Social Despite Overwhelming Evidence Vaccines Safe & Effective, "Hysteresis" Endures

[Madmick]

Hysteresis: The Phenomenon Behind the Anti-vax Movement
Despite overwhelming scientific evidence that vaccines are safe and effective in preventing childhood diseases, a significant minority remains skeptical, such as the anti-vax movement. Mathematicians show this may be due to "hysteresis", where an effect persists despite changed initial conditions.

espite overwhelming scientific evidence that vaccines are a safe and effective tool for the prevention of childhood diseases, a significant minority of the U.S. population remains skeptical of the practice, as evidenced by the persistence of the anti-vax movement.

This has sometimes made it a difficult task to achieve the desired level of coverage required for the protective effects of “herd immunity” to kick in. Now, researchers from Dartmouth College have investigated this phenomenon, uncovering a key factor in why it may be so hard to increase the numbers of people being vaccinated.

In a study published in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B, Feng Fu, an assistant professor of mathematics, and colleagues showed that a phenomenon known as "hysteresis" may act as a roadblock for efforts to increase vaccination rates.

Hysteresis can be seen in many physical systems, however, it can also be applied to human society. Put simply, it refers to the persistence of a given effect even after the conditions of the initial system have been changed.

“A hysteresis loop causes the impact of a force to be observed even after the force itself has been eliminated,” Fu told Newsweek. “The occurrence of hysteresis is traditionally associated with magnetic properties of materials, and also has been found in biological and socio-economical systems. It's why physical objects resist returning to their original state after being acted on by an outside force. It's why unemployment rates can sometimes remain high in a recovering economy.”

Now, Dartmouth researchers say they are the first to discover that hysteresis can arise in the context of public health interventions, in addition to fields such as physics and economics.

"Once people question the safety or effectiveness of a vaccine, it can be very difficult to get them to move beyond those negative associations,” Fu said in a statement. “Hysteresis is a powerful force that is difficult to break at a societal level.”

According to the researchers, the hysteresis loop can be initiated because people have negative experiences or perceptions related to vaccinations—which can stem from the fact that they can sometimes produce unwanted side effects (albeit minor in the majority of cases) and can never confer full protection against a disease. These negative experiences or perceptions can cause the “vaccination trajectory," or the trend of vaccination uptake over time, to get stuck in a hysteresis loop.

“In other words, the existence of hysteresis loop makes the population sensitive to changes in factors that drive vaccination behavior such as cost and effectiveness,” Fu said. “The presence of hysteresis also makes it hard to recover to previous states, as a different path is followed.”

According to first-author of the study Xingru Chen, this explains why it can be so hard to improve persistently low vaccination rates in some areas. Past research into this area has failed to fully uncover all of the factors involved in low vaccine compliance.

"The sheer force of factual, logical arguments around public health issues is just not enough to overcome hysteresis and human behavior,” Chen said.

The avoidance of vaccinations leading to low vaccination coverage poses a significant problem to public health, the researchers say.

“Measles, mumps, and whooping cough, which [were] thought to no longer [be] a major threat to our society, [have made] a surprising comeback in recent years," Fu said.

However, the team hopes that the latest results could have practical implications for increasing vaccine compliance, at least partially, by overcoming the hysteresis effect.

“The identification of the hysteresis loop is a powerful finding that will help public health officials better manage vaccination campaigns,” Fu said. “For example, the modeling result that shows that vaccines need to reach a certain level of efficacy to increase uptake should tell officials to focus on two things: (1) develop sufficiently efficacious vaccine and, importantly, (2) make people aware of this efficacy once it has been achieved.”

“Aside from the public health prevention perspective, vaccination campaign should promote vaccination as an altruistic behavior that is desired for societal benefit (vaccination not only protects oneself but also others—including family, friends, and strangers—through the notion “herd immunity,”) he said.

Recent data from the Centers for Disease Prevention and Control shows that coverage of most recommended vaccines remained stable and high in 2017 for children aged 19 to 35 months in the U.S.

However, the proportion of children who received no vaccine by the age of 24 months had increased by 0.9 percent for children born in 2011 to 1.3 percent for those born in 2015.

