"Measles remains a major problem in developing countries, where it affects an estimated 30 million children a year and causes up to one million deaths annually. Measles blindness is the single leading cause of blindness among children in low income countries, accounting for an estimated 15,000 to 60,000 cases of blindness per year. There is a close synergism between measles and vitamin A deficiency that can result in xerophthalmia, with corneal ulceration, keratomalacia, and subsequent corneal scarring or phthisis bulbi. High-dose oral vitamin A supplementation is recommended for all children with measles in developing countries. Higher measles immunization coverage to interrupt measles transmission and interventions aimed at improving vitamin A nutriture of children are the main strategies to prevent measles blindness."
Did the graph claim anything about the benefits of vaccines? While data can be used incorrectly and to support bad ideas I don't think we should call this out as misinformation. At least assuming the data in the graph is true- if it's made up that's a very different story.
The correct response is to say the data doesn't support X and here is more data to prove that. Without a data/science based discussion we're just reduced to yelling at each other.
We (e.g. the people who support vaccination in general and possible the specific vaccination programs in effect, a bit of nuance there for you) should be open to data that proves us wrong (and this is not this data) and the anti-vaccination crowd should be open to data that proves them wrong. The advance of better healthcare is should be a real factor in public health decisions (e.g. something that might have been the correct decision in the 1950's might be false today).
In terms of nuance, I and my entire generation had chickenpox. Now we have a vaccine. But the vaccine doesn't last forever and not everyone renews their vaccinations. The vaccine is something like 90% effective and by some sources lasts for at least 10 to 20 years. I do see some sources claiming "lifetime". I think it should be possible to debate public health policies here given that getting this disease as an adult is a lot more dangerous than getting it as a child. Given the lack of high quality data it's hard for me as a parent to make the right call. Health authorities make public health decisions but often do not go to great lengths to back up their policy with data that's easy to find and access. That part is really not about being anti-science, it's about being pro-science. Science includes adapting your position based on data. As lowly "citizens" we don't get access to good data from governments (this was particularly evident during the pandemic) which makes it hard for us to trust said governments given that we are inherently in a conflict of interest situation with regard to public policies and officials often have other conflict of interests or bias - or they're just not good at their job.
Another example is that I'm not sure the data is clear whether teenagers really needed the third Covid booster that was pushed by certain health authorities. The update [EDIT: uptake] for boosters and followup shots was clearly significantly lower than the first two shots and I think the onus is on the government to show us clear data that shows enough benefit to balance any possible risks (with this and any other public health policy). EDIT: also consider those dosages could have been put to better use somewhere else.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/186678/new-cases-of-meas...
What I found interesting is that cases per capita in 1985-1992 were quite high, anyone happens to know why that is?
Also here is maybe a better graph to look at: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/measles-cases-and-death-r...
So the vaccine reduced the death rate from 0.2 per 100K to 0.04 per 100K... So x5.
Measles and blindness: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14998696/
"Measles remains a major problem in developing countries, where it affects an estimated 30 million children a year and causes up to one million deaths annually. Measles blindness is the single leading cause of blindness among children in low income countries, accounting for an estimated 15,000 to 60,000 cases of blindness per year. There is a close synergism between measles and vitamin A deficiency that can result in xerophthalmia, with corneal ulceration, keratomalacia, and subsequent corneal scarring or phthisis bulbi. High-dose oral vitamin A supplementation is recommended for all children with measles in developing countries. Higher measles immunization coverage to interrupt measles transmission and interventions aimed at improving vitamin A nutriture of children are the main strategies to prevent measles blindness."
Did the graph claim anything about the benefits of vaccines? While data can be used incorrectly and to support bad ideas I don't think we should call this out as misinformation. At least assuming the data in the graph is true- if it's made up that's a very different story.
The correct response is to say the data doesn't support X and here is more data to prove that. Without a data/science based discussion we're just reduced to yelling at each other.
We (e.g. the people who support vaccination in general and possible the specific vaccination programs in effect, a bit of nuance there for you) should be open to data that proves us wrong (and this is not this data) and the anti-vaccination crowd should be open to data that proves them wrong. The advance of better healthcare is should be a real factor in public health decisions (e.g. something that might have been the correct decision in the 1950's might be false today).
In terms of nuance, I and my entire generation had chickenpox. Now we have a vaccine. But the vaccine doesn't last forever and not everyone renews their vaccinations. The vaccine is something like 90% effective and by some sources lasts for at least 10 to 20 years. I do see some sources claiming "lifetime". I think it should be possible to debate public health policies here given that getting this disease as an adult is a lot more dangerous than getting it as a child. Given the lack of high quality data it's hard for me as a parent to make the right call. Health authorities make public health decisions but often do not go to great lengths to back up their policy with data that's easy to find and access. That part is really not about being anti-science, it's about being pro-science. Science includes adapting your position based on data. As lowly "citizens" we don't get access to good data from governments (this was particularly evident during the pandemic) which makes it hard for us to trust said governments given that we are inherently in a conflict of interest situation with regard to public policies and officials often have other conflict of interests or bias - or they're just not good at their job.
Another example is that I'm not sure the data is clear whether teenagers really needed the third Covid booster that was pushed by certain health authorities. The update [EDIT: uptake] for boosters and followup shots was clearly significantly lower than the first two shots and I think the onus is on the government to show us clear data that shows enough benefit to balance any possible risks (with this and any other public health policy). EDIT: also consider those dosages could have been put to better use somewhere else.