5 ms·

From the article, wild polio cases have been less than 50 per year for the past 3 years, but vaccine derived cases have been 300 - 900 per year. The details in

From the article, wild polio cases have been less than 50 per year for the past 3 years, but vaccine derived cases have been 300 - 900 per year. The details in the article as to why this is are interesting and alarming. It just shows that a lot can go wrong in this process and good intentions are not enough.

SketchySeaBeast 3y ago
Well, during the 80's there were 300,000 to 400,000 cases worldwide per year[1], so I have a hard time seeing how this is bad thing. [1] https://ourworldindata.org/polio https://ourworldindata.org/polio
- User23 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > those vaccine injuries If you’re vaccinated against polio, the vaccine-derived virus can’t harm you. The people being injured are by and large the unvaccinated.
    - gwervc 3y ago
      Circular logic. Vaccines can injure people, it's a fact. I've seen it first hand with a relative of mine get an hepatitis from a vaccine. Trying to silent that just foster conspiracy theories, because once trust is lost it's hard to rebuild. So better not lose it by hiding scientific and medical facts.
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > Vaccines can injure people Nobody said otherwise. What's being contested is the framing of those who are getting vaccine-derived polio as vaccine injured. They're not. They're side effects of the sterilizing polio vaccine. If they were vaccinated, they wouldn't have been injured. > silent that just foster conspiracy theories, because once trust is lost it's hard to rebuild Nobody is silencing anyone. We're in an era of the opposite of silencing. It's increasingly clear there is a psychographic or political profile that will not get vaccinated, facts be damned. I don't think they should be forced to. But they shouldn't be allowed into the healthcare profession, and they should be restricted from public spaces in healthcare crises. (Countries should also be free to restrict them from entry.)
        samatman 3y ago
        This is wrong even on its own logic, which is circular/bad. Someone who gets polio from an oral polio vaccine is vaccinated. That's how they got the infection: from vaccination against polio.
        JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > Someone who gets polio from an oral polio vaccine is vaccinated Vaccine-derived polio cases are not in the person who got the oral polio vaccine [1]. The vaccine recipients are vaccinated. But they can spread that live, attenuated virus to others. If it keeps spreading--among the unvaccinated or IPV recipients--it can mutate and become dangerous. Eventually, dangerous enough to cause polio. But only to the unvaccinated. The original vaccine recipient isn't injured. They got the attenuated virus. And nobody vaccinated around them is injured, either. It's solely the unvaccinated around them who got the monster that virus mutated into. [1] https://www.npr.org/2019/11/16/780068006/how-the-oral-polio-vaccine-can-cause-polio https://www.npr.org/2019/11/16/780068006/how-the-oral-polio-...
        Izkata 3y ago
        > If they were vaccinated, they wouldn't have been injured. Vaccine-derived polio outbreaks include type 2, the IPV vaccines used in the US since 2000 are only for types 1 and 3. It might help, but it won't be as effective as the older version.
  - SketchySeaBeast 3y ago
    I agree, it is and would like it to be eradicated. But it's hard to argue that the vaccines are worse than no vaccines, right? Do you believe the conditions would get better or worse if we stopped vaccinating? I can see polio returning to its previous numbers, and to me, that's objectively worse. Feels like we're rejecting good because it's not perfect.
JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> details in the article as to why this is are interesting and alarming Why is it alarming? The sterilising vaccine produces vaccine-derived polioviruses. The non-sterilising type does not. First you sterilise, then switch to non-sterilising as the wild type is eradicated. It’s a precedented playbook which makes it the opposite of alarming.

SketchySeaBeast 3y ago

Well, during the 80's there were 300,000 to 400,000 cases worldwide per year[1], so I have a hard time seeing how this is bad thing. [1] https://ourworldindata.org/polio https://ourworldindata.org/polio

User23 3y ago
[flagged]
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > those vaccine injuries If you’re vaccinated against polio, the vaccine-derived virus can’t harm you. The people being injured are by and large the unvaccinated.
  - gwervc 3y ago
    Circular logic. Vaccines can injure people, it's a fact. I've seen it first hand with a relative of mine get an hepatitis from a vaccine. Trying to silent that just foster conspiracy theories, because once trust is lost it's hard to rebuild. So better not lose it by hiding scientific and medical facts.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > Vaccines can injure people Nobody said otherwise. What's being contested is the framing of those who are getting vaccine-derived polio as vaccine injured. They're not. They're side effects of the sterilizing polio vaccine. If they were vaccinated, they wouldn't have been injured. > silent that just foster conspiracy theories, because once trust is lost it's hard to rebuild Nobody is silencing anyone. We're in an era of the opposite of silencing. It's increasingly clear there is a psychographic or political profile that will not get vaccinated, facts be damned. I don't think they should be forced to. But they shouldn't be allowed into the healthcare profession, and they should be restricted from public spaces in healthcare crises. (Countries should also be free to restrict them from entry.)
      - samatman 3y ago
        This is wrong even on its own logic, which is circular/bad. Someone who gets polio from an oral polio vaccine is vaccinated. That's how they got the infection: from vaccination against polio.
        JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > Someone who gets polio from an oral polio vaccine is vaccinated Vaccine-derived polio cases are not in the person who got the oral polio vaccine [1]. The vaccine recipients are vaccinated. But they can spread that live, attenuated virus to others. If it keeps spreading--among the unvaccinated or IPV recipients--it can mutate and become dangerous. Eventually, dangerous enough to cause polio. But only to the unvaccinated. The original vaccine recipient isn't injured. They got the attenuated virus. And nobody vaccinated around them is injured, either. It's solely the unvaccinated around them who got the monster that virus mutated into. [1] https://www.npr.org/2019/11/16/780068006/how-the-oral-polio-vaccine-can-cause-polio https://www.npr.org/2019/11/16/780068006/how-the-oral-polio-...
      - Izkata 3y ago
        > If they were vaccinated, they wouldn't have been injured. Vaccine-derived polio outbreaks include type 2, the IPV vaccines used in the US since 2000 are only for types 1 and 3. It might help, but it won't be as effective as the older version.
- SketchySeaBeast 3y ago
  I agree, it is and would like it to be eradicated. But it's hard to argue that the vaccines are worse than no vaccines, right? Do you believe the conditions would get better or worse if we stopped vaccinating? I can see polio returning to its previous numbers, and to me, that's objectively worse. Feels like we're rejecting good because it's not perfect.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> details in the article as to why this is are interesting and alarming Why is it alarming? The sterilising vaccine produces vaccine-derived polioviruses. The non-sterilising type does not. First you sterilise, then switch to non-sterilising as the wild type is eradicated. It’s a precedented playbook which makes it the opposite of alarming.