"This increase means that there are about 100,000 children under 2 years old that are not protected against potentially serious vaccine-preventable diseases," Amanda Cohn, Senior Advisor for Vaccines at the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, previously told Newsweek.

And another recent study, published in the journal PLOS ONE, found evidence that growing numbers of people in certain areas of the U.S. are opposed to vaccinations.

“Since 2009, the number of “philosophical-belief” vaccine non-medical exemptions (NMEs) has risen in 12 of the 18 states that currently allow this policy: Arkansas (AR), Arizona (AZ), Idaho (ID), Maine (ME), Minnesota (MN), North Dakota (ND), Ohio (OH), Oklahoma (OK), Oregon (OR), Pennsylvania (PA), Texas (TX), and Utah (UT),” the PLOS ONE study authors wrote in their paper.

Interesting hypothesis. Not sure if I buy it on a social level, but the final paragraph boils the social phenomenon down to its essence, and this I do not doubt. The anti-vax movement isn't rooted in scientific understanding or belief. It is rooted in a philosophical distrust of government and the scientific community who these groups of people distrust believing them a serious threat to the philosophical core of their value systems. While that may or may not be a real threat it has no bearing on the truth of vaccines and autism, and the entirely unsubstantiated link between them.

This has been reinforced by every study into the matter, epidemiological or otherwise, across the developed world, since the shocking discovery that (the since disgraced and delicensed) Dr. Andrew Wakefield fabricated his data in the Lancent-published studies that launched the contemporary anti-vax movement some 15 years ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wakefield
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3136032/

Not only that, but a recent May 2018 study also found on a mass scale that children with autism (and their siblings) are less likely to be vaccinated than healthy children:
Vaccination Patterns in Children After Autism Spectrum Disorder Diagnosis and in Their Younger Siblings

Results The study included 3729 children with ASD (676 [18.1%] female), 592 907 children without ASD, and their respective younger siblings. Among children without ASD, 250 193 (42.2%) were female. For vaccines recommended between ages 4 and 6 years, children with ASD were significantly less likely to be fully vaccinated compared with children without ASD (adjusted rate ratio, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.85-0.88). Within each age category, vaccination rates were significantly lower among younger siblings of children with ASD compared with younger siblings of children without ASD. The adjusted rate ratios varied from 0.86 for siblings younger than 1 year to 0.96 for those 11 to 12 years old. Parents who had a child with ASD were more likely to refuse at least 1 recommended vaccine for that child’s younger sibling and to limit the number of vaccines administered during the younger sibling’s first year of life.

Conclusions and Relevance Children with ASD and their younger siblings were undervaccinated compared with the general population. The results of this study suggest that children with ASD and their younger siblings are at increased risk of vaccine-preventable diseases.

So, in point of fact, while the scientific and medical communities in 2018 are confident in asserting that vaccines DO NOT cause autism, which is usually the sort of claim these groups of people are very hesitant to make since it requires so much data to establish a negative with certainty, they can now also draw a correlation between anti-vaxxers and a significantly higher incidence of autism; although of course they haven't established or are even proposing causation at this point.


*Special Note*
There is a wonderful movement underway to remove paywalls obstructing access to full research data like the above study that is often government subsidized or grant funded, but are restricted with subscriptions costing money that often is NOT devoted to the authors of the studies in question, but the journals publishing them instead. Information like this, while more abstruse, has always been intended to be open source, and for the good of humanity.

In the meantime, know that if are intensely interested in a study like the above, all you have to do to access it for free is email the authors of the study directly (they typically have university email accounts listed at the abstract page) and ask for it directly. They are permitted to distribute any articles they author freely to anyone who requests it.

 

[tonni]

There’s no vaccines for stupidity.

 

[Trotsky]

This topic (the persistence of ignorance re vaccines) is a great microcosm for how the internet age has not panned out at all like we had hoped (like a great liberator for thought and knowledge).

We thought that, with everyone now having access to limitless knowledge and facts, our citizens and voters would become more informed than they were before when they most received limitd information through agenda setters in the media. It turned out the exact opposite, as citizens' personal consumption of information abandoned all the best practices of mass media consumption, and people just chose to seek out information that confirmed what is easiest or most convenient to believe. So, even if we're less uninformed that years past perhaps, we're definitely more misinformed than ever before. So, with vaccines, we were effectively smarter when we knew less and before we realized that stupid people thinking for themselves is often just stupid people outsourcing their thought to other stupid people.

