Measles Outbreak

[Anonymous]

PP adding that for what it’s worth my committed anti-vax family members seem now to acknowledge that measles is quite serious — something they didn’t a decade ago. I don’t know what changed their minds on this. I assume reality did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP adding that for what it’s worth my committed anti-vax family members seem now to acknowledge that measles is quite serious — something they didn’t a decade ago. I don’t know what changed their minds on this. I assume reality did.

It's legal for people to refuse vaccinations for themselves and their children, so pretty much all you can do is stay away and trust that they either will come to their senses eventually, or not. Sometimes there isn't a great answer, and it just is what it is.

Reminds me of the vaunted "undecided voters" in the last two elections. Giving them a platform didn't help anyone, other than to make them feel important. They get to do what they do, and maybe they'll figure it out eventually. So it goes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Yes, the rates of diagnosis of developmental issues like autism went up roughly around when countries had more money or assistance to invest in healthcare infrastructure, including vaccination. As those resources were becoming more abundant, the stigmatization of mental illness was going down, health literacy was going up, and there were more financial resources for things like early intervention in schools, so a diagnosis wasn't merely pointing fingers.

This isn't surprising to some people.

For others, they say things like "nobody has provided any alternative medical explanation!" as if this had not been discussed, and discussed ad nauseum.

Are you arguing that the rate of autism is actually consistent over time, but diagnostic criteria changing is the only reason we have more autism now?

Would you use that same argument on something like peanut allergies?

[Anonymous]

Nature is "nasty, brutish, and short." It is "red in tooth and claw." We know this.

All-natural things:
- Venomous snakes
- Poisonous mushrooms
- Foxglove plant
- High cliffs
- Giardia in the water

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Yes, the rates of diagnosis of developmental issues like autism went up roughly around when countries had more money or assistance to invest in healthcare infrastructure, including vaccination. As those resources were becoming more abundant, the stigmatization of mental illness was going down, health literacy was going up, and there were more financial resources for things like early intervention in schools, so a diagnosis wasn't merely pointing fingers.

This isn't surprising to some people.

For others, they say things like "nobody has provided any alternative medical explanation!" as if this had not been discussed, and discussed ad nauseum.

Are you arguing that the rate of autism is actually consistent over time, but diagnostic criteria changing is the only reason we have more autism now?

Would you use that same argument on something like peanut allergies?

Hey, guess what a peanut allergy has that a clinical diagnosis does not?

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Nature is "nasty, brutish, and short." It is "red in tooth and claw." We know this.

All-natural things:
- Venomous snakes
- Poisonous mushrooms
- Foxglove plant
- High cliffs
- Giardia in the water

I’m the PP who wrote about the perfect state of nature, and I want to make clear I 100% agree with you. I’m just saying what I see: beneath all the rationales, an assumption that because our bodies and our children’s bodies are beyond what we humans could possibly make on their own (miraculous!), with immune systems that do incredible things (so amazing!), that “natural” is inherently better.

Cancer is often “natural,” and yet can be deadly.
Type 1 diabetes is “natural,” and it is fatal without medical intervention.
The bubonic plague and smallpox and Ebola and rabies are all natural.
Rust is natural, and so is tetanus.

But I do think it’s hard to see that doing nothing > intervention in a healthy child, since people typically don’t see the counterfactual to herd immunity, as, say, Ronald Dahl did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Nature is "nasty, brutish, and short." It is "red in tooth and claw." We know this.

All-natural things:
- Venomous snakes
- Poisonous mushrooms
- Foxglove plant
- High cliffs
- Giardia in the water

I’m the PP who wrote about the perfect state of nature, and I want to make clear I 100% agree with you. I’m just saying what I see: beneath all the rationales, an assumption that because our bodies and our children’s bodies are beyond what we humans could possibly make on their own (miraculous!), with immune systems that do incredible things (so amazing!), that “natural” is inherently better.

Cancer is often “natural,” and yet can be deadly.
Type 1 diabetes is “natural,” and it is fatal without medical intervention.
The bubonic plague and smallpox and Ebola and rabies are all natural.
Rust is natural, and so is tetanus.

But I do think it’s hard to see that doing nothing > intervention in a healthy child, since people typically don’t see the counterfactual to herd immunity, as, say, Ronald Dahl did.

You've been great in the thread, and I hope it makes a difference.

Since it isn't a rational belief, I don't think rational argument is going to make a difference. People will have to figure it out for themselves, I guess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Yes, the rates of diagnosis of developmental issues like autism went up roughly around when countries had more money or assistance to invest in healthcare infrastructure, including vaccination. As those resources were becoming more abundant, the stigmatization of mental illness was going down, health literacy was going up, and there were more financial resources for things like early intervention in schools, so a diagnosis wasn't merely pointing fingers.

