement! (1)

EvilSS (557649) | about a month and a half ago | (#47240761)

It's much safer. Stock up on Doritos and Dr. Pepper and wait the epidemic out.

That may actually be MORE dangerous to your health! :)

Re:Stay in the basement! (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about a month and a half ago | (#47240877)

However, sarcasm is fairly innocuous.

Re:Stay in the basement! (1)

lgw (121541) | about a month and a half ago | (#47241233)

You must be new here. Everyone knows Cheetos are the food of choice for the Slashdot basement virgin legions! No other snack food leaves proper orange fingerprints on your D&D character sheet, c'mon.

Re:Stay in the basement! (2, Informative)

sconeu (64226) | about a month and a half ago | (#47241491)

I actually *had* pertussis back in 2001 (my '60s vintage vaccine wore off). It is horrible, I was coughing to the point of vomiting.

I hope the anti-vaxxers all get it and drop dead from it.

I don't think we need to immunize child so early (-1)

randomErr (172078) | about a month and a half ago | (#47240507)

I think there's enough creditable evidence out there to suggest that young children under the age of 3 shouldn't have any immunization because thier systems aren't developed enough to deal with the shots. But by 3 they should be required to be immunized before attending and public school. Also I this there should be mandated boosters in public middle and highschool. You don't want to follow the rules then you don't get the free education.

Re:I don't think we need to immunize child so earl (1)

SecurityGuy (217807) | about a month and a half ago | (#47240527)

Cite, please.

The whole reason we vaccinate is because it's been shown that fewer people get sick or die when we do. Yes, there are sometimes adverse reactions, but it's worse when we don't.

Also, the "free" education is neither free nor voluntary. You pay for it in taxes. You send your kids or you go to jail, unless send them to a different, approved school.

Re:I don't think we need to immunize child so earl (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47240571)

Educating your children is not voluntary; how you get them that education is. If you don't want to pay tuition you can send them to a public school or teach them yourself. Otherwise, you can pay to send them to a private school.

dom

Re:I don't think we need to immunize child so earl (1)

SecurityGuy (217807) | about a month and a half ago | (#47241319)

Around here, you can educate them yourself by opening your own state approved school and following certain rules. That's what homeschooling looks like here. You can't just "teach them yourself". Obviously, things may differ in your jurisdiction.

Re:I don't think we need to immunize child so earl (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47240597)

I think th at your post is evidence that you're a complete and total idiot.

Re:I don't think we need to immunize child so earl (1, Insightful)

mysidia (191772) | about a month and a half ago | (#47240611)

We do require; the problem is many states allow an exemption for personal beliefs.

The vaccination should be required regardless of beliefs or conscientious objection by the parents, because other People's safety is at risk.

Furthermore... if the reason for exemption is medical; this should require at least two healthcare officials to verify it and sign off on it, and there should be a requirement to renew the certification every year.

Also, the immunization certificates should have conspicuous expiration dates before the next booster is needed for each vaccine, and schools should be required to verify these annually.

The certificate should also be required to be admitted to an institution of higher education, to buy or own real property, to register a vehicle, to obtain airplane tickets, boarding pass, or to step into an airplane, to obtain and renew a driver's license or other ID with a stamp making it an immunization ID as well, proof of immunization (or presentation of drivers license/ID that certification is required for) should be necessary to enter publicly owned buildings where a large number of people may be present, and employers should be required to verify certificate (or require vaccination) before employing any new worker. Obtaining social security, unemployment, welfare benefits, should also require an active immunization certificate.

In other words: there should be gates requiring citizens to have proper immunization or medical exemption from them.

Re:I don't think we need to immunize child so earl (1)

transporter_ii (986545) | about a month and a half ago | (#47240805)

because other People's safety is at risk

Oh, if only there was something we could give children to keep them from getting sick. Then personal choices would not put other people at risk, only the people that opt out would take their chances.

Re:I don't think we need to immunize child so earl (1)

forsted (3658407) | about a month and a half ago | (#47240957)

Too bad such a thing does not exist. Vaccines, after all, are not 100% effective. And some people, particularly the very young or elderly, have compromised immune systems or are unable to receive vaccinations for other reasons, and must rely on the rest of the population being immunised to prevent them from getting sick.

