For those that do vaccinate, or at least have researched it better than I have.

[Hillargh]

DP

[isaacsmum]

Originally Posted by Hillargh I don't really take any of them with more than a grain of salt (and I don't vax), simply because I've yet to understand how you can compare whether or not decline in anything is due solely to vax, hygiene, better life saving procedures, medical advancement in general, further understanding of viruses and mutation, etc. I don't think anyone can accurately account for the unlimited variables in any of those situations, as they all happened in conjunction (and rather quickly in comparison to previous history) and not individually. Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using DS Forum

You can't, really, unless you're looking at a very specific time period and location. But I don't know of anyone who has claimed that medical advancements and sanitation didn't play a role. I think the all did, along with vaccinations. So does the CDC, WHO, etc. But when you zoom in on the graphs and look at the years the vaccines were introduced (or, in some cases, where they were removed from the vax schedule and later introduced again) you can see changes incidence rates that you can more reasonably argue were related to vaccination given the shorter time scale.

[Hillargh]

Originally Posted by isaacsmum You can't, really, unless you're looking at a very specific time period and location. But I don't know of anyone who has claimed that medical advancements and sanitation didn't play a role. I think the all did, along with vaccinations. So does the CDC, WHO, etc. But when you zoom in on the graphs and look at the years the vaccines were introduced (or, in some cases, where they were removed from the vax schedule and later introduced again) you can see changes incidence rates that you can more reasonably argue were related to vaccination given the shorter time scale.

Oh I know. I just mean for the extreme graphs in either direction. I've seen ones that say, "It's all due to hygiene and medical advancement! It would've gotten better regardless" and ones that say, "Look at the decline since vaxes were introduced! The proof is undeniable!" I roll my eyes at both. I'm not egotistical nor ignorant enough to believe that just because I don't vax, that vaxes have no part in decline of death and illness. Nor that they are solely responsible. Even then, the health of the individuals, and their own issues could skew the results. And it just seems pointless to me to go either way with the "it worked for the majority of the population, thus it is the way!" mentality; for or against. I'd much rather go individually on each and weigh it for myself.

I do love me some pretty graphs, though

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using DS Forum

[songbird516]

Originally Posted by Hillargh I don't really take any of them with more than a grain of salt (and I don't vax), simply because I've yet to understand how you can compare whether or not decline in anything is due solely to vax, hygiene, better life saving procedures, medical advancement in general, further understanding of viruses and mutation, etc. I don't think anyone can accurately account for the unlimited variables in any of those situations, as they all happened in conjunction (and rather quickly in comparison to previous history) and not individually. Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using DS Forum

I agree with this There are just way too many factors for one graph.