Whaaat? I think the $18k – $20k a year tuition alone would prevent that from happening! What a ridiculous and ignorant statement. That alone sizes up the article. If any info here is true, it is certainly discredited now by this wacko statement.

Among those 32, sure, it may not be that none of them have *any* of their shots. But it’s pretty fair to assume that they’re missing a lot of them or they wouldn’t bother getting this exemption.

I think this blog post is entirely justified by the data we have.

Really, what we’re dealing with here is people who still believe a widely debunked theory about vaccines, and who think that the risk of a vaccine is higher than the risk of infection (demonstrably false), and in doing so, effectively increase risks for everyone, especially immuno-compromised kids.

Little Richie Richie probably won’t die of whooping cough, measles, mumps, or hep B, because mommie and daddy have the financial resources to get the best available care. The same can not be said to other people they may spread the infection too.

There are children all around the world in developing countries whose parents are desperate to get a vaccination, but can’t. It will take a serious epidemic and a bunch of anti-vax kids dying off, before this sad state of affairs rights itself and people wise up and stop believing in pseudo-scientific newage bullshit.

Wasn’t the study that “discovered” that connection finally debunked as a fraud?

If autism is truly rising — and it may simply be diagnosed more frequently than in the past — then any number of factors could be in play. Without evidence connecting autism to vaccines, I would hesitate to jump to that conclusion.

The Waldorf school is for rich, crunchy liberals who feel like our society pushes policies for the benefit of the drug companies as much as, if not more so, than our health. There is some truth to that. I’ve heard of having chicken pox parties so that one infected child can help others without the vaccine develop their own resistance the old fashioned way. This is a bit extreme and a threat to the frail, but otherwise not life threatening.

My point is that you have to understand what these numbers mean. 23% sounds very dangerous. But if that means the children are only missing the chicken pox and hepatitis B vaccines, I’m thinking we really don’t have anything to worry about.

In addition I’d like to point out that the fanatic pro vaccine policies in the US are a mass experiment. The high rate of autism on the Peninsula has lead many to believe that the combination of some vaccines might have been a factor. So while we are trying to prevent an epidemic, we could have and may potentially in the future create one. A little caution might not be a bad thing.

This is pure speculation because I don’t live in a high poverty area, but I imagine that schools with a lot of students living in poverty are somewhat flexible about the vaccine requirement. I doubt that the school personnel would be too quick to turn away children who need the stability of school, not to mention the two free meals. Here’s something from a Chicago Tribune article earlier this year.

“At Paul Revere Elementary School on Chicago’s South Side, where nearly all of the families are low-income, about 20 percent were not fully vaccinated against measles.

Many parents can’t read, so understanding and filling out forms can be difficult, said Revere Principal Veronica Thompson. Knowing when a child is due for a shot is another problem.

‘Parents are moving frequently, losing paperwork and do not understand the process,” she said. “When they have multiple children, some are due for immunizations and others are not. Anything that makes it a tedious process for them really has an impact.’ ”

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011- 06-18/health/ct-met-vaccination-rates-sc hools-20110618_1_measles-vaccinations-va ccination-rates-herd-immunity

Even though the small private schools may have higher rates of kids who aren’t wholly vaccinated, there aren’t very many kids who attend those kinds of schools. Unfortunately, the sad reality is that there are many children living in poverty so when there’s a school with 20% of students without all their vaccines, that adds up to a lot of kids. And these are kids who aren’t necessarily consistently getting a healthy diet, or a good night’s sleep or time outside to play and be physically active, which makes them more susceptible to all illnesses, not just vaccine-preventable ones.

If you’re interested, you might want to check out the CDC’s reports on vaccine coverage. Here’s a link to the most recent one on kids 19-35 months old. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml  /mm6034a2.htm?s_cid=mm6034a2_e&source=g ovdelivery It helps me to keep things in perspective and to feel reassured knowing that vaccination rates are high and rising and that the numbers of kids not receiving any vaccines is so low (less than 1%).

May vary by state, though.

In between, there is a large grey area in which the degree to which an outbreak spreads depends on a number of factors specific to the disease itself. For some diseases, a 70% vaccination rate might be sufficient to limit outbreaks to a few thousand. For other diseases, a 70% vaccination rate merely slows the spread of infection. It also depends on the distribution of the vaccination. If the non-vaccinated cluster in communities with others, then the risk of a large outbreak increases dramatically. You only need ONE available vector of exponential increase for that to happen.

Your rough analysis of risk, based on a single outbreak of a single disease and some off-the-cuff logic, offers an insufficient basis to generalize. To properly assess the impact of a 70% vaccination rate you need many more details and a much more complicated model.

“It would not be high enough to prevent me from accessing a Waldorf School in spite of this alarmist article.”