Re:I don't think we need to immunize child so earl (1)

mysidia (191772) | about a month and a half ago | (#47241357)

Then personal choices would not put other people at risk, only the people that opt out would take their chances.

This seems like no more a 'personal choice', than a choice to not pay taxes.

Or to run an unsecured computer on the internet, or open e-mail proxy, that spammers can abuse.

The thing is... a person's 'personal' choice to be vulnerable to a contagion will always put other people at risk, unless they have a 100% quarantine, since once you are infected, you have provided the contagion a place to fester and evolve, that is -- to randomly mutate, and if any of the mutations turns out to have increased resistance against the vaccine, you have provided the contagion the tools needed to defeat the vaccine.

Perhaps by your logic ... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47241189)

The vaccination should be required regardless of beliefs or conscientious objection by the parents, because other People's safety is at risk.

Perhaps by your logic we should also give up all our privacy because by refusing we allow criminals and terrorists amongst us to plot away and that puts people's safety at risk.

Re:I don't think we need to immunize child so earl (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47240659)

There is NO credible evidence for that. Also, giving dozens of shots to a 3 year old (in other words, waiting) is stupid, and I see this a lot. The kids are old enough to struggle, throw a tantrum, and hate ever coming to the doctor's office. Nice job parents. Immunization delay has no benefits, real harms, and real risks.

Re:I don't think we need to immunize child so earl (1)

EvilSS (557649) | about a month and a half ago | (#47240661)

I think there's enough creditable evidence out there to suggest that young children under the age of 3 shouldn't have any immunization because thier systems aren't developed enough to deal with the shots. But by 3 they should be required to be immunized before attending and public school. Also I this there should be mandated boosters in public middle and highschool. You don't want to follow the rules then you don't get the free education.

Care to post some links to this "creditable evidence"?

Re:I don't think we need to immunize child so earl (3, Informative)

magamiako1 (1026318) | about a month and a half ago | (#47240773)

There is no credible evidence that early vaccinations cause issues with children. That's a bunch of horse shit.

Life is not just to stay alive. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47240521)

Frankly, with the amount of bullshit that authority figures come up with to consolidate their power in any dying empire (whether in the capitalism of one firm that was the USSR or the capitalism of a handful of firms that is the US), I'm not surprised that the average person finds it hard to decide when to believe what they're told from on high.

Fact is, nobody reading this post is smart enough to have come up with the idea of vaccinations, and very few have more than a scintilla of understanding as to why they work - even then, they're just reciting what teacher told them. So, accepting argument by authority, the challenge is to decide who is appropriate authority.

Care to bet where it came from? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47240543)

... south of the border.

And whooping cough is likely to be only the first of several diseases which became rare in this country but will soon make a comeback.

3,458? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47240603)

That is not an epidemic.

Re:3,458? (2)

jellie (949898) | about a month and a half ago | (#47240735)

It depends on how many cases you expect. Smallpox has been eradicated worldwide, so a single case is considered an epidemic. Ebola is so rare and deadly that a small number is needed for it to be called an outbreak or an epidemic. Whooping cough is more common, but this recent outbreak is at a much higher rate than normal.

http://www.washoecounty.us/hea... [washoecounty.us]

Re:3,458? (0)

rubycodez (864176) | about a month and a half ago | (#47241055)

not eradicated as long as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in the United States and the State Research Center of Virology and Biotechnology VECTOR in Koltsovo, Russia have stockpiles of the virus. They have refused to destroy them even after WHO scientists and other groups have said no good purpose for humanity is served by keeping them, they present only a danger. makes one wonder....

IT'S THE GOVERNMENT! THEY'RE THE ONES! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47240633)

I told you so!

Yours,
Jenny McCarthy

Yes, be good sheep and take big pharma shots (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47240911)

I really hate the attitude of the slashdot group think that vaccines are safe and help the herd on a whole.
Unless you've taken a look at the "source" how do you all really know the vaccines are safe?
Do you all like being injected with mercury or other harmful materials to keep the "herd" safe?
Are you absolutely sure that the vaccine won't give you problems later on in life?
Of course you're not. Big pharma would never do anything to make you dependent later on in life.
Stupid f'ing sheep....

