Jump to content

Talk:Vaccine

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 195.77.128.147 (talk) at 11:02, 9 February 2021 (→Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2021: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kassidee999 (article contribs). This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2019 and 24 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Daysiaamariee (article contribs).

Vaccination-introduction-and-cases-or-deaths-scaled.jpg

The spread of infectious diseases (measured by the number of deaths or the number of cases) before and after a vaccine was introduced

Has nothing to do with death rates. Also the changed description is misleading ("The spread of infectious diseases (measured by the number of deaths or the number of cases) before and after a vaccine was introduced"). The spread of inf. dieseas cannot me measured by the death cases - rather with number of cases. Among antivaxxers, referring to death rates is a common motiv, but simply wrong. I would remove at least the small pox diagramm. --Julius Senegal (talk) 13:25, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Change the text then, but don't remove the figure. I would make it "The spread of infectious diseases (measured by the share of deaths or the number of cases) before and after a vaccine was introduced". The share of deaths is a good indication for the spread of the disease (for smallpox, but nowadays also for covid). This has nothing to do with antivaxxers, the graph just shows vaccines work. --PJ Geest (talk) 13:31, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Paul August ☎ 13:34, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong, the share of deaths is NOT a good indication. Vaccines should prevent diseases, not death. For death rates, many more factors play a crucial role (aseptic techniques, antibiotics, generell improvment of medicine,...). For smallpox (first picture), you clearly see that the death rates were falling regardless of the vaccination. Also, for measels and polio cases were listed, why not for small pox? Why do we see percentages for small pox death rates, and not absolut numbers?
This is misleading and could feed antivaxxer's wrong claims. --Julius Senegal (talk) 18:29, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Some vaccines do prevent death/lessen severity if not necessarily prevent the disease though. For example, if you get the chickenpox vaccine, you can still get chickenpox, but it will be far less severe, you'll get a handful of pox at most instead of being covered from head to toe. Same goes for the flu vaccine, simply having gotten the vaccine in a year makes you more likely to fight off said vaccine. So I think the chart is very illustrative. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:47, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, differing data lines were added because we had different data sources. It seems that smallpox death numbers weren't tracked, partly because the graph goes back the 1700's before modern data collection. But the point of the charts is showing that: vaccines save lives intrinsically, by both preventing cases and lessening case severity. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:50, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again, wrong. Vaccines are not designed to beat death, but to prevent infections. By that ofc the worst outcome (death) can be prevented, but also many other factors contribute to that. And in that particular case you clearly see that the death rates were falling BEFORE vaccination. The severity is not shown.
Using misleading figures is a no-go. --Julius Senegal (talk) 14:34, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Before vaccination there where natural fluctuations in share of deaths in smallpox. Only after vaccination you have a significant fall in share of deaths, so to say death rates were falling before vaccination is nonsense. The vaccine was not immediately widely used, but coverage only increased gradually after invention. A decline in deaths is a very important result of vaccins (for smallpox there where millions of deaths), so it is important to show that. Why don't you want to show that vaccins diminish deaths?--PJ Geest (talk) 14:53, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For deaths other factors can also play a rol (but the spread of the disease is the main factor). You say antibiotics have an influence on the death rate (of smallpox), but the first antibiotics was only invented in the 20th century, while the graph of smallpox is only until 1900. Plus antibiotics don't work against viruses (like the smallpox, polio and measle viruses), antibiotics only work against bacteria. Also there where no medications available for treating smallpox in the 19th century. Furthermore also the number of cases is not an exact number for the spread of the disease, but only an indication: it depends of the amount of testing or the way of registering sick persons. For example nowadays for covid there is much more testing in a lot of countries in the second wave in August then in the first wave in March-April (only severe cases where tested and registered). So comparing the spread between both waves is not reliable based on the number of cases, the number of deaths are more reliable then the number of cases to compare the first and second wave. This graph comes from a highly reliable source (Our World in Data), which is used to presenting data. So I propose to @Julius Senegal: to first come with a source which says that the deaths or death rate are unreliable as indication for the spread of the disease, before this part of the graph can be deleted. --PJ Geest (talk) 08:43, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again wrong. Besides of the fact that this small-pox image represents only London until 1900 (!), I have taken antiobiotics as example. Others are e.g. better medicine on the whole or hygienics. Death is the worst outcome of a disease, but many other dieseases don't result in death.
This image compares death rates with infection rates. Vaccines show a clear convincing influence on infection rates, not to death rates because - as pointed out zig times - other factors contribute to this.
Interestingly, why are u not showing the case numbers, which are also shown on https://ourworldindata.org/smallpox ?
Your argument with the numbers as not exact is - sorry to say this - nonsense. If this was the case, then death numbers would be even more biased.
And, no, you want to have this image of death rates, you have to explain why you 1) dont show the infections rates as found in OWID and 2) why you are comparing death rates with infection rates (and city vs. world, different years) and so on. --Julius Senegal (talk) 06:17, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
PS: That there is no correlation between death cases and infection cases is exemplified here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julius Senegal (talk • contribs) 06:43, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You say "Vaccines show a clear convincing influence on infection rates, not to death rates". Both the image we talk about in this section as your additional graph here show the contrary. So please come up with a source which backs this.

