Category Archives: Science and Edumacation

Vaccines

A great post on why people are backing away from life-saving vaccines:

Why would parents refuse to vaccinate their children against dangerous diseases? Many are skeptical of modern science and medicine in general. (And it is true that most vaccines carry exceedingly tiny—but real—risks of serious illness or even death.) But I think most are responding to the widespread belief that vaccines are linked to autism. Recent studies have soundly disspelled that notion. And a simple glance at health statistics shows that autism cases continued to rise even after thimerosal, the mercury-based preservative widely blamed for the supposed autism link, was largely phased out of U.S. vaccines by 2001.

Nevertheless, these unsubstantiated fears have led some people to say that getting vaccinated should be a matter of individual choice: If you want to be protected, just get yourself and your children vaccinated.

Only it’s not that easy. While the measles vaccine protects virtually everyone who is inoculated, not all vaccines have the same rate of success. But even if a vaccine is effective for only 70, 80 or 90 percent of those who take it, the other 30, 20 or 10 percent who don’t get the full benefit of the vaccine are usually still not at risk. That’s because most of the people around the partially protected are immune, so the disease can’t sustain transmission long enough to spread.

But when people decide to forgo vaccination, they threaten the entire system. They increase their own risk and the risk of those in the community, including babies too young to be vaccinated and people with immune systems impaired by disease or chemotherapy. They are also free-riding on the willingness of others to get vaccinated, which makes a decision to avoid vaccines out of fear or personal belief a lot safer.

Of course it is the very success of modern vaccines that makes this complacency possible. In previous generations, when epidemic disease swept through schools and neighborhoods, it was easy to persuade parents that the small risks associated with vaccination were worth it. When those epidemics stopped—because of widespread vaccinations—it became easy to forget that we still live in a dangerous world. It happens all the time: University of Tennessee law professor Gregory Stein examined the relation between building codes and accidents since the infamous 1911 Triangle Shirtwaist factory fire in New York and discovered a pattern: accident followed by a period of tightened regulations, followed by a gradual slackening of oversight until the next accident. It often takes a dramatic event to focus our minds.

The problem is that modern society requires constant, not episodic, attention to keep it running. In his book The Escape from Hunger and Premature Death 1700–2100 Nobel Prize–winning historian Robert Fogel notes the incredible improvement in the lives of ordinary people since 1700 as a result of modern sanitation, agriculture and public health. It takes steady work to keep water clean, prevent the spread of contagious disease and ensure an adequate food supply. As long as things go well, there’s a tendency to take these conditions for granted and treat them as a given. But they’re not: As Fogel notes, they represent a dramatic departure from the normal state of human existence over history, in which people typically lived nasty, sickly and short lives.

This departure didn’t happen on its own, and things don’t stay better on their own. Keeping a society functioning requires a lot of behind-the-scenes work by people who don’t usually get a lot of attention—sanitation engineers, utility linemen, public health nurses, farmers, agricultural chemists and so on. Because the efforts of these workers are often undramatic, they are underappreciated and frequently underfunded. Politicians like to cut ribbons on new bridges or schools, but there’s no fanfare for the everyday maintenance that keeps the bridges standing and the schools working. As a result, critical parts of society are quietly decaying, victims of complacency or of active neglect. (See PM’s special report on the nation’s infrastructure, “Rebuilding America”) It’s not just vaccinations or bridges, either. A few years ago, I attended an Environmental Protection Agency Science Advisory Board meeting, and the water-treatment discussion was enough to make me think about switching to beer.

Human civilization is like an iceberg. 90% of what keeps us afloat isn’t seen. It just happens in the daily lives of the hundreds of millions of people doing their best.

Monday Night Linkorama

  • Fark does come up with some good headlines.
  • Cool.
  • Interesting. We’re giving $5 billion to GMAC so that they can become a bank and become eligible for the bailout money. This bailout gets worse all the time. And the idea that the taxpayers will ultimately profit looks more unlikely each day.
  • Apparently, it’s only torture if other people do it. Who knew?
  • One of the many reasons I’m glad I don’t live in Massachusetts.
  • Third Hand Nonsense

    This is usually the purview of the other Michael Siegel, but I thought I’d tackle it as well.

    Some people have their boxers in bunch over third-hand smoke:

    Need another reason to add “Quit Smoking” to your New Year’s resolutions list? How about the fact that even if you choose to smoke outside of your home or only smoke in your home when your children are not there – thinking that you’re keeping them away from second-hand smoke – you’re still exposing them to toxins? In the January issue of Pediatrics, researchers at MassGeneral Hospital for Children (MGHfC) and colleagues across the country describe how tobacco smoke contamination lingers even after a cigarette is extinguished – a phenomenon they define as “third-hand” smoke.

    What they’re talking about is the smell of smoke that lingers in your clothes after you’ve smoked or been in a bar. It’s unpleasant but I highly doubt that it is dangerous. There evidence that second hand smoke is dangerous is tenuous at best.