Re:Yes, be good sheep and take big pharma shots (1, Insightful)

mrbester (200927) | about a month and a half ago | (#47241093)

Do you mean thiomersal, the mercuric component of which is readily excreted by the body in less than a month with no ill effects and hasn't been used as a vaccine preservative in US, Europe and elsewhere since 1999?

Ignorant fear monger.

Re:Yes, be good sheep and take big pharma shots (2, Interesting)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a month and a half ago | (#47241229)

Do you mean thiomersal, the mercuric component of which is readily excreted by the body in less than a month with no ill effects

Still a matter for debate.

and hasn't been used as a vaccine preservative in US, Europe and elsewhere since 1999?

False [cdc.gov] .

The Shrieking of the Anti-Antivaxxers is defeaning (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47240969)

Because some people chose not to (or cannot) get vaccinated, its THEIR fault that the vaccinated got the disease anyways? People should be shrieking about why the vaccine doesn't work.

But we can't have anyone daring to question the efficacy or side effects especially as the amount of vaccines being "required" increases all the time. Currently, there are 57 doses of vaccinations on the list to be taken from 0-18 years of age going by the CDC list, if you include 18 yearly flu shots. If a parent dares question if they should be putting so much into their child's body, they are evil and so is Jenny Mcarthy and anyone else who questions it for that matter.

You get what you get (1)

amightywind (691887) | about a month and a half ago | (#47240993)

Import the world's dregs and you get what you get. If we encouraged immigration from Denmark or Austria we wouldn't have these problems.

Real information on the pertussis vaccine. (5, Informative)

Vellmont (569020) | about a month and a half ago | (#47241069)

The article is terrible. The CDC has a very good FAQ on the pertussis vaccine.

http://www.cdc.gov/pertussis/a... [cdc.gov]

Q: Can pertussis be prevented with vaccines?

A: Yes. Pertussis, or whooping cough, can be prevented with vaccines. Before pertussis vaccines became widely available in the 1940s, about 200,000 children got sick with it each year in the US and about 9,000 died as a result of the infection. Now we see about 10,000–40,000 cases reported each year and unfortunately about 10–20 deaths.

Pertussis vaccines are recommended for people of all ages. Infants and children should get 5 doses of DTaP for maximum protection. A dose is given at 2, 4 and 6 months, at 15 through 18 months, and again at 4 through 6 years. A booster dose of Tdap is given to preteens at 11 or 12 years of age.

Any adolescents or adults who didn't get Tdap as a preteen should get one dose. Getting Tdap is especially important for pregnant women. It’s also important that those who care for infants are up-to-date with pertussis vaccination. You can get the Tdap booster dose no matter when you got your last regular tetanus booster shot (Td). Also, you need to get Tdap even if you were vaccinated as a child or have been sick with pertussis in the past.

Learn more about preventing pertussis.

car

Whooping cough can be deadly for babies. Learn how to protect them through vaccination. See this infographic.

Q: Why is the focus on protecting infants from pertussis?

A: Infants are at greatest risk for getting pertussis and then having severe complications from it, including death. About half of infants younger than 1 year old who get pertussis are hospitalized, and 1 or 2 in 100 hospitalized infants die.

There are two strategies to protect infants until they're old enough to receive vaccines and build their immunity against this disease.

First, vaccinate pregnant women with Tdap during each pregnancy, preferably at 27 through 36 weeks. By getting Tdap during pregnancy, mothers build antibodies that are transferred to the newborn, likely providing protection against pertussis in early life, before the baby can start getting DTaP vaccines at 2 months old. Tdap also helps protect mothers during delivery, making them less likely to transmit pertussis to their infants.

Second, make sure everyone around the infant is immunized. This includes parents, siblings, grandparents (including those 65 years and older), other family members, babysitters, etc. They should be up-to-date with the age-appropriate vaccine (DTaP or Tdap) at least two weeks before coming into close contact with the infant. Unless pregnant, only one dose of Tdap is recommended in a lifetime.

