SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the have-you-ever-seen-a-single-mump? dept.
Kami Altenberg Schaal has been a professional nurse for 22 years. She is pro-vaccine. She gets the flu shot every year as a requirement for her employment, and she vaccinates her family.
[...] Her entire family has been vaccinated with the MMR vaccine, and yet 4 out of 5 members of her family came down with the mumps. Her daughter is a freshman in college, and got the mumps from school.
[...] She isolated her daughter for 5 days ("I know how to isolate a patient, I'm a nurse"), and reported her case to the department of health.
All the members of her family also got booster shots of the MMR vaccine.
17 days after her daughter's exposure, her husband and son woke up with mumps.
After notifying the health department, Kami notified her son's school district as well.
What happened next was apparently something she had not anticipated. Even though her family was fully vaccinated and she followed all the proper medical protocols for dealing with the mumps, many people in her community began to blame her, including some of her medical colleagues, for not vaccinating their children (even though she had!)
[...] Finally, Kami herself woke up with the mumps. She had been tested and was supposedly immune. She had taken the booster. But she ended up getting the mumps anyway.
[...] The department of health nurse was required to send out another letter to the school district, so Kami asked the nurse if she could "put the truth" in the letter to the school district that her son was vaccinated, because she feared being blamed in error, once again, for not vaccinating her children.
The nurse allegedly replied "no."
They will not put that in a letter, because it could give the anti-vaxx movement some fodder.
So they would not protect my family by saying we did the right things, so I had to protect my family. I'm the one who has to defend my family.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 30 2019, @03:15PM (2 children)
Those numbers are BS without a timeframe and description of how "effective" was determined. Antibodies wane over time, and positive blood tests do not necessarily mean protection from illness. Eg, this nurse said she recently got tested and was supposed to be "immune" according to the results.
A useful quote would be something like:
This lady had positive lab tests for mumps and still got ill, so the lab tests are not 100% correlated with actual protection.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 30 2019, @08:21PM (1 child)
The numbers were obviously from a non-primary source that simplifies the science for a non-expert audience. Bot does not seem to be someone who knows what an ELISA is or how well an in vitro neutralization assay would model "wild" exposure. The main crux of Bot's argument was that the odds of 4/5 people in a family getting mumps despite following the current vaccination schedule hinged on the efficacy being so high (e.g. not less than 90%) that such a case would necessitate the presence of a virus strain that is substantially more resistant to the immune response produced by the vaccines compared to the typical wild-type strain.
Now, if you believe that the CDC numbers are an under-report of the percent conversion of would-be symptomatic to completely asymptomatic, post-vaccination, after "wild" exposure then that would be a point in favor of Bot's hypothesis. I doubt you believe that so what was really the point you were trying to put forward?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 01 2019, @12:25AM
Who does?
My point is those efficacy numbers are upper bounds at best. That sentence is also annoyingly long.
Events like this do not surprise me at all. I bet most of them go unreported because it is not a big deal. What happened is this nurse made the mistake of "trusting the system" and reported the events to the authorities. She has learned her lesson to never voluntarily interact with the state because they have no real concern for anything but covering their ass.