4 ms·

Not sure if vaccines are relevant here because -- as per the CDC data, and contrary to popular belief -- child mortality rates were on a downward trend well bef

by amasad 7y ago

Not sure if vaccines are relevant here because -- as per the CDC data, and contrary to popular belief -- child mortality rates were on a downward trend well before the introduction of vaccines in the mid 1960s. The CDC claim it's had a "modest" effect: Infant mortality: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4838a2.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4838a2.htm Edit: children mortality follows similar trend: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/child-mortality?tab=chart&time=1933..2016&country=USA https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/child-mortality?tab=chart...

rpmisms 7y ago
Why is CDC research being downvoted?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- EliRivers 7y ago
  If I had to guess, because it's about infant mortality but the poster presented it in support of an assertion about child mortality; which of course, it says very little about.
smoll 7y ago
> The reduction in vaccine-preventable diseases (e.g., diphtheria, tetanus, measles, poliomyelitis, and Haemophilus influenzae type b meningitis) has reduced infant morbidity and has had a modest effect on infant mortality It says infant mortality, which I assume is 0-1 years of age. What about the effect on child mortality altogether?
- amasad 7y ago
  Infant mortality is probably the biggest factor in "under 5 years old" mortality rate. However, even if you look at children mortality overall, it follows a similar trend: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/child-mortality?tab=chart&time=1933..2016&country=USA https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/child-mortality?tab=chart...
mikeash 7y ago
Note that vaccines were introduced in the late 1700s, not the mid 1960s.
- amasad 7y ago
  No.
  - mikeash 7y ago
    Yes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_vaccines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_vaccines
    - amasad 7y ago
      This is like saying we've been 'programming' since Ada Lovelace wrote the first program in the 1840, which is silly to say the least. The CDC starts measure after a vaccine has passed the 'licensure' process: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/su6004a9.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/su6004a9.htm
      - mikeash 7y ago
        Programming wasn’t saving thousands of lives in the 1840s. Vaccines were is fairly wide use long before the 1960s. Deaths from smallpox dropped sharply though the 1800s and it was eliminated entirely in many countries.
        amasad 7y ago
        I think you're missing a basic understanding of what an "analogy" is. Hard to keep this conversation going.
        mikeash 7y ago
        Programming had essentially zero real-world impact before the 1950s. The analogy you’re trying to make is that vaccines existed but had virtually no real world impact before the 1960s. Did I get that right? Because that’s what I understood, and it’s severely wrong.
gilbetron 7y ago
The statement about "modest" effect was, by my reading, about the 1990s, and the link to the study "[9]" seems to verify this. "Although improvements in medical care were the main force for declines in infant mortality during the second half of the century, public health actions played a role. During the 1990s, a greater than 50% decline in SIDS rates (attributed to the recommendation that infants be placed to sleep on their backs) has helped to reduce the overall infant mortality rate (8). The reduction in vaccine-preventable diseases (e.g., diphtheria, tetanus, measles, poliomyelitis, and Haemophilus influenzae type b meningitis) has reduced infant morbidity and has had a modest effect on infant mortality (9)." 9 = https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/PDF/wk/mm4629.pdf https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/PDF/wk/mm4629.pdf
lovehashbrowns 7y ago
I'm confused by your post. Did the original comment suggest that vaccines were the only cause of this trend? The comment even states that "They’ve never had to watch a child die from something that was readily preventable with cheap, nearly risk-free medicine," which doesn't only include vaccines. In either case, vaccines for certain things like polio were being used before 1960, https://www.historyofvaccines.org/index.php/content/us-polio-cases-1952-1962 https://www.historyofvaccines.org/index.php/content/us-polio..., so I don't understand your comment.
- amasad 7y ago
  > Did the original comment suggest that vaccines were the only cause of this trend? Did I say they said that? They brought it up and I simply said it's largely irrelevant. > vaccines for certain things like polio were being used before 1960 From the CDC: > Before 1962, no formal nationwide immunization program existed. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/su6004a9.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/su6004a9.htm
  - lovehashbrowns 7y ago
    It's not largely irrelevant because this discussion isn't about how much of an effect vaccinations had on child mortality rates. You either cherry picked that quote or you missed the sentence right after that which talks about private practices and local health department programs. Look at the source I linked, please.
woodandsteel 7y ago
So is it your position that things would go just fine if we followed the anti-vaxxers advice?
- amasad 7y ago
  I didn't even say anything against vaccines. Simply, it's not the primary driver of decrease in childhood mortality. You're blinded by ideology if you can't have a conversation with resorting to name-calling and reductios.
  - woodandsteel 7y ago
    No, I didn't say that's your position, I asked. The reason I asked is your position that vaccines are of minimal importance for childhood mortality is one the anti-vaxxers take, but I am aware that doesn't prove you are one, so I asked. And I am happy to learn you are not an anti-vaxxer.
    - amasad 7y ago
      I think where your mind is going is a form of Mccarthyism or "guilt by association." In a public conversation, connecting someone to a label like "anti-vaxxer" or "truther," even if you don't make the actual accusation is a form of slander. Then holding someone intellectually hostage and saying "I'm glad you're not X," as if I'm beholden to what you think of me, is sleazy to say the least. You might not be doing this consciously, but you are doing it nonetheless.
      - woodandsteel 7y ago
        Well, ok, you're right. I should have said something more like, "you are presenting an argument that is normally made by anti-vaxxers, so that makes me think you are one. But perhaps I am completely wrong about that." Or maybe said nothing at all.

by amasad 7y ago

rpmisms 7y ago

Why is CDC research being downvoted?