These two strategies should reduce infection in infants, since health data have shown that, when the source of pertussis could be identified, mothers were responsible for 30-40% of infant infections and all household members were responsible for about 80% of infections.

It's also critical that healthcare professionals are up-to-date with a one-time Tdap booster dose, especially those who care for infants.

Learn more about infant complications.

Top of Page

Q: Do pertussis vaccines protect for a lifetime? If I've had whooping cough, do I still need a pertussis booster?

A: Getting sick with pertussis or getting pertussis vaccines doesn't provide lifelong protection, which means you can still get pertussis and pass it onto infants.

Pertussis vaccines are effective, but not perfect. They typically offer high levels of protection within the first 2 years of getting vaccinated, but then protection decreases over time. This is known as waning immunity. Similarly, natural infection may also only protect you for a few years.

In general, DTaP vaccines are 80-90% effective. Among kids who get all 5 doses of DTaP on schedule, effectiveness is very high within the year following the 5th dose – at least 9 out of 10 kids are fully protected. There is a modest decrease in effectiveness in each following year. About 7 out of 10 kids are fully protected 5 years after getting their last dose of DTaP and the other 3 out of 10 kids are partially protected – protecting against serious disease.

Our current estimate is that Tdap vaccination protects 7 out of 10 people who receive it. Since Tdap vaccines were only licensed in 2005, we don't yet have results on long-term vaccine protection. We're still working to understand how that protection declines over time or might differ based on which vaccine was received during early childhood (i.e., DTaP or DTP). CDC will be conducting an evaluation in collaboration with health departments in Washington and California to better understand how long Tdap vaccines protect from pertussis. The data from these evaluations will help guide discussions on how best to use vaccines to control pertussis.

Keeping up-to-date with recommended pertussis vaccines is the best way to protect you and your loved ones.

Learn more about protection from vaccines and infection.

 
Q: Do pertussis vaccines protect from severe disease?

A: If you've been vaccinated and get pertussis, you are less likely to have a severe infection. Typically, your cough won't last as many days and coughing fits, whooping, and vomiting after coughing fits won't occur as often. When vaccinated children get pertussis, fewer have apnea (life-threatening pauses in breathing), cyanosis (blue/purplish skin coloration due to lack of oxygen), and vomiting.

Learn more about pertussis symptoms.

Top of Page

Q: Why are reported cases of pertussis increasing?

A: Since the early 1980s, there has been an overall trend of an increase in reported pertussis cases. Pertussis is naturally cyclic in nature, with peaks in disease every 3-5 years. But for the past 20-30 years, we've seen the peaks getting higher and overall case counts going up. There are several reasons that help explain why we're seeing more cases as of late. These include: increased awareness, improved diagnostic tests, better reporting, more circulation of the bacteria, and waning immunity.

When it comes to waning immunity, it seems that the acellular pertussis vaccine (DTaP) we use now may not protect for as long as the whole cell vaccine (DTP) we used to use. Throughout the 1990s, the US switched from using DTP to using DTaP for infants and children. Whole cell vaccines are associated with higher rates of minor and temporary side effects such as fever and pain and swelling at the injection site. Rare but serious neurologic adverse reactions including chronic neurological problems rarely occurred among children who had recently received whole cell vaccines. While studies have had inconsistent results that the vaccine could cause chronic neurological problems, public concern in the US and other countries led to a concerted effort to develop a vaccine with improved safety. Due to these concerns, along with the availability of a safe and effective acellular vaccine, the US switched to acellular pertussis vaccines.

Learn more about DTaP waning immunity Adobe PDF file [140 KB, 1 page] and pertussis outbreaks.


Q: I've heard about parents refusing to get their children vaccinated and travelers to the U.S. spreading disease; are they to blame for pertussis outbreaks?

A: Even though children who haven't received DTaP vaccines are at least 8 times more likely to get pertussis than children who received all 5 recommended doses of DTaP, they are not the driving force behind the large scale outbreaks or epidemics. However, their parents are putting them at greater risk of getting a serious pertussis infection and then possibly spreading it to other family or community members.

We often see people blaming pertussis outbreaks on people coming to the US from other counties. This is not the case. Pertussis was never eliminated from the US like measles or polio, so there's always the chance for it to get into a community. Plus, every country vaccinates against pertussis.