This isn't surprising to some people.

For others, they say things like "nobody has provided any alternative medical explanation!" as if this had not been discussed, and discussed ad nauseum.

Are you arguing that the rate of autism is actually consistent over time, but diagnostic criteria changing is the only reason we have more autism now?

Would you use that same argument on something like peanut allergies?

Hey, guess what a peanut allergy has that a clinical diagnosis does not?

So you're saying the rise in peanut allergies aren't real either? What on earth are you trying to say?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Yes, the rates of diagnosis of developmental issues like autism went up roughly around when countries had more money or assistance to invest in healthcare infrastructure, including vaccination. As those resources were becoming more abundant, the stigmatization of mental illness was going down, health literacy was going up, and there were more financial resources for things like early intervention in schools, so a diagnosis wasn't merely pointing fingers.

This isn't surprising to some people.

For others, they say things like "nobody has provided any alternative medical explanation!" as if this had not been discussed, and discussed ad nauseum.

Are you arguing that the rate of autism is actually consistent over time, but diagnostic criteria changing is the only reason we have more autism now?

Would you use that same argument on something like peanut allergies?

Hey, guess what a peanut allergy has that a clinical diagnosis does not?

So you're saying the rise in peanut allergies aren't real either? What on earth are you trying to say?

Do you understand what the term "clinical diagnosis" means?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Yes, the rates of diagnosis of developmental issues like autism went up roughly around when countries had more money or assistance to invest in healthcare infrastructure, including vaccination. As those resources were becoming more abundant, the stigmatization of mental illness was going down, health literacy was going up, and there were more financial resources for things like early intervention in schools, so a diagnosis wasn't merely pointing fingers.

This isn't surprising to some people.

For others, they say things like "nobody has provided any alternative medical explanation!" as if this had not been discussed, and discussed ad nauseum.

Are you arguing that the rate of autism is actually consistent over time, but diagnostic criteria changing is the only reason we have more autism now?

Would you use that same argument on something like peanut allergies?

Hey, guess what a peanut allergy has that a clinical diagnosis does not?

So you're saying the rise in peanut allergies aren't real either? What on earth are you trying to say?

Do you understand what the term "clinical diagnosis" means?

DP who is anti-measles and pro-measles-vaccination. I will admit that I don't actually know the answer to the question "what does a peanut allergy have that a clinical diagnosis does not?" I swear I'm not being bad-faith obtuse here. I'd genuinely like to know the answer, and to understand the bigger picture of what you're saying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Yes, the rates of diagnosis of developmental issues like autism went up roughly around when countries had more money or assistance to invest in healthcare infrastructure, including vaccination. As those resources were becoming more abundant, the stigmatization of mental illness was going down, health literacy was going up, and there were more financial resources for things like early intervention in schools, so a diagnosis wasn't merely pointing fingers.

This isn't surprising to some people.

For others, they say things like "nobody has provided any alternative medical explanation!" as if this had not been discussed, and discussed ad nauseum.

Are you arguing that the rate of autism is actually consistent over time, but diagnostic criteria changing is the only reason we have more autism now?

Would you use that same argument on something like peanut allergies?

Hey, guess what a peanut allergy has that a clinical diagnosis does not?

So you're saying the rise in peanut allergies aren't real either? What on earth are you trying to say?

Do you understand what the term "clinical diagnosis" means?

DP who is anti-measles and pro-measles-vaccination. I will admit that I don't actually know the answer to the question "what does a peanut allergy have that a clinical diagnosis does not?" I swear I'm not being bad-faith obtuse here. I'd genuinely like to know the answer, and to understand the bigger picture of what you're saying.

My apologies.

There is an increase in peanut allergies. There are probably multiple reasons for this, but the increase is real, as can be demonstrated in laboratory testing.

Autism is a clinical diagnosis. That means it is based on history and physical examination. It's a clinical judgment call, and the changing criteria make a big difference in diagnosis rate. You also may get two clinicians disagreeing, and unlike with a peanut allergy, there isn't an objective gold standard test to rule one way or the other. So I would not "use that same argument on something like peanut allergies" because it is a different diagnostic pathway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Yes, the rates of diagnosis of developmental issues like autism went up roughly around when countries had more money or assistance to invest in healthcare infrastructure, including vaccination. As those resources were becoming more abundant, the stigmatization of mental illness was going down, health literacy was going up, and there were more financial resources for things like early intervention in schools, so a diagnosis wasn't merely pointing fingers.

This isn't surprising to some people.