The image doesn't compare city vs the US, these are different graphs. The image just shows different cases (one case about a city and another case about the United States), so what? It just shows the effect of a vaccin for different cases.

Your say my "argument with the numbers as not exact is nonsense. If this was the case, then death numbers would be even more biased." It seems to me that you don't understand that there is a difference between the real number of cases and the registered number of cases. The number of deaths is dependent on the real cases not on the registered cases. Suppose following theoretical example. You have x number of real cases. And the number of registered cases is only a part of that. Suppose you have 30% variation in the part of the number of cases which are registered. Supose you have on average 0.01*x deaths with a variation of 5% (because for example hygienic differences). Only a part of these deaths are registered. Suppose you have 5% variation in the part of the deaths which are registered. Then the deaths are more representative for the spread of the disease then the cases (in total less variation). This show theoretically it is not impossible that the deaths are a better indication then the cases for the spread of the disease.

You say there is no correlation in this graph here between deaths and cases. I just calculated the correlation on this graph between deaths and cases [1] and the correlation is 0.61. This is a moderate to strong correation (see Guideline for interpreting correlation coefficient. Certainly if you take into a account that the death numbers are highly rounded (which limits the possible correlation), this is a strong correlation. So you come up with a source which backs up my argument.--PJ Geest (talk) 12:49, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this chart is very useful. Julius, you've yet to suggest a better alternative. I still fail to understand your argument. Yes, part of lowered death rate is due to hygenic practices. But as PJ notes, there is good correlation between vaccines and a lowered death rate. And this chart does not show only the death rate, it shows several different data points to give some nice comparisons. I think this chart excellent, you will need to come up with either a better one, or a source that shows this graph is wrong. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 16:17, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Death cases are not a good indicator
  • No, death cases are not a good indicator, which was exemplified with that measles image: Death rates fall dramatically from 1920 to 1950. Vaccinations were introduced 1963. But only then the infections rates fell dramatically. This is similar to the smallpox situation.
  • Vaccinations should prevent the spread of a disease; yes, if you are not infected, you cannot die from the disease. But this is secondary to the best since more factors contribute to this.
  • Why is there specifically a comparison between a city vs. US, why death rates vs. infections rates?
  • Talking about "real" numbers and "recorded" numbers is nonsense. What we have are only the recorded numbers, you cannot deduce anything. Also, the "real" death numbers (which you don't have) are not a benchmark for the efficacy of vaccinations.
  • What "YOU" are calculating is irrelevant. I calculate sth different. You are even not able to see that in the measles example the death rates were pretty low BEFORE introduction of the vaccine.
Hence I would keep the image BUT simply omit the small pox death rates for London (!). --Julius Senegal (talk) 10:03, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I still fail to see how the measles death rate in London is misleading. It very clearly shows that after the invention of a vaccine, the death rate dropped dramatically. What about that is bad? CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 15:54, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Saying my calculation is irrelevant and then saying you calculate it differently without showing your calculation is not really constructive. I calculated the correlation for all the years you have both data for deaths and cases by the way and took the standard way to calculate correlation.
Yes the measles where low before introduction of the vaccine, but probably the cases where also much higher before 1940, but unfortunately you don't have data of the cases from that period. So it does not show deaths have a bad correlation with the introduction of the vaccine. At the introduction of the vaccine both deaths and cases drops (but you cannot sea this well on the graph because of the scaling).
You say "This is similar to the smallpox situation" about that the infections drastically lower before the introduction, but you still give no source. Also it is the death/case ratio which counts: if this is very irregular then the deaths are not a good predictor (but only for that disease). But the fact that the cases go down or up (and the deaths at the same time also) does not say anything about that deaths are a bad predictor for the spread of the disease. --PJ Geest (talk) 18:02, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You don't get the point - what YOU are calculating is simply WP:OR, so irrelevant for this discussion.
As for measles we do have data before 1940, maybe you shouldn't simply grab images from OWID, but look at those (it is the third sub image above).
So no, from 1921 to 1963 the measles cases were ~ 500,000 per year, whereas the death rates fell dramatically from 1925 to 1950. Vaccination started 1963, and only this had an affect on infection rates.
Hence infection rates is the key, not death rates as for vaccination. That is why the smallpox image is misleading. --Julius Senegal (talk) 17:37, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have re-added the diagram. I fail to see the argument you are making, and multiple people disagree with you. If you think this image really should be removed, you are welcome to hold an WP:RFC. But so far, three people think it should stay, and only you think it should go. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:19, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Measles in England & Wales 1940-2017
Yes you are right: for measles death rates fell before introduction of the vaccine (I think we both learn gradually in this discussion). The graph on the right (Measles in England & Wales 1940-2017) illustrates your point better. So also other factors contribute to the number of deaths (next to vaccination). But it is not correct vaccination had only an effect on infection rates. Vaccination also contributed to the diminishment of the deaths of measles (see the graph Measles in England & Wales 1940-2017). Luckily the OWID graph does not show the number of deaths for measles. It also does not mean the death rate for smallpox was just as variable as for measles. So let's change the subtext of the graph to for example "Infectious diseases before and after a vaccine was introduced. Vaccination has a direct effect on the diminishment of the number of cases and contributes indirectly to a diminishment of the number of deaths." I hope we can find a compromise here. --PJ Geest (talk) 09:12, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"But it is not correct vaccination had only an effect on infection rates".
I have never claimed that. I only pointed out that death rates are inferior to infection rates in respect to the effect of vaccinations. If you don't get the disease, you won't suffer from it (including fatal outcomes).
"Luckily the OWID graph does not show the number of deaths for measles."
Correct, but there is ofc data avaialbe: https://vaxopedia.org/2018/04/15/when-was-the-last-measles-death-in-the-united-states/
"Infectious diseases before and after a vaccine was introduced. Vaccinations have [or had?] a direct effect on the diminishment of the number of cases and contributes [or contributed?] indirectly to a diminishment of the number of deaths." would be fine indeed. --Julius Senegal (talk) 08:22, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Change Image?

