Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by mrpg on Thursday February 28 2019, @04:11AM   Printer-friendly
from the Brawndo-Has-What-Plants-Crave dept.

Texas lawmaker says he's not worried about measles outbreak because of ‘antibiotics'

Texas state representative Bill Zedler says a resurgence of measles across the U.S. isn't worrying him.

Zedler, R-Arlington, is promoting legislation that would allow Texans to opt out of childhood vaccinations.

“They want to say people are dying of measles. Yeah, in Third World countries they’re dying of measles,” Zedler said, the Texas Observer reports. “Today, with antibiotics and that kind of stuff, they’re not dying in America.”

There is no treatment for measles, a highly contagious virus that can be fatal. Antibiotics treat bacterial infections and can't kill viruses.

It could be funny if it weren't so tragic.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by c0lo on Thursday February 28 2019, @03:59PM (11 children)

    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 28 2019, @03:59PM (#808166) Journal

    We already know what this is like. It happened in the 1950s and 1960s before there was any vaccine.

    You are making the assumption of "our immunity is as good as our grandparents" in the above.
    Which assumption is likely invalid if we look at the allergies prevalence - many sources indicate a growth of approx 50 percent between 1997 and 2011.

    Among the likely causes:
    1. less brest-feeding - as a way for antibodies transfer from mother to child
    2. excessive use of antiseptics and disinfectants (kills 99.99% of germs... Ew [xkcd.com] (you were saying something about "proper sanitary practices"?)
    3. food regulations and the raise of supermarket chains (with an emphasis on "product shelf life") practically eliminated foods with ferments. Anecdote: I tried one of those small bottles with "probiotics" from the supermarket, allegedly some strains of lactobacillus, in a cup of warm milk with half a teaspoon of sugar added. Nothing for 2 days, then the milk went bad from whatever wild ferment it caught. As I wanted some alive yogurt, I needed to rely on cultures bought on ebay: took 8 hours to colonize the milk and 16 hours to get my yogurt.
    4. outdoor/risk adversity - I grew as a latchkey kid. Got home in the evening, often bruised and dusty, with scrapped knees or arms (great feeling to have learnt to ride a bike, in hindsight good opportunities to boost my immunity too). The last cultural reference I remember about that life style? Terminator 2.

    Now, to the point: for a start, I'd like to see those things reverted before considering measles a sickness one doesn't need vaccines but just proper management. Before that, my gut instinct tells me it's risky.

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Interesting=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 28 2019, @04:20PM (10 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 28 2019, @04:20PM (#808173)

    Allergies are due to an overactive immune system. The immune system is too vigilant for the circumstances, like when you have a suburb with no crime so the police start creating problems for themselves to solve. So I would take that as evidence the immunity has not changed much at all while the environment has. But yea, no two situations are going to be exactly the same.

    The point is though, do they still give antibiotics for pneumonia? There isn't anything special about measles-associated pneumonia afaik.

    • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday February 28 2019, @04:53PM (9 children)

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 28 2019, @04:53PM (#808184) Journal

      So I would take that as evidence the immunity has not changed much at all

      Yes and no.
      Yes, it may have the same potential for defensive action.
      No, it is ouit-of-whack, in extreme cases the potential slides into self-destructive actions.

      Sorta, a genius child without proper education has higher chances to become a wacko than a mediocre but educated one.

      The point is though, do they still give antibiotics for pneumonia? There isn't anything special about measles-associated pneumonia afaik.

      Yes, but is it advantageous to do it?

      With a non-amnesic immune system, even if not so well "measles educated", you may get only to a bronchitis or just a sore-throat level and the immune system does the rest (and gets better in the process).

      With a blissfully ignorant immune system, antibiotics are very likely mandatory (and you'll pay for them every time, as opposed to a one or two off for the vaccine). And maybe your immune system learns something, maybe not. A thing is sure: if you catch measles after the age of 2, your mother won't breast-feed you again to educate your immune system at primary-school level.

