Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The World Health Organization (WHO) have released a list of the dangers they believe to be the biggest threats to health in 2019. On there are many of the usual suspects, including Ebola, which saw several outbreaks in 2018, and dengue, which infects around 390 million people a year.
Consider the source. Without arguing the politics, I think everybody should be abe to agree that the UN is the ultimate example of a self-serving bureaucracy: Prime Directive-- ensure your own job.
Vaccines-- not all created equally. Some are a blessing to humanity- polio, small pox, Rubella. Others of marginal benefit- Rubeola, mumps. Newer ones becoming available - hepatitis, HPV etc are money makers where simple life-style changes would be almost as effective....The UN apparently doesn't see the biologic benefit of herd immunity-- as long as enough individuals get immunized, the whole herd benefits.
They also don't seem to acknowledge the natural course of infectious disease: a bug that kills its host kills itself, and hosts that survive improve the resistance of the population. That's how evolution works. The natural history of infectious agents is to become less virulent while the host population becomes more resistant. (BTW- their figure of 2 Million deaths per yr from these diseases is 1 in 10,000 deaths- a statistical blip in the data. But big numbers make for good propaganda.
Climate change? ALL govt documents are obligated to mention this-- it's the pathway to control of the naïve proletariat. ..H.sapiens survived the 10deg fall in temps as we went into the last Ice Age and they survived the rise of 10deg as we've come out of it. I think we can handle another 1 deg.
Anti-biotic resistance? That's evolution. If anti-biotics "really worked," then kids with leukemia or drug addicts with AIDS shouldn't have to die of infections. Anti-biotics just make it a little easier for the immune system to do the rea work of "final clean-up." ….As the bugs evolve, we'll have to evolve with new anti-biotics. That's life in The Jungle.
I'd add govt intervention with "carbon taxes" as a threat: when prices of electricity, transportation & heating fuel going up, poor folk won't be able to afford food or heat. They'll be dying of starvation and exposure. Read up on what the German Energiewende has done to some pensioners there.
Consider the source. Without arguing the politics, I think everybody should be abe to agree that the UN is the ultimate example of a self-serving bureaucracy: Prime Directive-- ensure your own job.
Vaccines-- not all created equally. Some are a blessing to humanity- polio, small pox, Rubella. Others of marginal benefit- Rubeola, mumps. Newer ones becoming available - hepatitis, HPV etc are money makers where simple life-style changes would be almost as effective....The UN apparently doesn't see the biologic benefit of herd immunity-- as long as enough individuals get immunized, the whole herd benefits.
They also don't seem to acknowledge the natural course of infectious disease: a bug that kills its host kills itself, and hosts that survive improve the resistance of the population. That's how evolution works. The natural history of infectious agents is to become less virulent while the host population becomes more resistant. (BTW- their figure of 2 Million deaths per yr from these diseases is 1 in 10,000 deaths- a statistical blip in the data. But big numbers make for good propaganda.
Climate change? ALL govt documents are obligated to mention this-- it's the pathway to control of the naïve proletariat. ..H.sapiens survived the 10deg fall in temps as we went into the last Ice Age and they survived the rise of 10deg as we've come out of it. I think we can handle another 1 deg.
Anti-biotic resistance? That's evolution. If anti-biotics "really worked," then kids with leukemia or drug addicts with AIDS shouldn't have to die of infections. Anti-biotics just make it a little easier for the immune system to do the rea work of "final clean-up." ….As the bugs evolve, we'll have to evolve with new anti-biotics. That's life in The Jungle.
I'd add govt intervention with "carbon taxes" as a threat: when prices of electricity, transportation & heating fuel going up, poor folk won't be able to afford food or heat. They'll be dying of starvation and exposure. Read up on what the German Energiewende has done to some pensioners there.
Can't rep you again but I totally agree with your post.
Vaccines-- not all created equally. Some are a blessing to humanity- polio, small pox, Rubella. Others of marginal benefit- Rubeola, mumps. Newer ones becoming available - hepatitis, HPV etc are money makers where simple life-style changes would be almost as effective....The UN apparently doesn't see the biologic benefit of herd immunity-- as long as enough individuals get immunized, the whole herd benefits.