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
EliRivers 7y ago
If I had to guess, because it's about infant mortality but the poster presented it in support of an assertion about child mortality; which of course, it says very little about.

smoll 7y ago

> The reduction in vaccine-preventable diseases (e.g., diphtheria, tetanus, measles, poliomyelitis, and Haemophilus influenzae type b meningitis) has reduced infant morbidity and has had a modest effect on infant mortality It says infant mortality, which I assume is 0-1 years of age. What about the effect on child mortality altogether?

amasad 7y ago
Infant mortality is probably the biggest factor in "under 5 years old" mortality rate. However, even if you look at children mortality overall, it follows a similar trend: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/child-mortality?tab=chart&time=1933..2016&country=USA https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/child-mortality?tab=chart...

mikeash 7y ago

Note that vaccines were introduced in the late 1700s, not the mid 1960s.

amasad 7y ago
No.
- mikeash 7y ago
  Yes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_vaccines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_vaccines
  - amasad 7y ago
    This is like saying we've been 'programming' since Ada Lovelace wrote the first program in the 1840, which is silly to say the least. The CDC starts measure after a vaccine has passed the 'licensure' process: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/su6004a9.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/su6004a9.htm
    - mikeash 7y ago
      Programming wasn’t saving thousands of lives in the 1840s. Vaccines were is fairly wide use long before the 1960s. Deaths from smallpox dropped sharply though the 1800s and it was eliminated entirely in many countries.
      - amasad 7y ago
        I think you're missing a basic understanding of what an "analogy" is. Hard to keep this conversation going.
        mikeash 7y ago
        Programming had essentially zero real-world impact before the 1950s. The analogy you’re trying to make is that vaccines existed but had virtually no real world impact before the 1960s. Did I get that right? Because that’s what I understood, and it’s severely wrong.

gilbetron 7y ago

The statement about "modest" effect was, by my reading, about the 1990s, and the link to the study "[9]" seems to verify this. "Although improvements in medical care were the main force for declines in infant mortality during the second half of the century, public health actions played a role. During the 1990s, a greater than 50% decline in SIDS rates (attributed to the recommendation that infants be placed to sleep on their backs) has helped to reduce the overall infant mortality rate (8). The reduction in vaccine-preventable diseases (e.g., diphtheria, tetanus, measles, poliomyelitis, and Haemophilus influenzae type b meningitis) has reduced infant morbidity and has had a modest effect on infant mortality (9)." 9 = https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/PDF/wk/mm4629.pdf https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/PDF/wk/mm4629.pdf

lovehashbrowns 7y ago

I'm confused by your post. Did the original comment suggest that vaccines were the only cause of this trend? The comment even states that "They’ve never had to watch a child die from something that was readily preventable with cheap, nearly risk-free medicine," which doesn't only include vaccines. In either case, vaccines for certain things like polio were being used before 1960, https://www.historyofvaccines.org/index.php/content/us-polio-cases-1952-1962 https://www.historyofvaccines.org/index.php/content/us-polio..., so I don't understand your comment.

amasad 7y ago
> Did the original comment suggest that vaccines were the only cause of this trend? Did I say they said that? They brought it up and I simply said it's largely irrelevant. > vaccines for certain things like polio were being used before 1960 From the CDC: > Before 1962, no formal nationwide immunization program existed. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/su6004a9.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/su6004a9.htm
- lovehashbrowns 7y ago
  It's not largely irrelevant because this discussion isn't about how much of an effect vaccinations had on child mortality rates. You either cherry picked that quote or you missed the sentence right after that which talks about private practices and local health department programs. Look at the source I linked, please.

woodandsteel 7y ago

So is it your position that things would go just fine if we followed the anti-vaxxers advice?

amasad 7y ago
I didn't even say anything against vaccines. Simply, it's not the primary driver of decrease in childhood mortality. You're blinded by ideology if you can't have a conversation with resorting to name-calling and reductios.
- woodandsteel 7y ago
  No, I didn't say that's your position, I asked. The reason I asked is your position that vaccines are of minimal importance for childhood mortality is one the anti-vaxxers take, but I am aware that doesn't prove you are one, so I asked. And I am happy to learn you are not an anti-vaxxer.
  - amasad 7y ago
    I think where your mind is going is a form of Mccarthyism or "guilt by association." In a public conversation, connecting someone to a label like "anti-vaxxer" or "truther," even if you don't make the actual accusation is a form of slander. Then holding someone intellectually hostage and saying "I'm glad you're not X," as if I'm beholden to what you think of me, is sleazy to say the least. You might not be doing this consciously, but you are doing it nonetheless.
    - woodandsteel 7y ago
      Well, ok, you're right. I should have said something more like, "you are presenting an argument that is normally made by anti-vaxxers, so that makes me think you are one. But perhaps I am completely wrong about that." Or maybe said nothing at all.