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 28 2019, @05:17PM (8 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 28 2019, @05:17PM (#808196)

        Yes, but is it advantageous to do it?

        Why would they give antibiotics otherwise?

        • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday February 28 2019, @09:37PM (6 children)

          by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 28 2019, @09:37PM (#808380) Journal

          Once the measles is on, can't do otherwise.
          Before measles is on, you have the option of a vaccine. Will let your immune system with a weak lesson of measles but knowing everything it learnt about the rest and with a lower need of antibiotics.

          --
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 28 2019, @10:07PM (5 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 28 2019, @10:07PM (#808400)

            Once the measles is on you still don't need any special care in 99% of cases. Even at its worst, only ~15% of cases ever even got reported to doctors.

            • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday February 28 2019, @10:57PM (4 children)

              by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 28 2019, @10:57PM (#808431) Journal

              Mate, let's set the things clear. The context is of a human that hasn't had measles and has a choice between to or to not vaccinate.
              1. If you vaccinate, you immune system will know a weak form of measles but get to keep the memory of all the other enemies that it knows about. The result is a good chance of fighting off other germs and a reduced number of cases when antibiotics will be necessary
              2. If you don't vaccinate and get measles, your immune system will know measles by heart but forget everything else. The result is most of subsequent infections with other germs will require antibiotics and you may get extremely unlucky and catch one resistant to antibiotics.

              So, as a personal choice**, while it is true you may not need a vaccine to survive measles, it seems safer and more time/money efficient to have one. What motives would a politician have to not want that?

              ** not even got to introduce herd immunity consideration into the equation.

              --
              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 01 2019, @12:23AM (3 children)

                by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 01 2019, @12:23AM (#808476)

                Mate, let's set the things clear.
                [...]
                If you don't vaccinate and get measles, your immune system will know measles by heart but forget everything else. The result is most of subsequent infections with other germs will require antibiotics and you may get extremely unlucky and catch one resistant to antibiotics.

                You scenario is just speculation based on post-hoc fit model. I looked at that paper here [soylentnews.org]. Nothing wrong with it other than no one ever checked any predictions it makes (and the authors are confused between pre-diction and post-diction which makes them way overconfident in it, but whatever since it is difficult to find real science these days so I give them a pass for at least coming up with a model).

                Do you know about someone later verifying this model is capable of predicting something useful? Or do you just believe every random model that gets published? How do you decide what to believe? Because I assure you a contradictory model that fits all the same data is possible.

                • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday March 01 2019, @12:34AM (1 child)

                  by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Friday March 01 2019, @12:34AM (#808483) Journal

                  Do you know about someone later verifying this model is capable of predicting something useful?

                  Nope.

                  Or do you just believe every random model that gets published? How do you decide what to believe?
                  Nope. Only those that pass my guts tests. Until someone certifies them.
                  Do you have any other heuristic? Because any choice in this regard is gonna be a heuristic.

                  Because I assure you a contradictory model that fits all the same data is possible.

                  Shoot, let's see it.

                  --
                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 01 2019, @12:42AM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 01 2019, @12:42AM (#808488)

                    No, I'm not going to spend the time on this. But if you have ever modeled something you know it is not hard to get a fit to anything with enough adjustable parameters...

                    If I were to do it though, I would take their model (if it is actually available somewhere) and add in "dark measles" cases (the 85% unreported ones) that make it show what I want.

                • (Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Friday March 01 2019, @05:50PM

                  by hendrikboom (1125) Subscriber Badge on Friday March 01 2019, @05:50PM (#808806) Homepage Journal

                  Do you know about someone later verifying this model is capable of predicting something useful?

                  Let's see. To do a double-blind study of this you would have to give measles to one group and not give measles to a control group without the subjects or the researcher knowing which group had measles.

                  I kind of suspect that it might rapidly become obvious which subjects were in one group or the other...

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday March 01 2019, @09:24AM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday March 01 2019, @09:24AM (#808611) Journal

          Why would they give antibiotics otherwise?

          Malpractice protection.