The article specifically addressed the anti-vax movement as a threat. If people do not vaccinate herd immunity breaks down.
As far as lifestyle changes are concerned, what do you say to people who are unwilling to make those changes? Take HPV for example. The only lifestyle that would prevent it is to either be abstinent or only have one life partner, with both partners having had absolutely no sexual experiences with anyone else. If your partner dies or you get divorced, no new partners ever?
Hepatitis B is not exclusively sexually transmitted either.
I am perplexed at how you see measles (rubeola) vaccine as being "of marginal benefit". Measles killed over 100,000 children worldwide in 2017. Survivors are at risk for long term disability from its complications, and measles weakens the immune system for about three years after the infection, increasing the risk of other infections.
"'In other words, reducing measles incidence appears to cause a drop in deaths from other infectious diseases due to indirect effects of measles infection on the human immune system,' Grenfell said. 'At the population level, the data suggests that when measles was rampant, it may have led to a reduction in herd immunity against other infectious diseases.'”
Quote:
They also don't seem to acknowledge the natural course of infectious disease: a bug that kills its host kills itself, and hosts that survive improve the resistance of the population. That's how evolution works. The natural history of infectious agents is to become less virulent while the host population becomes more resistant. (BTW- their figure of 2 Million deaths per yr from these diseases is 1 in 10,000 deaths- a statistical blip in the data. But big numbers make for good propaganda.
I hardly think 2 million deaths is trivial. Hosts that survive contribute to herd immunity, but new, susceptible hosts are born every day. That's why measles continued unabated even when virtually everyone had measles in childhood. All a bug has to do is not kill off everyone of reproductive age.
Quote:
Anti-biotic resistance? That's evolution. If anti-biotics "really worked," then kids with leukemia or drug addicts with AIDS shouldn't have to die of infections. Anti-biotics just make it a little easier for the immune system to do the rea work of "final clean-up." ….As the bugs evolve, we'll have to evolve with new anti-biotics. That's life in The Jungle.
Hepatitis C is a devastating illness, it attacks the liver bit by bit over time, causing it to scar repeatedly in an attempt to heal itself, until cirrhosis (caused by fibrosis) develops. The most common genotype 1A is the most resistant to treatment, it tends to mutate to evade destruction. And since all of this damage can go undetected (asymptomatic) for several decades, it is quite possible that the virus can be spread unknowingly. It is a blood borne pathogen, IV drug users and gay men have a much greater risk of infection. However, no blood supply is ever 100 percent safe despite screening of blood donors, so any blood products administered put the patient at risk. Cirrhosis is not currently reversible, the only "cure" is a transplant. Many people die waiting for a viable organ. So a vaccine against Hep C would no doubt save many, many lives.
The article specifically addressed the anti-vax movement as a threat. If people do not vaccinate herd immunity breaks down....
I am perplexed at how you see measles (rubeola) vaccine as being "of marginal benefit". Measles killed over 100,000 children worldwide in 2017.
.
Unless the Anti-vax movement starts to involve the majority and not just the fringes, there's no problem.
100,000 = 10^5; There are 7 x10^9 people in the world. A life is on the order of 10^1 yrs, so ~1% of the population dies annually- ie- 7 x 1^7.....so 10^5 / 7 x 10^7 = 1.4 x 10^-3 or 0.14% of all deaths.
We're talking public health issues, not Christianity and the sanctity of every individual life. Don't confuse the Parable of The Good Shepard with Public Policy.
For perspective, 3,100,000 children die of starvation each year (4.4% of all deaths--that's 3000x more deaths in kids from starvation than from measles))-- and we make so much food that we throw 40% of it in the garbage. I bet those hungry kids would like some of the $millions spent on marginal vaccines.
