SeoReborn.. you are thick, aren't you.
Different disease/vaccine, same stupid lie using graphs.
Of course the deaths were going down before that - geezes we are talkin 1870 to 1975 here .. medical science was advancing in leaps and bounds all over the place.
This meant that it was possible to keep more kids alive - kids were getting stronger at the same time, due to better nutrition, early child care, general hygiene improvements, etc..
All that does not eradicate the disease, though. And honestly, that looks like 15 deaths per 100,000 people, or, at around 1940.
At roughly 7 million, that would be 1050 people dead.
That's a small town.
Also... just because a graph is trending somewhere, doesn't mean you can take some variable out of the equation and it still goes to 0.
Somewhere in the graph is things like "doctors agree to wash their hands before seeing another patient", or "clean water is kinda important", "let's not lump kids with whooping cough together, shall we?" ... none of these are solely responsible for the decline, and removing any one would change the graph.
The killer for diseases such as these is vaccination.
Again: We have the opportunity to completely eradicate diseases from the planet. After that, no one needs to be vaccinated anymore, because the disease is GONE.
And yes, some diseases are virtually gone today without vaccination, just by hygiene, etc..
BUT
You guys are looking at mortality rates. Yeah, let's keep a kid paralyzed by Polio alive.. much fun is gonna be had.
And if you get a hard on about Pertussis:
Genomics, Medicine, and Pseudoscience: Whooping cough in California: deaths caused by the anti-vaccination movement
::emp::