Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2022 January 6
| Science desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < January 5 | << Dec | January | Feb >> | January 7 > |
| Welcome to the Wikipedia Science Reference Desk Archives |
|---|
| The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
January 6
[edit]Disease-related deaths for illnesses preventable by vaccine
[edit]Boy, that's some awkward wording in the header; sorry about that! It's less common than in the US, but there's no shortage of anti-vaxxers here in Canada. One of the things they whine about is that the COVID-19 vaccine is essentially mandated if you want to do any of several common activities. When it's pointed out that this has always been the case - school boards have long required the full suite of childhood immunizations - they protest that those were serious diseases, not silly over-blown ones like COVID. Now, that false-ness aside, it did get me curious about the deaths associated with those diseases (measles, mumps, rubella, diphtheria, whopping cough, etc.) in Canada. The time frame would preferably be in the area of the 1970s or 1980s, but other years would be okay too. This is the closest I've found so far for measles, though it's cases, not deaths, and the format of the chart is not reassuring (it seems to go from sample years: 1930, 1940, to year by year for no reason). And, to access the base data you have to register (and pay for the good stuff). This is more scholarly, but still focuses on cases. I guess I was assuming - perhaps wrongly - that some of the basic metrics we now see every day for COVID would have been done (retro-actively) for other serious illnesses, if only for uses like this. On the other hand, I simply might not be searching effectively. Any help? Matt Deres (talk) 21:47, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- Just noting that "whopping cough" is one of the more interesting typos I've seen lately. I guess it is a whopping cough at that. --Trovatore (talk) 20:16, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
- Rubella is an interesting case. AFAIK and this seems to be supported by our article, it's generally a fairly mild disease. The big concern is for Congenital rubella syndrome which is very serious when it occurs but as maybe obvious from the name, is something that arises in a developing fetus when rubella is contracted during pregnancy especially in the first trimester. So while there is some small advantage to the individual who is vaccinated, AFAIK preventing CRS is a far bigger community reason for vaccination. If you do find any figures, you'll need to make sure it differentiates between who is affected. The CDC for example only mentions deaths of newborns and miscarriages. [1] Nil Einne (talk) 13:50, 7 January 2022 (UTC) 00:26, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
- The case of diphtheria is pretty clear-cut. This WHO paper cited in our article reveals that the case fatality rate in the past reached up to 50%. I assume that the WHO website would be a good place to look for other statistics. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:08, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
- Boy, I'm really sorry you have to spend time arguing with those idiots. Hey, they're in EVERY country but far fewer in countries that have more recent experience with epidemics or death from preventable newborn infections etc. I don't know if they'll listen to any reason, so even the best answers you get here might not count for anything with them. And I'm not a medical doctor or researcher and cannot give you expert information off the top of my head.
- But one thing I can point to is this: which communicable diseases are there NOT vaccines for, or being strongly sought for. I could mention the common cold. Most people (before the recent health restrictions) would get one every year, and only a tiny few would die or suffer long-term complications. And that is why no large funding has been devoted to vaccine development against the pathogens that cause what gets classified as the common cold (but considerable resources towards flu vaccines, since those ARE more serious). So unless your anti-vax friends don't admit that covid-19 is much more serious than a simple cold (in which case they really are beyond help!) this is an example of why some vaccines are more needed than (a few) others, and resources thereby devoted (at least a bit) wisely. Interferometrist (talk) 20:12, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
- That's not really why there isn't massive funding going towards a "common cold" vaccine. The reason is that there is no such thing as the "common cold," just like there is no such thing as "cancer." There are hundreds of pathogens that cause what we call the "common cold," and unlike influenza, these aren't closely related strains of one virus family. Common cold causing viruses are as distantly related to each other as we are to birds. Maybe even more distantly related than that. That is similar to cancer, where pancreatic cancer and breast cancer are entirely different illnesses that both happen to manifest with malignant tumors, and thus we call them "cancers." There is not much funding to develop a universal "cancer" vaccine or therapy, however, there has been a lot of funding (and success) at developing therapies and even vaccines against specific cancers. The HPV vaccine, for example, has cut cervical cancer by about 95%. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 20:43, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