Another way to put the vaccine issue into perspective is to examine the incidence vs the outcome. For baby boomers and older groups- we virtually ALL had measles, mumps & rubella as kids. Complications were rare in general, but devastating problems when a pregnant woman contacted Rubella. I'd say we could argue against Rubeola & Mumps vaccines, but for Rubella a huge benefit in a huge number of possible exposures. Same argument in favor of Polio vaccine-- devastating results of infection with huge risk of exposure.
The case against routine Hep C vaccine (for instance): incidence in US 200,000 cases per yr out of 320,000,000 people. Risk of infection in those who don't use dirty needles is essentially anecdotal. Risk of sever illness or death from Hep C- fairly small (most people with it never know they got it) Is money spent on universal immunization worth it or is it better spent elsewhere? Shouldn't just high risk group get it?
Last edited by guidoLaMoto; 01-19-2019 at 04:38 AM..
Is money spent on universal immunization worth it or is it better sent elsewhere? Shouldn't just high risk group get it?
We could also argue that the billions that we waste on vacations could feed the starving kids around the world. Is a vacation worth more than a life? At least vaccine production is an attempt to save those lives.
I know that we do not have a perfect world. Many times the money donated to charities never gets to the people that it was intended for or only a small fraction does get to help the needy.
It is also evident that our problems will escalate as our world population grows. Many scientist have predicted that will approach the maximum sustainable world population at somewhere between 9 to 12 billion. We are racing to hit that number: World Population by Year - Worldometers. In the year 1800 there were only about one billion people in the whole world. It is evident that we will not solve all of our problems before we max out. Life might be our biggest problem because we create more problems as our population soars?
Unless the Anti-vax movement starts to involve the majority and not just the fringes, there's no problem.
Not true. Maintaining herd immunity for most infectious diseases generally requires more than 80% of the population to be vaccinated. For measles (which is extremely contagious) the number is around 93%. https://www.who.int/immunization/sag...evels_FUNK.pdf
So no, the anti-van movement does not have to involve the majority of the population before it causes problems.
We could also argue that the billions that we waste on vacations could feed the starving kids around the world. Is a vacation worth more than a life? ?
That's the point: we could argue-- there's value judgements regarding priorities to be made.
It's not the slam-dunk decision the govt bureaucracies, the pharmaceutical manufacturers and the lawyers forcing the hand of the physicians would shame us into believing.
In regards world population: many people have a misconception of what maximum population means--
when birth rate exceeds death rate, the population grows. When birth rate equals death rate, population remains constant over time. We reach that point (the carrying capacity) when the rate limiting factor (such as availability of food, water, air, space, etc) is being used to its maximum. Many people think reaching that point will result in a "die off." Not true. It just means stable population numbers.
(BTW- watch for the rate limiting step for H.sapiens to be availability of JOBS. We have more than enough natural resources.)
That's the point: we could argue-- there's value judgements regarding priorities to be made.
It's not the slam-dunk decision the govt bureaucracies, the pharmaceutical manufacturers and the lawyers forcing the hand of the physicians would shame us into believing.
In regards world population: many people have a misconception of what maximum population means--
when birth rate exceeds death rate, the population grows. When birth rate equals death rate, population remains constant over time. We reach that point (the carrying capacity) when the rate limiting factor (such as availability of food, water, air, space, etc) is being used to its maximum. Many people think reaching that point will result in a "die off." Not true. It just means stable population numbers.
(BTW- watch for the rate limiting step for H.sapiens to be availability of JOBS. We have more than enough natural resources.)
The growth rates are coming down; but the densities are still going up. That means that more people are in contact with others. That, in itself, means there is a higher chance to pass along communicable disease. Of course if we saved everybody; there would be more people to spread disease.
Many years ago I was a grunt helping to make the smallpox vaccine. We basically eliminated smallpox in the whole world. Smallpox, as you know, was a terrible way to die. To save lives is the goal of many of the pharmaceutical companies; of course they still have to make money otherwise they would not be in business. The regulations become more strict all the time and they are designed to protect the public. Of course we can always argue how much is too much. That question can only be answered when future historians look back and study our history.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