Is up to you… Your chance of encountering somebody with the measles in this country is quite small. But your chance increases dramatically if you live in a community with a low vaccination rate (23%, not 70%). Epidemics will spread more rapidly through communities that eschew vaccination than through communities that do not, so if *any* child in that school encounters somebody with the measles, there is a good chance they will bring that back to share with all their peers. Your chance of contracting the measles when living in a population like that easily goes up by 100-fold (though it is still a small chance).

“virtually ignoring the relatively large numbers of poor, vulnerable children whose parents would get them vaccines if they could access them more easily”

Where are these poor, vulnerable children? Here, at least, vaccinations are required to enter kindergarten or a licensed day care. Vaccination rates for the poor presumably approach 100% once the children reach school age. (And vaccinations are easily accessed at no cost through community clinics.)

“I wonder what the excess risk of morbidity and mortality is in the US for NOT offering universal health coverage.”

Definitely elevated, however the cost of a vaccination program is orders of magnitude cheaper than the cost of universal health coverage.

I did a very rough analysis of risk and the excess risk of illness in a vaccinated individual after a drop in vaccination from 90% and 70% is probably very small. It would not be high enough to prevent me from accessing a Waldorf School in spite of this alarmist article.

I’m right there with MCLB on this: “…that it’s a waste of time and energy to focus on the handful of well-educated parents who are selectively vaccinating and/or the tiny number of parents who decline all vaccines while virtually ignoring the relatively large numbers of poor, vulnerable children whose parents would get them vaccines if they could access them more easily..”

I wonder what the excess risk of morbidity and mortality is in the US for NOT offering universal health coverage.

No, it is a simplified model, and I noted that the results depend strongly on the inputs. I can’t claim credit, however, as you will find something very similar in any elementary chapter on epidemiology. (Yet another value of a college education — you pick up a wide array of random knowledge.)

“In 1989, the vaccine coverage rate was estimated to be about 70% and the number of cases in vaccinated individuals was 8,617.”

Ah, some data! In that epidemic, there were 16,400 cases of measles. If your number is correct, half of them came in vaccinated individuals. Would want more details to understand that better, but your example quite clearly emphasizes the difference between 90%+ vaccination rates (perhaps 100 cases annually) and 70% vaccination (16,400 cases). It is blatantly non-linear.

“I think I’m in the ball park while you are circling Venus with 10% of 300 million.”

Why? Wouldn’t be that many cases every year, but an initial epidemic could approach that number. Once the level of immunity drops to the point that the cases MULTIPLY (r > 1) rather than SHRINK (r < 1), an epidemic is limited only by the size of the population it has to run through. And the fact that after catching the disease you will either be immune or dead.

You will note, however, that my model didn’t reach that number until a 50% vaccination rate, and the precise number depends strongly on the inputs. Was a proof of non-linearity, which ought to be obvious, not a prediction.

There is a larger group who selectively vaccinate by skipping or delaying some vaccines after doing a risk/benefit analysis based on their circumstances. These are people who will likely change their behavior when outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases become widespread and serious complications occur in significant numbers. Many of these parents will choose to get vaccines for their previously unvaccinated children.

Also, I should mention that I pay close attention to this because my young daughter is immunocompromised and can’t get all her vaccines. As cycle pointed out, there are many children who aren’t fully immunized because they are in families living in poverty. These kids, unlike kids living in affluent households with good diets and healthy lifestyles, are more vulnerable to illnesses and more likely to contract a vaccine-preventable illness if exposed.

This year there have been a relatively large number of measles cases. One case was a Waldorf student in Virginia who spent a day in school while contagious. None of the other kids at the school caught measles from the infected student even though the vaccination rates at the school were low.

Another case was a Somali child who contracted measles outside of the country and after returning to Minnesota infected another child at a drop-in childcare facility who went on to infect other individuals living in a homeless shelter and the outbreak spread further from there. Vaccination rates for children are relatively low in the Minnesota Somali community like the Virginia Waldorf school and yet the outcome was so different.

Vaccination rates matter, but they aren’t the only thing that matters when it comes to the spread of vaccine-preventable diseases. As the mom of an immunocompromised child, I’ve just reached the point where I can’t help but think, at least for the time being, that it’s a waste of time and energy to focus on the handful of well-educated parents who are selectively vaccinating and/or the tiny number of parents who decline all vaccines while virtually ignoring the relatively large numbers of poor, vulnerable children whose parents would get them vaccines if they could access them more easily.

In 1989, the vaccine coverage rate was estimated to be about 70% and the number of cases in vaccinated individuals was 8,617. If we have a vaccine coverage of 90% at this point, it suggests an additional risk of 5×10-5 in vaccinated children when you drop vaccination rate from 90% to 70%.

I think I’m in the ball park while you are circling Venus with 10% of 300 million.

But then again, I’m not an epidemiologist.