- Well I hardly think we disagree. I realize the "cold" isn't a single disease (why I said "pathogens" in plural, above) but most colds are from a few families of viruses and I'll bet their differences in a lot of cases are not much greater than between covid strains that are (more or less) protected by the same vaccines. Which is also why I understand there is interest (perhaps not possible) in a vaccine that would provide immunity to ALL coronaviruses (thus all covid-19 and a lot of cold viruses). What you said is true, but even so I believe what I said is right: there is no strong motivation for immunity against this year's main cold viruses (as they do for this year's main flu viruses) or the most common classes of cold viruses which might respond to the same vaccine, for the very reason that colds do not pose a serious health risk except in a very tiny portion of cases. And that was to answer the original question of why covid vaccines are so much more needed to protect people (even with a death rate <1%, much higher than colds or flu, and long-covid rate several times that) AND to stop the spread and end this awful pandemic, which I fear governments are now giving up on. Agreed? Interferometrist (talk) 21:11, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
- Actually it seems fairly possible that covid is destined to become just another cold virus reasonably soon. The so-called Russian Flu of 1889 may have been caused by the OC43 coronavirus, which is now generally grouped with the common cold. It may have decreased in virulence over the years, or it may just be that most people get exposed as children when the illness it causes is usually mild, so few people are immunonaive. This time around, we're getting a jump start on that with the excellent vaccines. --Trovatore (talk) 21:20, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
- Well we're way off the topic here, but I have to answer. Many intelligent experts (nowhere near all) are saying that, but I don't think that even omicron is so mild that everyone getting it won't matter too much, nor do I like the fact that many promoting that view think so because the costs of lockdown (etc.) is greater, that's not a choice we should be making! It's not clear that it will become milder or that previous exposure will make it that mild. One version is that everyone will be vaccinated regularly to solve the problem, but the idiot anti-vax movement might preclude that, and unless vaccine availability becomes much greater than the last year when we REALLY needed it, it means covid will be a serious endemic disease in poor countries. If due to childhood exposure (as I gather you're saying) then it's hard to tell, and we won't find out for some time. Most talk of covid becoming "simply" endemic has the result of not treating the problem and tolerating a rate of death and debilitating long-covid rather than fighting it. The world could have eliminated the pandemic after the initial lockdowns and with greater solidarity between rich and poor nations (and shunning the Trumps, Bolsaneros, and internet quacks) and vaccinations produced in maximum quantities (look how fast a country can produce bombs in the months following the beginning of an unexpected war!) with all patent protection eliminated so that didn't reduce their supply. This might all sound theoretical but then I look at China, a big chunk of the world's territory and population, which has been so successful. Yes maybe what you say will come to pass, but I'd never resign the population of any country to the "endemic scenario" as long as we know that there are ways to eliminate it as China has done. Anyway, that's my view, and if it were to be properly acted upon, we'd never find out how serious endemic/non-treated covid will become. Interferometrist (talk) 01:34, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
- We're getting into opinion here obviously, but you gave yours so I'm going to give mine. I think what you're hoping for is totally off the table. Not gonna happen. Covid is going to be endemic sooner or later. The window to avoid that probably closed in early 2020.
- Luckily, for the vaccinated, the risk is small. You're (almost) certainly going to be exposed; you're very likely to get infected, and fairly likely to have symptoms at some point, but they are unlikely to be very different from other illnesses you've had and not made a big deal over.
- I seriously doubt China has done anything remotely resembling "eliminating" covid. You'll need to provide evidence for that claim. Ideally independent of the Chinese Communist Party.
