http://m.ocregister.com/articles/outbre ... rcent.html

The implications are pretty simple: The outbreak was fueled by pockets of under-vaccinated people,” said author Maimuna Majumder, of Boston Children’s Hospital and Massachusetts Institute of Technology. “In many ways, the outbreak is a real-life example of what happens when herd immunity is compromised.”

So the numbers were crunched and the conclusion is clear?
Really?

Here is the scientific method of discovery that has been violated:

The hypothetico-deductive model or method is a proposed description of scientific method. According to it, scientific inquiry proceeds by formulating a hypothesis in a form that could conceivably be falsified by a test on observable data. A test that could and does run contrary to predictions of the hypothesis is taken as a falsification of the hypothesis. A test that could but does not run contrary to the hypothesis corroborates the theory. It is then proposed to compare the explanatory value of competing hypotheses by testing how stringently they are corroborated by their predictions

-Wiki

When was the testing done to provide evidence and or counter evidence for empirical verification / falsification.

This is a fine example of data being brought to an untested hypothesis instead of taking the hypothesis to data that has been generated from testing that can be replicated.

Irresponsible and dishonest. It seems as if vigorous methodology has been bypassed in favor of scare and pressure tactics.

I am skeptical of this type of "science"

ant wrote:When was the testing done to provide evidence and or counter evidence for empirical verification / falsification.

This is a fine example of data being brought to an untested hypothesis instead of taking the hypothesis to data that has been generated from testing that can be replicated.

Irresponsible and dishonest. It seems as if vigorous methodology has been bypassed in favor of scare and pressure tactics.

There are hundreds of studies on the optimal percentage of vaccinated individuals required for herd immunity for various diseases. The findings are represented in models rather than in hypotheses. If the percentage of vaccinated people at Disneyland fell below this percentage by a good margin, why is it an irresponsible and dishonest conclusion to say that under-vaccination is a primary cause of the outbreak?

"If" is not a percentage that corroborates a hypothesis, that remains untested to boot.

please tell me what percentage of people at ground zero were not vaccinated, then compare that to one of the hundreds of studies youve mentioned and that you will provide a link for us to examine.



Yes. I know this is an emotional topic.

Questions:
Can a person catch the measles despite having been vaccinated?
Who was patient zero and has it been confirmed he or she was not vaccinated?

Canada has fallen victim to our measels outbreak, apparently.
The province of Quebec is experiencing a spike in cases attributed to southern ca.

And yet Canada met their immunization coverage goals with flying colors.

http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/im/nics-enva/icc-cvc-eng.php

Can you tell me why their herds still caught our measels?
How would one of the hundreds of models youve mentioned explain this?

ant wrote:please tell me what percentage of people at ground zero were not vaccinated, then compare that to one of the hundreds of studies youve mentioned and that you will provide a link for us to examine.

The herd immunity threshold of measles varies from 85-96% depending on the model. If a 90% threshold is passed, the oubreak rates spike.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24211476

The estimated rate of vaccination at Disneyland was 50-86%.

ant wrote:Can a person catch the measles despite having been vaccinated?
Who was patient zero and has it been confirmed he or she was not vaccinated?

Why are you raging at science before answering these questions yourself to see if your criticisms are on point? What does patient zero have to do with herd immunity?

ant wrote:Can you tell me why their herds still caught our measels?
How would one of the hundreds of models youve mentioned explain this?

Do you have a link more recent than 2012, with the associated studies and vaccination rates?


This is the reason hyper-skepticism is so dangerous. You mistakenly think your criticisms are valid, and it's not a far walk before you find yourself in the territory of anti-vaccers or climate change denialists. The science here is sound, if you'd take the time to research a bit.

Where did you get the Disneyland vaccination approximation?


Im estimating that Canada's recent numbers (the numbers arent old at all really) are approximately equivalent to what they have been good at maintaining consistently.
Yourr the only one thats allowed an approximation?
Prove it fell below their 90s percentage.
Grant that Canada has maintained their immunization rates and tell me why the spike.
You cant always have the free speculation pass in your hands.

Calm down. You can defend science some more tomorrow.

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH. ... /countries

95% in 2014.

I also discovered that some people who caught it had already been vaccinated
Its rare but it happens.

ant wrote:You cant always have the free speculation pass in your hands.

My answer is "I don't know" quite often. Or, I have no freaking clue. It's fun to speculate beyond this, but I won't pretend it's anything more.

I went to Disneyland 2 weeks ago checked on my families vaccines. The doctor told me I should get a booster because it's been so long. My vaccine may no longer protect me. Being the stubborn mule I am, I told him no. It would have served me right to contract measles. For whatever reason, at least some vaccines loose their effectiveness over time.

ant wrote:Where did you get the Disneyland vaccination approximation?

From your article, in the first post. That's the number to criticize if you feel the need. The margin is huge.

http://www.livescience.com/50147-disney ... rates.html


Look at these comments posted by someone (I'm going to look into what this person said. sounds like it's worth investigating)
(ignore the vitriol)

More Pharma BS if you are paying attention.
Fallacy #1 in the math model: Immunity == Vaccinated and Vaccinated == Immunity. It is well known that MMR completely wears off in late teens. All college students are recommended by the CDC to get a booster shot if traveling to a foreign country. It's even on the package insert for MMR2. The research model fails to identify and model the age of those that contracted the disease. I know from California government public sources about 60% were adults and 15% were fully vaccinated children.
Fallacy #2: The population at Disney land and it's vaccination rate can be extended uniformly to all California school children That is really absurd, given the population of adults and visitors from foreign countries. Using this to scapegoat PBE's in California is an intentional and gross distortion of the facts. It's criminal and Live science is a disgrace.

What about my point re Canada, Interbane?

I don't think its the picture that's trying to be painted here (its all the fault of all the crazies that wont get immunized).

Yes, I think you should have gotten your booster

What happens when the vaccination rate falls below threshold is the disease can gain a footing and spread from that point. Disneyland was considered an undervaccinated "pocket" within the US, so the disease gained a foothold there. Once it gains a foothold, it can spread far and wide, all across the western hemisphere. Not that these isolated cases will spread even further. That isn't likely to happen unless the location the disease spread to is also under the vaccination threshold. Herd immunity doesn't mean all cases will be eliminated, especially when there are transmission pathways into the herd. Those few who aren't vaccinated can still get the disease. But for this to happen, the disease must have gained a foothold somewhere else.

ant wrote:Look at these comments posted by someone (I'm going to look into what this person said. sounds like it's worth investigating)
(ignore the vitriol)

MMR is shown to last up to 20 years, beyond which you need a booster. I had a booster in my late teens, and am recommended to get another. The problem with vaccines is that there is a bunch of BS in the mix. I know it's good to get the flu vaccine(I've gotten it before and was the only one in my family who didn't get sick). But I've also gotten the flu vaccine then fell sick to a mutated strain. I felt duped. It's also true that a vaccine doesn't grant perfect lifelong immunity. It changes the odds, and wears off over time.

The hardest thing to do in these heated arenas is be adequately skeptical without dropping off the edge into hyperskepticism. Both ends of that spectrum are dangerous. On the one end you have the gullibles that eat miracle science pills by the dozen that are more harmful than helpful. On the other end you have the gullibles(hyperskeptics) who buy all the conspiracy theory bugaboo and refuse to accept those parts of modern medicine that are helpful. Both ends appear gullible to me, and the toughest position to hold is somewhere between the two. It's so easy to be drawn into people's polarized rhetoric.