Re:DR Congo measles: More than 6k dead in world's worst outb...
by tzs on Wednesday January 08, 2020 @09:14AM
(#21991574)
That's a great argument for persuading someone in a population where measles is rampant that they need to get vaccinated (or get their kids vaccinated). The US in the 1950s, for example, was such a population. 95% of the population got measles by age 15 [1].
Given the numbers you give [2], as long as the measles rate is above 2500 per 100k in your population the probability of going deaf from measles in a non-vaccinated person is higher than the probability of something really bad happening to that person from vaccination.
For persuading someone in a population where measles is rare due to past eradication efforts and herd immunity it's not so great an argument. In the US, we are way below 2500 per 100k.
To make a persuasive case using that approach you are going to need to pull in all the possible bad outcomes of measles. Deafness, death, and whatever else it can do. That might do it.
The ideal way to deal with a diseases is universal vaccination (except for people who for medical reasons cannot be safely vaccinated) until the disease is completely eradicated, then stop vaccination people.
Near the end of that, though, you reach a stage where the disease has not been completely eradicated but is rare enough that for any given individual skipping vaccination may actually be lower risk for them personally provided that enough other people do get vaccinated.
At that point, you have to switch to arguments based on the good of the group as a whole instead of personal risk to individuals.
Given the numbers you give [2], as long as the measles rate is above 2500 per 100k in your population the probability of going deaf from measles in a non-vaccinated person is higher than the probability of something really bad happening to that person from vaccination.
For persuading someone in a population where measles is rare due to past eradication efforts and herd immunity it's not so great an argument. In the US, we are way below 2500 per 100k.
To make a persuasive case using that approach you are going to need to pull in all the possible bad outcomes of measles. Deafness, death, and whatever else it can do. That might do it.
The ideal way to deal with a diseases is universal vaccination (except for people who for medical reasons cannot be safely vaccinated) until the disease is completely eradicated, then stop vaccination people.
Near the end of that, though, you reach a stage where the disease has not been completely eradicated but is rare enough that for any given individual skipping vaccination may actually be lower risk for them personally provided that enough other people do get vaccinated.
At that point, you have to switch to arguments based on the good of the group as a whole instead of personal risk to individuals.
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6878996
[2] I'm assuming 1:N means odds are 1 to N, meaning a probability of 1/(N+1).