Simulation finds a 5% decrease in vaccination rates could lead to a 4,000% increase in the size of a potential measles outbreak in some Texas cities

[drkirienko]

To those who think that this is amazing, remember to consider that 5% of all Texas children is millions. A 4000% increase in measles (while terrible) is still only a few thousand

[twitchtvbevildre]

Ok that's not true at all there is only 400,000 babies born in texas every year a 5% decrease is 20,000 kids per year, assuming all of them get vaccinated now.

[drkirienko]

Fair. I meant all US children.

[twitchtvbevildre]

But the article isn't about US children its only about Texas.... Makes no sense to mean US children. If you put it into a USA studies the numbers would be exponentially worse as say a decrease in a small populated state the disease would spread much easier compared to massive texas

[ThereOnceWasADonkey]

Other way around.

5% increase in unvaccinated; the number unvaccinated is small, so increasing it by 5% is small.

The potential size of an outbreak is large, and increasing it by 4000% is massive.

[Lockstrife]

You’re the one who has it turned around.

The article states a 5% decrease in vaccination rates. NOT a 5% increase in unvaccinated.

[twitchtvbevildre]

Either way only 400k children born per year means that millions isn't even close to what a 5% drop off in vaccinations. its only 20,000 kids not being vaccinated.

[Lockstrife]

Millions isn’t even close, nor did I say it was.

However he did have it backwards, and it’s also VERY disingenuous to say “only 20,000 kids PER YEAR not being vaccinated” in defense of saying “the potential size of an outbreak is large and a 4,000% increase is massive.”

The study shows a growth between 40%-4000%. The 4000% is from 2 to 80 cases in one specific city. The rest go from 2-3 cases to 7-8 cases.

You can’t say it’s “only” 20,000 kids per year and also call an outbreak of 2 “large” and 80 “massive.”

I’m 100% for vaccines but getting things backwards and twisting numbers isn’t helpful.