Frankly, it's a win for paternalists the world over, and a giant drop kick in the balls to anti-paternalistic libertarians like myself.

 

[HunterSdVa29]

I remember a few guys trying to say they were AntiVax before we got deployment vaccines/shots

Military's response: shut up and take your shot
hahahahahaa

 

[tonni]

This topic (the persistence of ignorance re vaccines) is a great microcosm for how the internet age has not panned out at all like we had hoped (like a great liberator for thought and knowledge).

We thought that, with everyone now having access to limitless knowledge and facts, our citizens and voters would become more informed than they were before when they most received limitd information through agenda setters in the media. It turned out the exact opposite, as citizens' personal consumption of information abandoned all the best practices of mass media consumption, and people just chose to seek out information that confirmed what is easiest or most convenient to believe. So, even if we're less uninformed that years past perhaps, we're definitely more misinformed than ever before. So, with vaccines, we were effectively smarter when we knew less and before we realized that stupid people thinking for themselves is often just stupid people outsourcing their thought to other stupid people.

There’s a lot of information, but it takes time and thought to really learn things and it’s not well suited for the high-speed infotainment snippet culture on the internet.

The platform of the internet is just so well suited to memes and bytes that it has backfired massively. Misinformation websites have become highly sophisticated and you really don’t need a big budget to spread it.

It does help when you’re being backed by big oil, cough cough climate change denial websites.

 

[Post 2 Decision]

Parents killing their kids

Survival of the fittest

At least some of these idiots won't be able to have their genes spread

 

[HockeyBjj]

@abiG

 

[Devout Pessimist]

Interesting that the same people who are against vaccines also have Trump Derangement Syndrome.

 

[HockeyBjj]

Interesting that the same people who are against vaccines also have Trump Derangement Syndrome.

Nah. It's extremes on both sides of political line. Crazy hippie moms and don't eat shellfish religious folk both

 

[Sycho Sid]

Interesting that the same people who are against vaccines also have Trump Derangement Syndrome.

That is just stupid. Anti vaxxers are on both sides, but at the legislative level they seem to lean republican more (though that may not be accurate)

 

[MikeMcMann]

i absolutely believe that the benefit of Vaccines outweighs the harms.

But i also think the gov't is not releasing full data on the 'harms' out of fear of scaring more people from vaccines. And some might say that is fair.

I know personal anecdotes =/= an argument but in a recent discussions where there was no probing with company board members, which is a group of 7 of us, it came out that 3 have had deadly encounters with the Flu Vaccines. One directly, went into what was supposed to be a life ending coma just over 2 years ago. His family told to clear up his affairs, he would not survive. The other teh CEO of the company who was in line with all his other employees as they all got the flu shot at a company sponsored work even. One employee further up the line collapsed instantly and went into a shorter coma and of course all the rest of the employees left the line and the company no longer does that. The third a relative who did not go into a coma but was hospitalized for a period.

All three identified as 'adverse reactions to the Flu shot'. I wish I could remember the name of the Disease or Reaction the first guy had as it is an known and identified reaction to the Flu shot you could read up on.

So maybe it is just an odd and coincidental anomaly within my my known groups (or a tiny group within my group) but i think there are a lot of people like me who have heard to many stories about 'adverse reactions' that do not match up to the data being put out about the risks to make us comfortable.

And I do believe still that the flu shot prevents more deaths than it causes regardless. But most of those deaths are amongst the very old, infirm or very young. All of these cases were young men in their prime years. Not that their lives are more valuable but a young healthy person, not at much risk might not want to take a anti-viral that put them at risk just to protect the herd.

 

[lifelessheap]

There’s no vaccines for stupidity.

Yeah, people believe in ESP and ghosts and so much other stupid shit. I have little faith in our populace.

 

[Lubaolong]

Most anti-vaxxers I’ve met have been mentally ill. I would wager the correlation between the two is pretty high.