For others, they say things like "nobody has provided any alternative medical explanation!" as if this had not been discussed, and discussed ad nauseum.

Are you arguing that the rate of autism is actually consistent over time, but diagnostic criteria changing is the only reason we have more autism now?

Would you use that same argument on something like peanut allergies?

Hey, guess what a peanut allergy has that a clinical diagnosis does not?

So you're saying the rise in peanut allergies aren't real either? What on earth are you trying to say?

Do you understand what the term "clinical diagnosis" means?

DP who is anti-measles and pro-measles-vaccination. I will admit that I don't actually know the answer to the question "what does a peanut allergy have that a clinical diagnosis does not?" I swear I'm not being bad-faith obtuse here. I'd genuinely like to know the answer, and to understand the bigger picture of what you're saying.

My apologies.

There is an increase in peanut allergies. There are probably multiple reasons for this, but the increase is real, as can be demonstrated in laboratory testing.

Autism is a clinical diagnosis. That means it is based on history and physical examination. It's a clinical judgment call, and the changing criteria make a big difference in diagnosis rate. You also may get two clinicians disagreeing, and unlike with a peanut allergy, there isn't an objective gold standard test to rule one way or the other. So I would not "use that same argument on something like peanut allergies" because it is a different diagnostic pathway.

Ah, that makes sense. Thank you for taking the time to explain. I appreciate it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Nature is "nasty, brutish, and short." It is "red in tooth and claw." We know this.

All-natural things:
- Venomous snakes
- Poisonous mushrooms
- Foxglove plant
- High cliffs
- Giardia in the water

I’m the PP who wrote about the perfect state of nature, and I want to make clear I 100% agree with you. I’m just saying what I see: beneath all the rationales, an assumption that because our bodies and our children’s bodies are beyond what we humans could possibly make on their own (miraculous!), with immune systems that do incredible things (so amazing!), that “natural” is inherently better.

Cancer is often “natural,” and yet can be deadly.
Type 1 diabetes is “natural,” and it is fatal without medical intervention.
The bubonic plague and smallpox and Ebola and rabies are all natural.
Rust is natural, and so is tetanus.

But I do think it’s hard to see that doing nothing > intervention in a healthy child, since people typically don’t see the counterfactual to herd immunity, as, say, Ronald Dahl did.

You've been great in the thread, and I hope it makes a difference.

Since it isn't a rational belief, I don't think rational argument is going to make a difference. People will have to figure it out for themselves, I guess.

Thank you for saying I’ve been great even though my posts had so many blatant mistakes — I hope it’s obvious that I meant intervention > doing nothing in a healthy child and Roald Dahl, among other things!

Fallible indeed. Have a great night.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Yes, the rates of diagnosis of developmental issues like autism went up roughly around when countries had more money or assistance to invest in healthcare infrastructure, including vaccination. As those resources were becoming more abundant, the stigmatization of mental illness was going down, health literacy was going up, and there were more financial resources for things like early intervention in schools, so a diagnosis wasn't merely pointing fingers.

This isn't surprising to some people.

For others, they say things like "nobody has provided any alternative medical explanation!" as if this had not been discussed, and discussed ad nauseum.

Are you arguing that the rate of autism is actually consistent over time, but diagnostic criteria changing is the only reason we have more autism now?

Would you use that same argument on something like peanut allergies?

Hey, guess what a peanut allergy has that a clinical diagnosis does not?

So you're saying the rise in peanut allergies aren't real either? What on earth are you trying to say?

Do you understand what the term "clinical diagnosis" means?

DP who is anti-measles and pro-measles-vaccination. I will admit that I don't actually know the answer to the question "what does a peanut allergy have that a clinical diagnosis does not?" I swear I'm not being bad-faith obtuse here. I'd genuinely like to know the answer, and to understand the bigger picture of what you're saying.

My apologies.

There is an increase in peanut allergies. There are probably multiple reasons for this, but the increase is real, as can be demonstrated in laboratory testing.

Autism is a clinical diagnosis. That means it is based on history and physical examination. It's a clinical judgment call, and the changing criteria make a big difference in diagnosis rate. You also may get two clinicians disagreeing, and unlike with a peanut allergy, there isn't an objective gold standard test to rule one way or the other. So I would not "use that same argument on something like peanut allergies" because it is a different diagnostic pathway.

Ah, that makes sense. Thank you for taking the time to explain. I appreciate it.

Thank you for your patience. I am working with children on the edges of one of the major outbreaks, and it is heartbreaking. My already crusty and hardened soul has become petrified.

I will write out some of the intersection reasons why autism rates are going up, above and beyond just diagnostic criteria, in case it is helpful to someone.