I personally don't understand why we use an image of Edward Jenner to illustrate the idea of "Vaccine." We have images of actual vaccines (See commons:Vaccine), so why not use those? AviationFreak💬 00:52, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

agree. i vote picture of a vaccine Clone commando sev (talk) 03:16, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, the image of a vaccine is far superior to either Jenner or Salk holding the vaccines. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:48, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, only problem: smallpox vaccines are not used anymore. Don't we have a better image? --Julius Senegal (talk) 10:58, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please add an image like this to show the timescale of how vaccines are developed (source: https://www.businessinsider.com/how-coronavirus-vaccine-development-compares-to-other-shots-in-history-2020-11 ). The mRNA technology allows for unusually rapid development. Maybe include on Timeline of human vaccines as well. TGCP (talk) 13:41, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Add a word on controversies?

There's obviously been a lot of talk about the vaccines, and alternate theories about them. I think it's all nonsense, but it's significant enough that it warrants a section on its own. VALENTINE SMITH | TALK 05:05, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You mean Vaccine hesitancy? --Julius Senegal (talk) 19:20, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Technology platform" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Technology platform. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 31#Technology platform until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 17:31, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"The adjuvant enhances the immune response of the antigen"

I believe it should read "The adjuvant enhances the immune response to the antigen" ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.53.193.91 (talk) 15:44, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. Done. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 16:30, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VET

This is one of the most popular pages in Wikipedia:WikiProject Veterinary medicine's scope. Very few editors watch WT:VET's pages, which means that questions may not be answered in a timely manner. If you are an active editor and interested in animals or veterinary medicine, please put WT:VET on your watchlist. Thank you, WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:56, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2021

Hi, I wanted to edit the article to add a link form the ELISA concept to the ELISA page in wikipedia (just substitute ELISA for ELISA ). Since the page is semi-protected, I can not do it myself.

Thanks. 195.77.128.147 (talk) 11:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vaccine&oldid=1005780433"