    Keep in mind: there is no science in anything you are about to read. Only panic-mongering. Their “study” consists of asking people if they think third-hand smoke is dangerous. By that standard, I could do a survey of kids and conclude that we need to establish strict laws against the boogeyman.

    Particulate matter from tobacco smoke has been proven toxic. According to the National Toxicology Program, these 250 poisonous gases, chemicals, and metals include hydrogen cyanide, carbon monoxide, butane, ammonia, toluene (found in paint thinners), arsenic, lead, chromium (used to make steel), cadmium (used to make batteries), and polonium-210 (highly radioactive carcinogen). Eleven of the compounds are classified as Group 1 carcinogens, the most dangerous.

    This sounds scary but it’s garbage. They have no statement of how prevalent these things are. You can find trace amounts of dangerous chemicals in almost anything. Lima beans have traces of cyanogen; potatoes contain arsenic and celery contains psoralen. They mostly drag this stuff out of the ground, which is how this stuff gets into tobacco and hence, smoke. But that doesn’t mean it’s killing people or causing neurological damage.

    Even if something is a carcinogen, low levels are not necessarily dangerous. Selenium is an important mineral to human health. In large amounts, it is extremely toxic.

    Are we through yet? What’s the next thing we’re supposed to panic about?

    Monday Night Linkorama

  • Crows can be taught to look for loose change. How cool.
  • Real sports fans bring urinal cakes, dontchya know.
  • As an initial supporter of the Iraq War, stories like this appall me. I still think it was a defensible idea. But it was executed in the most incompetent, ham-fisted, bass-ackward manner you could imagine. The defining characteristic of the Bush Administration is not evil or stupidity, but incompetence.
  • Pat Boone goes off the deep end on those danged gays.
  • Why electric cars may not be so hot. Apparently, better improvement in energy efficiency could be obtained by simply re-engineering existing designs. Another reason for government to support alternative energy in a generalized, not specific, way.
  • Cool It

    Bjorn Lomborg rocks. I love someone who can piss off “conservatives” my acknowledging the reality of global warming and infuriate “progressives” by promoting serious discussion on what to do about it.

    . “At the end of the day,” says Lomborg, “this is about saying, Yes, global warming is real. It’s often massively exaggerated, which is why we need smarter solutions…. Let’s pick them smart, rather than stupidly. And also, let’s remember that they are many other problems in the world that we can fix so much cheaper and do so much more good….If this is really a question about doing good in the world, then let’s do real good-and not just make ourselves feel good about what we do.”

    Tuesday Night Linkorama

  • A woman is fighting jail for a converted garage. Oh, it was converted 30 years ago.
  • Nice. A TSA agent has stolen hundreds of thousands from passengers.
  • Stop me if you’ve heard this before: nappies don’t benefit the environment. And the British government is trying to bury the report. I thought it was only right-wingers who politicized science?
  • I’m sorry. One of the dangers of being a kid is that if you throw your ball onto a neighbor’s lawn, you may not get it back.
  • Moynihan on disaster socialism.
  • Here’s the real problem with a study of the measurements of Playboy playmates and the correlation to the economy. They are assuming that those measurements are accurate and not ginned up by the magazine.
  • Someone needs to tell Joe Biden to shut up.
  • Turns out — here’s a surprise — the Democrats aren’t the only one responsible for the Freddie/Fannie Disaster. When are we going to break up these companies and sell of their assets?
  • School Choice

    Cato opens full bore with not one, not two but three good posts on voucher systems in response to Obama’s debate answer and the “fact check” that vouchers don’t work.

    The study found that students in the program did generally score higher. The reporters were confused by the fact that the findings for the whole group of students were not statistically significant at the prescribed cut-off. The researchers were only 91 percent certain (statistically) that the better performance of voucher-program students was due to the program rather than chance, and they had to be 95 percent certain. They did find statistically significant positive findings for some subgroups of students.

    Compounding this error, the reporters then quote an education researcher saying, “We have no evidence that vouchers work.” This too is incorrect.

    There have been ten analyses of random-assignment voucher program experiments (random-assignment being the gold-standard of testing treatment effects). All ten demonstrate positive voucher effects, 9 out of 10 find statistically significant effects for at least some subgroups, and 8 out of 10 find statistically significant effects for the whole voucher group.

    And the parents involved are extremely happy with it and think their kids are safer. And the vouchers cost a third or less than what is spent in public schools. Oh, and these programs are all small and some highly regulated, which limits their effectiveness.

    But if we use vouchers, we can’t hire more union members!

    Debate Night Linkorama

  • A really cool look at the bridge that got rebuilt in Minneapolis.
  • The geniuses at Medicare have decided to stop paying for medical errors. Here’s why it’s a bad idea.
  • It turns out that cellulosic ethanol sucks almost as much as corn ethanol.
  • Libs are harping on Glass-Steagel as the origin of our problems. Bill Clinton says that’s garbage and he’s right.
  • A rundown of what went wrong in the mortgage meltdown. It wasn’t just the CRA, people.
  • The fiscal pictures gets even worse when you look at the states. What are we doing to our children?
  • That credit freeze? Eh, not so much.