 

[franklinstower]

This topic (the persistence of ignorance re vaccines) is a great microcosm for how the internet age has not panned out at all like we had hoped (like a great liberator for thought and knowledge).

We thought that, with everyone now having access to limitless knowledge and facts, our citizens and voters would become more informed than they were before when they most received limitd information through agenda setters in the media. It turned out the exact opposite, as citizens' personal consumption of information abandoned all the best practices of mass media consumption, and people just chose to seek out information that confirmed what is easiest or most convenient to believe. So, even if we're less uninformed that years past perhaps, we're definitely more misinformed than ever before. So, with vaccines, we were effectively smarter when we knew less and before we realized that stupid people thinking for themselves is often just stupid people outsourcing their thought to other stupid people.

Frankly, it's a win for paternalists the world over, and a giant drop kick in the balls to anti-paternalistic libertarians like myself.

I don't think the blame should be placed entirely on the shoulders of people who get exposed to false information although the solution must be them seeking better information.

The majority of blame rests squarely on the people who opportunistically spread these lies and conspiracies often for fame and profit.

 

[ultramanhyata]

The pharmaceutical industry could go a long way towards ending vaccine skepticism and championing the supposition that vaccines are safe and effective by ending the so-called vaccine court's system of no-fault litigation and by no longer making the US tax-payer responsible for pay outs to the families of vaccine injured children.

 

[mrsenor]

 

[Joe265]

Look at the trustworthiness of the pharmaceutical industry. No amount of studies can rectify that. Dr. Jason Fung already proved the sham of Type 2 diabetes. Dr. John Sarnos demonstrates the pain treatment industry is almost completely fraudulent. Think and study for yourself.

 

[abiG]

@abiG

Mic is butthurt. He apparently edited the title to the other thread where just days ago we learned that the government's own vaccine guru has come clean. He made public his sworn affidavit. He told the government years ago, that yes, in at least a subset of children, vaccines turned perfectly healthy children into autistic ones.

The idea that vaccines are safe and effective as implied in this thread's title has NEVER been settled.

Here is what we know now:
...we have remarkable new information: a respected pro-vaccine medical expert used by the federal government to debunk the vaccine-autism link, says vaccines can cause autism after all. He claims he told that to government officials long ago, but they kept it secret....

In 2007, Yates’ case and nearly all the other vaccine autism claims lost. The decision was based largely on the expert opinion of this man, Dr. Andrew Zimmerman, a world-renowned pediatric neurologist shown here at a lecture.

Dr. Zimmerman was the government’s top expert witness and had testified that vaccines didn’t cause autism. The debate was declared over.

But now Dr. Zimmerman has provided remarkable new information. He claims that during the vaccine hearings all those years ago, he privately told government lawyers that vaccines can, and did cause autism in some children. That turnabout from the government’s own chief medical expert stood to change everything about the vaccine-autism debate. If the public were to find out...
http://fullmeasure.news/news/cover-story/the-vaccination-debate

I recommend everyone save this one to your hard drives... especially those who rely on the "someone would spill the beans" excuse when discussing how conspiracies do not/can not exist.

 

[Kalitaur]

 

[Trotsky]

In hindsight we should have saw this coming and attempted some sort of preventive measures to avoid running this course. Our own arrogance bit us in the ass here, and we're paying the price.

Honestly, I can count myself firmly among the overly optimistic. I've been a critic of capitalism for quite some time, but I overestimated the prevalence (or, hell, even existence) of moral checks on open swindling and lying.

I don't think the blame should be placed entirely on the shoulders of people who get exposed to false information although the solution must be them seeking better information.

The majority of blame rests squarely on the people who opportunistically spread these lies and conspiracies often for fame and profit.

Maybe not entirely, but I think the old conservative ethos of "personal responsibility," no matter how vacuous and hypocritical it may be in most of its applications, comes into play here due to the utter hopelessness of trying to tackle the other end. I mean....just look at our literal representatives. We can't even keep Mitch McConnell, Donald Trump, and Tom Cotton from lying outright (not bending the truth or engaging in persuasion, but outright lying). So we're many, many steps away from even developing criteria for suppression of dishonesty, let alone applying it in such a way that actually works.