I posted a chart, last week, showing the spectacular reduction in measles cases and measles deaths following the introduction of measles vaccination in the mid-1960s. Anti-vaccine loons often dismiss such charts by claiming that they only demonstrate the effect of sanitation, or something — as if sanitation was only introduced into the US in 1965. In any case, here are some more data, showing the effect of measles vaccination at very different times, in very different countries.
Finland had a problem with measles, as well as mumps and rubella, in the 1970s. The vaccine coverage was about 70%.1 It’s important to note that for measles, which is probably the most contagious disease known to man, very high vaccine coverage (probably over 90%) is necessary to protect against outbreaks — this has been shown by modeling as well as by experience.
So the 70% coverage was far too low to offer protection against outbreaks, and there were an average of about 100 deaths per year in the 5 million or so Finnish population. (That would extrapolate to, what, about 6000 deaths per year in the US, to put this in context with the previous chart.) In 1982, a national vaccination program was put in place for measles, and after 1986 (when an extra push was put in place) coverage increased to 97%.2
Here’s the chart showing measles incidence in Finland. Note that this is a log scale, not a linear scale, on the Y axis. Also pay attention to the dates: Remember, 1982 national vaccination — 1986, final push.
OK, that’s Finland in the 1980s – a rich Scandinavian country, with excellent sanitation and so forth. Here’s a very different situation: three poor African countries in the early 21st century. Measles vaccine coverage in Burkina Fasso, Mali, and Togo was very low at the turn of the century, between 33% to 69%3. In Dec ’01 to Jan ’02, a series of nation-wide projects boosted vaccine coverage among children to over 95% in each country. Here’s the effect on cases and deaths:
It would be hard to find more different circumstances than between Finland and Burkina Fasso; yet in each case, increasing measles vaccine coverage to the proper level vastly reduced measles cases and deaths.
- Peltola H, Heinonen OP, Valle M, Paunio M, Virtanen M, Karanko V, Cantell K (1994) The elimination of indigenous measles, mumps, and rubella from Finland by a 12-year, two-dose vaccination program. N Engl J Med 331:1397–1402.[↩]
- The paper I cite also gives the rate of complications from the vaccine — very low, though not non-existent, as with the US experience.[↩]
- MMWR Weekly. January 23, 2004 / 53(02);28-30. Measles Mortality Reduction — West Africa, 1996–2002[↩]
Eh? I thought that was stupdity.
Thanks for this post and the last – I think the graphs are the most effective counters to the anti-vaccers that I’ve seen.
Craziness! I have started teaching General Biology at an area college and at least once a semester someone tells me they are not vaccinating their child because vaccines are bad and cause autism. The anti-vaccine loons have gotten a lot of popular press lately–and the lay public doesn’t know any better!
Great post. There is a mumps outbreak in Southern BC at the moment, which has been tracked to a local religious community that does not vaccinate its kids. Schools go back soon and they are predicting a further jump in cases.
CBC story here
[...] and safe. I’ve shown stats about the truly spectacular effects of measles vaccine in the USA and in other first- and third-world countries, and I’ve shown what happens when anti-vaccine [...]
[...] The effect of measles vaccination in Finland (1982) and Bourkina Fasso (2002) [...]
[...] The effect of measles vaccination in Finland (1982) and Bourkina Fasso (2002) [...]
Yes, if only the entire graphs were included. Instead the author chooses to leave out the data showing how high measles cases were long before vaccination was introduced. Measles cases had decreased by 95% before vaccination was used.
http://www.soilandhealth.org/02/0201hyglibcat/020132sinclair/vaccinaion.htm
There is an explanation of the type of research fraud the author uses. It’s much like taking a picture and cropping out information until the picture tells the story you want it to tell.
Hi, Jon. This is a common lie of the anti-vaccine loons, promulgated mainly (I believe) by the whale to guy. If you look at his graphs and then compare them to the references he claims he took the graphs from, you’ll find that the claims you’re parroting here are flat-out lies. The references he himself cites are not even close to the charts he shows — there is no relationship between the reference numbers and his charts; he simply made up the charts and offered the references as a fig-leaf, knowing that credulous people like you wouldn’t bother checking. In fact the references he cites perfectly support the fact that measles incidence hardly dropped until the vaccine was introduced — certainly nowhere near a 98% drop.