Correct, they are effective but not perfect. Pertussis is different in that immunity wanes after two years. Even if you get the infection you're not naturally immune for life and can still get it. There are virtually no risks in vaccinations and an 80-90% effectiveness is well worth it.
Not a single unvaccinated kid contracted whooping cough, yet you're going to stand by this garbage 80-90% effectiveness number? Outbreaks routinely happen in fully vaccinated populations. The problem is their numbers are cooked. The FDA trusts vaccine manufacturers to do their own efficacy and safety studies so this should not be a surprise.
You're making the assumption that every kid was exposed. This is not a valid assumption. However if vaccines are highly effective (>90%) and unvaccinated are more vulnerable, you would expect to see at least at least a few unvaccinated kids contracting it.
True, but this is highly contagious. Instead of bouncing up and down about how some people still go sick I'd expect sane people to say things like "good thing many were vaccinated or this could have been a disaster!"
There's no way to know how many were exposed, but as it's highly communicable in a crowded public place, a lot more than 30 is a safe bet.
Article also mentions that this particular vaccine starts at 80 to 90% and fades over time. How long since these kids the vaccine?
Typically (assuming the manufacturer's numbers to be accurate) the protection wanes gradually over 5-10 years and doesn't simply drop off a clilff after 1 year.
The majority of vaccinated individuals following the recommended vaccine schedule, which takes this into account.
With this in mind, we would expect to see a much higher rate of infection among unvaccinated individuals. To have infection only in vaccinated individuals and none in unvaccinated, the currently accepted efficacacy numbers would have to be wildly off.
Admittedly it's a small sample size, and just back of napkin estimates, but still, by spidey sense is tingling.
view the rest of the comments →
ConservativeDev ago
Correct, they are effective but not perfect. Pertussis is different in that immunity wanes after two years. Even if you get the infection you're not naturally immune for life and can still get it. There are virtually no risks in vaccinations and an 80-90% effectiveness is well worth it.
meowski ago
Not a single unvaccinated kid contracted whooping cough, yet you're going to stand by this garbage 80-90% effectiveness number? Outbreaks routinely happen in fully vaccinated populations. The problem is their numbers are cooked. The FDA trusts vaccine manufacturers to do their own efficacy and safety studies so this should not be a surprise.
Elcycs ago
30 out of 1600-18 is would make it 98.1% effective.
Those knuckleheads must have cooked the numbers backwards!
meowski ago
You're making the assumption that every kid was exposed. This is not a valid assumption. However if vaccines are highly effective (>90%) and unvaccinated are more vulnerable, you would expect to see at least at least a few unvaccinated kids contracting it.
Elcycs ago
True, but this is highly contagious. Instead of bouncing up and down about how some people still go sick I'd expect sane people to say things like "good thing many were vaccinated or this could have been a disaster!"
There's no way to know how many were exposed, but as it's highly communicable in a crowded public place, a lot more than 30 is a safe bet.
Article also mentions that this particular vaccine starts at 80 to 90% and fades over time. How long since these kids the vaccine?
Sounds like it worked as expected to me.
meowski ago
Typically (assuming the manufacturer's numbers to be accurate) the protection wanes gradually over 5-10 years and doesn't simply drop off a clilff after 1 year.
The majority of vaccinated individuals following the recommended vaccine schedule, which takes this into account.
With this in mind, we would expect to see a much higher rate of infection among unvaccinated individuals. To have infection only in vaccinated individuals and none in unvaccinated, the currently accepted efficacacy numbers would have to be wildly off.
Admittedly it's a small sample size, and just back of napkin estimates, but still, by spidey sense is tingling.