Victoribus Spolia wrote:You didn't even say it had no sources.
You only bitched about lacking a source for the pre 1937 data point and I pointed out that it didn't really matter. feel free to start at 1937 if you wish, it changes nothing.
I looked at its cited sources. None of its cited sources give any data for the yeears before 1937, which is at least half the graph and almost all of the chart that is legible due to the scale chosen. It would be impossible to distinguish a trend of any sort after 1937 using that graph.
In other words, that graph is useless.
Once again, by what % did the vaccine accelerate the overrall rate of existing decline, because it looks like from the projection chart that every decade was seeing a decrease close to 90% already.
I answered your question about when the 90% happened. I.e. the question that you randomly inserted in parentheses.
If you wanted to say that part of this 90% drop was also attributable to causes other than the vaccine, you may be correct.
That does not change the fact thatnthis dramric drop occurred, disproving your claim.
Even if we assume that the drop that occurred due to hygiene, other medical practices, and nutrition were to continue as per the projected line on your evidence, the line following the death rate after 1963 is still far steeper than that projected line. The differenc ein slope between these two lines would be the result of the vaccine.
However, I am not sure it makes sense to assume that the effects of hygiene, other medical practices, and nutrition would continue to affect the death rate with the same amount of significane all the way to zero mortality.
The UK drop in measles shows similar projections and they didn't have the first vaccine introduced until 1968 and it was so shitty they had to rework it and reinintroduce it in 1988.
This is a new argument.
You previously ignored evidence I presented from Romania because it was not from the US. Now you are entering evidence from another country. While you are being logically inconsistent, I will now also address this new argument.
Please note that your new UK chart also shows a dramatic drop after the vaccine was introduced in 1988.
So, once again, your own evidence supports my point.
Also, you should be giving credit to the actual authors of the work you are citing.
Now, this graph of yours has several problems.
First of all, notification of measles began in England and Wales in 1940.
This would be the second time you have presented a chart where the first half seems to be unsourced.
Secondly, the vaccine was introduced in 1968, which was the last time there were more than fifty deaths per year. Most years before that time had deaths in the triple digits. So the vaccine had a significant impact despite the lack of decent coverage and continued episodes of transmission. In 1988, they achieved full vaccine coverage. That was also the last year that measles deaths were in the double digits.
Since then, measles deaths have never been more than ten and have often been zero. Most cases since then involve people with immune deficiency issues.https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... 40-to-2013
Once again, no one is claiming that vaccines don't decrease measles deaths, what is being claimed is that had the measles vaccine never been introduced, the rate of death we are currently experiencing would not be much different, as the projections clearly demonstrate and your own data does not contradict, but in fact, corroborates.
No, that does not follow. The rate of death would almost certainly be at least ten times higher.