Learn more about pertussis in other countries.

Top of Page

Q: Are most coughs pertussis and does everyone with pertussis "whoop"?

A: There are a lot of causes behind a person's cough and not every cough is pertussis. In general, pertussis starts off with cold-like symptoms and maybe a mild cough or fever. But after 1 to 2 weeks, severe coughing can begin. Unlike the common cold, pertussis can become a series of coughing fits that continues for weeks. The best way to know if you have pertussis is to see your doctor, who can make a diagnosis and prescribe antibiotics if needed.

The name "whooping cough" comes from the sound people make gasping for air after a pertussis coughing fit. However, not everyone with pertussis will cough and many who cough will not "whoop."

Teens and adults, especially those who haven't been vaccinated, may have a prolonged cough that keeps them up at night. Those who do get the coughing fits say it's the worst cough of their lives. And the cough may last for weeks or months, causing major disruptions to daily life and complications like broken ribs and ruptured blood vessels.

Infants may not cough at all. Instead, they may have life-threatening pauses in breathing or struggle to breathe. Any time someone is struggling to breathe, get them to a doctor right away.

Learn more about pertussis symptoms.

 
Q: Are pertussis bacteria changing and causing an increase in pertussis cases?

A: CDC is evaluating potential causes of increasing rates of pertussis, including changes in disease-causing bacteria types ("strains"). Unlike a foodborne illness where one strain causes an outbreak, multiple types or strains of pertussis bacteria can be found causing disease at any given time, including during outbreaks.

Learn more about CDC's Pertussis Strains.

Top of Page

Q: How contagious is pertussis?

A: Pertussis spreads easily from person to person through coughing and sneezing. A person with pertussis can infect up to 12 to 15 other people. That's why being up-to-date with pertussis vaccines and practicing good cough etiquette are so important.

Many infants who get pertussis are infected by older siblings, parents or caregivers who might not know they have the disease. If pertussis is circulating in the community, there's a chance that even a fully vaccinated person of any age can catch this very contagious disease. But if you've been vaccinated, your infection is usually less severe.

If you or your child develops a cold that includes a severe cough or a cough that lasts a long time, it may be pertussis. The best way to know is to contact your doctor.

Learn more about pertussis transmission.

 
Q: Doesn't herd immunity protect most people?

A: Herd immunity, or community immunity, is a situation in which, through vaccination or prior illness, a sufficient proportion of a population is immune to an infectious disease, making its spread from person to person unlikely. Even individuals not vaccinated (such as newborns and those with chronic illnesses) are typically protected because the disease has little opportunity to spread within their community. Since pertussis spreads so easily, vaccine protection decreases over time, and acellular pertussis vaccines may not prevent colonization, we can't rely on herd immunity to protect everyone.

Vaccines are the most effective tool we have to provide protection against pertussis. It's important that everyone get their recommended pertussis vaccines to protect themselves.

Learn more about vaccine coverage.

Re:Real information on the pertussis vaccine. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47241177)

Thank you, good stuff here!

Herd immunity (1)

Brennan Pratt (3614719) | about a month and a half ago | (#47241185)

A wonderful side effect is not giving a disease a lot of warm bodies to mutate in. It would be interesting to see whether patient zero was immunized.

Enjoy the illegal immigration! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47241255)

Enjoy the TB also :)

Thanks for nothing, anti-vaxxers. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47241273)

You people are doing about as much damage to society as the potheads. Thanks for undoing our progress in keeping people healthy and safe.

When did measles, mumps, etc. become 'deadly'? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47241287)

Vaccination in TV programmes and books, pre 1980s:
'The masters or sitcom' by Ray Galton and Alan Simpson, p161:
BILL: Go round kissing all the babies. That'll get the votes. ...
ANDREE: How is he doctor?
KENNETH: Oh, it's nothing to worry about, just a slight case of measles. Plenty of rest, he'll be all right in a week or two. ...
TONY: (Disgusted) Measles. Whose bright idea was it to go round kissing all the babies?
BILL: Well, I'm sorry, Tub.
TONY: 'Don't forget the one with the freckles,' he says. Aaah... If I get half as many votes as I've got spots, I'll sweep the country.

