Abiding smallpox immunity could have down side

(1) The same "threat" is also present regarding other vaccines, e.g.,
that for chickenpox. While medicos tout how vaccinated kids, if and
when infected, will usually have only a "mild," perhaps even
subclinical, case of varicella, little is said (warned) about how they
nevertheless can readily transmit the disease to other susceptible
(vaccinated OR unvaccinated) persons.

(2) Nice to see a sane approach to the smallpox "threat"; i.e., a
medical professional advocating isolation (quarantine) as a control
measure (in the absence of a *widespread* outbreak).

from www.reutershealth.com, Health eLine, 10/17/03:

Abiding smallpox immunity could have down side
Last Updated: 2003-10-17 15:22:48 -0400 (Reuters Health)

By Karla Gale

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - People who were vaccinated against smallpox
before the scourge was eliminated are probably still protected against
severe and fatal disease in the event of an accidental or intentional
outbreak. That's the good news.

The bad news is that vaccinated individuals who develop mild disease
could unwittingly increase the spread of infection, according to an
article in the American Journal of Epidemiology.

"Age-dependent risks and residual protection have been widely neglected
in the current discussion about vaccination strategies," author Dr.
Martin Eichner, of the University of Tubingen, Germany, notes.

From data collected during a smallpox epidemic in England in 1902 to
1903, he estimates that 17 percent of unvaccinated cases of smallpox
would be mild, regardless of age.

His analysis revealed that protection against severe and fatal disease
among individuals vaccinated during infancy declined quite slowly. Thus,
more than half of the adults vaccinated even 50 years earlier who might
contract the disease would experience only a mild illness.

Eichner also analyzed data from outbreaks in Europe between 1950 and
1971 and found that the proportion of cases of smallpox infection that
were fatal was greatly reduced -- by about 80 percent -- in the two
decades after vaccination.

"Such residual protection should greatly reduce the number of severe and
fatal cases expected in case of a bioterrorist attack," he writes, "but
it may also increase the risk that some previously vaccinated cases who
develop mild disease may remain unrecognized for a longer period of
time, while moving around freely and disseminating the infection."

Eichner does not support the policy of mass smallpox vaccination in the
absence of an outbreak. "Vaccination strategies in the event of an
attack should depend on the size of the outbreak," he told Reuters
Health. "If there are only occasional cases, it can be controlled by
putting them in isolation and taking care of their relatives."

On the other hand, "If terrorists spread smallpox over a wide range, it
could not be so easily controlled," he added.

SOURCE: American Journal of Epidemiology, October 15, 2003.

"JG" wrote in message
t...
(1) The same "threat" is also present regarding other vaccines, e.g.,
that for chickenpox. While medicos tout how vaccinated kids, if and
when infected, will usually have only a "mild," perhaps even
subclinical, case of varicella, little is said (warned) about how they
nevertheless can readily transmit the disease to other susceptible
(vaccinated OR unvaccinated) persons.

True. But the same thing is true of people who have had the disease. They
can get a subclinical case of chicken pox and transmit it to other kids. And
time that kids (and adults) are most infectious is just before they become
symptomatic.

(2) Nice to see a sane approach to the smallpox "threat"; i.e., a
medical professional advocating isolation (quarantine) as a control
measure (in the absence of a *widespread* outbreak).

Really? What about the control of SARS with quarantine in the absence of a
widespread outbreak? And the outbreak of SARS was not widespread (only a few
thousand cases)?

Jeff

"Jeff" wrote in message
...

"JG" wrote in message
t...
(1) The same "threat" is also present regarding other vaccines,
e.g.,
that for chickenpox. While medicos tout how vaccinated kids, if and
when infected, will usually have only a "mild," perhaps even
subclinical, case of varicella, little is said (warned) about how
they
nevertheless can readily transmit the disease to other susceptible
(vaccinated OR unvaccinated) persons.

True. But the same thing is true of people who have had the disease.
They
can get a subclinical case of chicken pox and transmit it to other
kids. And
time that kids (and adults) are most infectious is just before they
become
symptomatic.

Sure. The topic of just how "infectious" an
infected-despite-having-been-vaccinated individual is has been discussed
here before, and I've yet to see any proof/studies that such individuals
are less infectious, *in "the real world"* than infected, UNvaccinated
persons.

(2) Nice to see a sane approach to the smallpox "threat"; i.e., a
medical professional advocating isolation (quarantine) as a control
measure (in the absence of a *widespread* outbreak).

Really? What about the control of SARS with quarantine in the absence
of a
widespread outbreak? And the outbreak of SARS was not widespread (only
a few
thousand cases)?

Please restate more clearly whatever point you're trying to make. Are
you saying that public health officials are "sane" because they (in many
regions) did attempt to contain/prevent SARS transmission using
quarantines? Do you think they'd have taken such containment/prevention
measures--gone to such extremes--if a viable SARS vaccine were
available?

"JG" wrote in message
t...
"Jeff" wrote in message
(...)

(2) Nice to see a sane approach to the smallpox "threat"; i.e., a
medical professional advocating isolation (quarantine) as a control
measure (in the absence of a *widespread* outbreak).

Really? What about the control of SARS with quarantine in the absence
of a
widespread outbreak? And the outbreak of SARS was not widespread (only
a few
thousand cases)?

Please restate more clearly whatever point you're trying to make. Are
you saying that public health officials are "sane" because they (in many
regions) did attempt to contain/prevent SARS transmission using
quarantines?

No. I am merely pointing out that this has recently been used to stop an
outbreak of a communicable disease even though the outbreak was relatively
small.

Do you think they'd have taken such containment/prevention
measures--gone to such extremes--if a viable SARS vaccine were
available?

I don't know what they would have done if a vaccine was available..

Jeff

In article
"JG" wrote:

S N I P

*YAWN* Get a life.