- Finally, it's almost unbelievably good luck that the first variant to substantially "escape" the vaccines, omicron, turns out to be so much less virulent than the previous strains. We should really be celebrating that, not tearing our hair. --Trovatore (talk) 01:45, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
- Well we're way off the topic here, but I have to answer. Many intelligent experts (nowhere near all) are saying that, but I don't think that even omicron is so mild that everyone getting it won't matter too much, nor do I like the fact that many promoting that view think so because the costs of lockdown (etc.) is greater, that's not a choice we should be making! It's not clear that it will become milder or that previous exposure will make it that mild. One version is that everyone will be vaccinated regularly to solve the problem, but the idiot anti-vax movement might preclude that, and unless vaccine availability becomes much greater than the last year when we REALLY needed it, it means covid will be a serious endemic disease in poor countries. If due to childhood exposure (as I gather you're saying) then it's hard to tell, and we won't find out for some time. Most talk of covid becoming "simply" endemic has the result of not treating the problem and tolerating a rate of death and debilitating long-covid rather than fighting it. The world could have eliminated the pandemic after the initial lockdowns and with greater solidarity between rich and poor nations (and shunning the Trumps, Bolsaneros, and internet quacks) and vaccinations produced in maximum quantities (look how fast a country can produce bombs in the months following the beginning of an unexpected war!) with all patent protection eliminated so that didn't reduce their supply. This might all sound theoretical but then I look at China, a big chunk of the world's territory and population, which has been so successful. Yes maybe what you say will come to pass, but I'd never resign the population of any country to the "endemic scenario" as long as we know that there are ways to eliminate it as China has done. Anyway, that's my view, and if it were to be properly acted upon, we'd never find out how serious endemic/non-treated covid will become. Interferometrist (talk) 01:34, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
- Actually it seems fairly possible that covid is destined to become just another cold virus reasonably soon. The so-called Russian Flu of 1889 may have been caused by the OC43 coronavirus, which is now generally grouped with the common cold. It may have decreased in virulence over the years, or it may just be that most people get exposed as children when the illness it causes is usually mild, so few people are immunonaive. This time around, we're getting a jump start on that with the excellent vaccines. --Trovatore (talk) 21:20, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
- Well I hardly think we disagree. I realize the "cold" isn't a single disease (why I said "pathogens" in plural, above) but most colds are from a few families of viruses and I'll bet their differences in a lot of cases are not much greater than between covid strains that are (more or less) protected by the same vaccines. Which is also why I understand there is interest (perhaps not possible) in a vaccine that would provide immunity to ALL coronaviruses (thus all covid-19 and a lot of cold viruses). What you said is true, but even so I believe what I said is right: there is no strong motivation for immunity against this year's main cold viruses (as they do for this year's main flu viruses) or the most common classes of cold viruses which might respond to the same vaccine, for the very reason that colds do not pose a serious health risk except in a very tiny portion of cases. And that was to answer the original question of why covid vaccines are so much more needed to protect people (even with a death rate <1%, much higher than colds or flu, and long-covid rate several times that) AND to stop the spread and end this awful pandemic, which I fear governments are now giving up on. Agreed? Interferometrist (talk) 21:11, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
- That's not really why there isn't massive funding going towards a "common cold" vaccine. The reason is that there is no such thing as the "common cold," just like there is no such thing as "cancer." There are hundreds of pathogens that cause what we call the "common cold," and unlike influenza, these aren't closely related strains of one virus family. Common cold causing viruses are as distantly related to each other as we are to birds. Maybe even more distantly related than that. That is similar to cancer, where pancreatic cancer and breast cancer are entirely different illnesses that both happen to manifest with malignant tumors, and thus we call them "cancers." There is not much funding to develop a universal "cancer" vaccine or therapy, however, there has been a lot of funding (and success) at developing therapies and even vaccines against specific cancers. The HPV vaccine, for example, has cut cervical cancer by about 95%. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 20:43, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
- The case of diphtheria is pretty clear-cut. This WHO paper cited in our article reveals that the case fatality rate in the past reached up to 50%. I assume that the WHO website would be a good place to look for other statistics. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:08, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
- Chickenpox was generally considered (at least by the general public) to be so minor that families would intentionally have their kids infected at parties just to get it out of the way. That is, until the vaccine was available. My son was required to get vaccinated for chickenpox, and when I went back to college, I had to get a titer test to prove that I'd either had chickenpox as a child (I did), or had a vaccine in the past (I didn't). Prior to vaccination, the number of cases per year was roughly the same as the number of people born that year (obviously they were born earlier, but that's just to say that basically 100% of people eventually got chickenpox). It had a fatality rate of 0.0017%, far lower than COVID19 (prior to omicron, COVID19 hat a roughly 2% fatality rate globally, or 1200 times greater than chickenpox. Despite that far lower mortality rate, chickenpox vaccination is required in the United States. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 20:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
- I think it was not so much "to get it out of the way" as that chickenpox is typically worse the older you are when you get it. --Trovatore (talk) 20:56, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
- Which is another way of saying "to get it out of the way" --OuroborosCobra (talk) 22:50, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
- Sure, I suppose you could put it that way. To me it sounded like you meant something like just wanting not to have to worry about it anymore, rather than that the potential severity was increasing. --Trovatore (talk) 23:11, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
- Which is another way of saying "to get it out of the way" --OuroborosCobra (talk) 22:50, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
- I think it was not so much "to get it out of the way" as that chickenpox is typically worse the older you are when you get it. --Trovatore (talk) 20:56, 7 January 2022 (UTC)