Doctor at Large, Series 1 Ep. 25, 2:14 Dr. Upton is taken ill and says "Feels like mumps. I had mumps. I had it when I was eight."
Catweazle, series 1, final part, 'The Trickery Lantern', 2:30 Flo (Mr. Bennett's sister); "You were just like this with chickenpox." Mr. Bennett; "Chickenpox?" Flo; "When you were nine." Mr. Bennett; "When I was? ...Really, Flo, you can't possibly remember that." Flo; "I can! Of course I can, George. Mother let me stay up to read you Treasure Island."
Catweazle, Series 1, Episode 4, 'The Witching Hour', 22:20, Miss Bonnington says "My arch enemy, Mrs. Willougbhy wasn't there." Mr. Bennett (Carrot's father); "Wasn't there?" Miss Bonnington; "Terribly funny, you'd never believe it. She's suddenly gone down with measles!" Carrot; "Measles?" Miss Bonnington; "Funny that - so sudden - several cases in the village of course, but she was perfectly alright this afternoon in the hairdressers. Hope I don't catch it!" (laughing out loud)
Steptoe and Son Christmas Special - Chickenpox, last five minutes.
Robin's Nest, Series 2, Episode 7, 10:10, Robin's brother's got mumps.
Robin's Nest, Series 3, Episode 4, 18:20 - Mr Nicholls said he hadn't had mumps.
The Famous Five - Five Go Adventuring Again, 2:00 - George says "And what with that, and my being ill, he thought it would be a good idea if we all have lessons", Anne says "Your spots have all gone", George replies "I know, I was officially de-measled this morning".
Man About the House - Series 1, Episode 3 - After the Monopoly game, Chrissie says "I haven't had so much fun since I had the mumps".
"Larry Grayson on Pebble Mill 1992" in Mpegs/Comedy, 4:39, said he had measles twice.
'The Adventures of Tom Sawyer' directed by Selznick. 10:33,
Tom: Where have you been such a long time. I haven't seen you since we got engaged.
Girl: I had the chickenpox.
Tom: You haven't got it now, have you?
Girl: No, silly, think my ma would let me out if I wasn't all cured?
Oliver Postgage book "Seeing things", page 12: (When he was six or seven) "but I saw little of the place because I almost immediately came down with measles... a day or two later when Grandad himself turned up, really just to pat me and wish me well because by then I was over the worst of the measles."
(This was in 1930-1932)

Would any of you like to explain why EVERY child had measles and mumps forty years ago (when I was a child), and nobody was remotely concerned about these 'dangerous' diseases? The constant references to them in television programmes, listed above, as NO BIG DEAL, proves my point. Anything to say?

Measles outbreak in a 98% vaccinated population:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1646939/

Liability (1)

Brennan Pratt (3614719) | about a month and a half ago | (#47241309)

Here's hoping the couples with dead babies have the wherewithal to sue the unvaccinated that got the disease first. Rich people only understand liability.

How was smallpox 'vaccine' made? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47241515)

"HOW WAS THE SMALLPOX VACCINE MADE?

From an original monograph by Dr Walter Hadwen, here is an account of how smallpox vaccine was first made:

1. A 3 month old calf was tied down on its side.
2. 30 – 50 one inch incisions were made in its stomach
3. Smallpox pus rubbed into each incision
4. Calf is returned to its pen, restrained so as to be unable to lick the sores
5. Wait one week.
6. Smallpox pustules form
7. Calf strapped down again
8. Encrusted pus is scraped off each sore and the remaining blood, lymph, and pus is then drained out.
9. It is placed in a crucible and heated, adding glycerine as a binder
10. Mixed and strained to remove hair and dead flesh.
11. Poured into tubes as sold as pure calf lymph – or smallpox vaccine.

Very scientific. This formula was used for decades, even up to modern times, continuing with Dryvax in 1944. [34] The new smallpox vaccines are still made from this ‘purified calf lymph’ but with one modern twist: the post 9/11 vaccine is now cultured on the cells of an aborted human fetus. [35]."

Any comments from the 'vaccination' believers?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>