5 ms·

U.S. measles cases in 2013 may be most in 17 years

43 points by tcoppi 13y ago

rdl 13y ago
It seems difficult to fight this directly -- prosecuting anti-vaccinators would be viewed by supporters as persecution, and might actually make them more reluctant to vaccinate. Publicizing deaths due to lack of vaccination can work, but that lags -- by the time enough of the population is unvaccinated for the disease to spread and kill babies, it's too late. I'm in favor of quarantining Napa/Marin and certain LA suburbs, since that seems to be ground zero, at least in California, for this insanity. Andrew Wakefield should have been forced to personally meet every parent of a measles-infected baby as part of his punishment for fraud.
- noonespecial 13y ago
  I've been thinking we should treat it as a free-rider problem. Given that eradicating diseases like this really comes down to herd-immunity, what we really have is free-riders unfairly benefitting from the slight risk that others are taking through a certain medical intervention. What gives a certain person the right to benefit from everyone else's vaccinations while refusing to subject their own children to the minimal risk? We don't need to prove that vaccines are "safe", just safer than a frikken measles epidemic... and then tax the snot out of everyone who choses to forgo that risk and expense by pushing it off onto others. Internalize that external cost and I bet you'll see a whole lot of zealotry dry right up in the cold face of monetary reality.
  - fitzhume 13y ago
    I agree that if medical treatment for measles was put in a more punitive price range (depending on vaccination status, and economic background of course), I could imagine a significant drop in people who choose not to vaccinate. Use that extra money to immunize people who actually want it, but can't pay for it. Use it for programs that teach about the dangers of letting your child go unvaccinated, both for them and for other children.
    - rdl 13y ago
      The problem is the kind of fucktards who don't get their child vaccinated might then delay or avoid treatment of their highly contagious child...
      - noonespecial 13y ago
        This is why this cost must be front-loaded. There should be a penalty paid when the vaccine is refused, much like the penalty we're contemplating now for people who refuse to enroll in the pending national health system. The logic would be the same. By refusing this preventative treatment, you're likely to incur a public cost in the future. We'd just like you to pay for that up front.
- mc32 13y ago
  Maybe if people (physicians) can track down the patient zero child of a given outbreak, have downstream parents of affected children turn and sue the negligent parent(s) for tort, if it's proven they denied vaccination to their child(ren), then maybe this unfounded practice can be eradicated.
  - tlrobinson 13y ago
    Would they actually have a case, or are you joking?
    - mc32 13y ago
      Just slightly more than wishful thinking. Some legal thinkers have posited that it's not that far-fetched of an idea, given that epidemiologists can track down a patient zero.[1,2] [1]http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/08/anti_vaxxers_why_parents_who_don_t_vaccinate_their_kids_should_be_sued_or.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudenc... [2]http://www.naturalhealth365.com/vaccine_dangers/lawsuits.html http://www.naturalhealth365.com/vaccine_dangers/lawsuits.htm...
- nostrademons 13y ago
  To be honest, I think it's fine to let evolution take care of this. Deaths from measles are disproportionately the unvaccinated, which means that over time they will either die off or wise up. Yes, there's some collateral damage in the form of newborns or other people who can't be vaccinated - but newborns are at risk for a lot of other things as well, and once they get past the critical first year of life you can take care of this problem on a personal level by vaccinating your own kids.
  - NateDad 13y ago
    You obviously don't have kids. Also, the article said 92% of those that got measles were unvaccinated, meaning 8% had been vaccinated. And it's not just newborns... 40% of kids under 5 who get measles need to be hospitalized. Finally, it's not the kids that are choosing to be unvaccinated, it's their idiot parents. It's not fair to punish the kids for their parents' behavior. If it was the parents getting the measles, I'd be all for it.
dobbsbob 13y ago
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2013/08/08/bc-abbotsford-measles-threat.html http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2013/08... .. 31 kids could've died because 1 religious zealot refused vaccinations. For fuck's sake, get your vaccinations, and while I'm ranting stop drinking un-Pasteurized milk from dirt hippy stores illegally too. There is no elaborate conspiracy to keep nature down, it's to protect you from Salmonella, E. coli, and Listeria
- hayksaakian 13y ago
  While Vaccinations are certainly something you should get, let's not go down the slippery slope where we blindly consume physically refined food. Don't let big pharma abuse your trust of actually necessary vaccines
- jpatokal 13y ago
  The big difference is that a consenting adult can drink raw milk and endanger himself without harming anybody else, while anti-vaccination nutjob parents endanger both their own offspring and everybody else's. (Feeding raw milk to your kids is halfway in between; at least it's not contagious.)
  - dobbsbob 13y ago
    True, but they arrested plenty of conmen peddling raw milk as safe to the same religoius communities that don't get vaccinated. It wasn't until an outbreak of E coli that killed a kid that they discovered a vast network of raw milk stores run by foaming at the mouth conspiracy theorists and neo hippies. Diptheria also made a comeback, something even more terrifying than measles. What's wrong with people, damnit stop listening to Jenny McCarthy
- throwawayyyz 13y ago
  We live in a crazy world where it is a federal crime to transport raw milk across state lines, yet cigarettes you can get at any corner shop kill 500,000 people every year, 50,000 of them from secondhand smoke. But yes, protect us all from the evil raw dairy.
zedpm 13y ago
Given that this is caused almost entirely by anti-vaccination hysteria, and that this in in turn caused mostly by a combination of ignorance and bizarre religious beliefs, it's hard to imagine an effective response. It's been said that you can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into, and that seems apt here. Perhaps an attempt to shame people by presenting the young, innocent victims is best (e.g. little 8-month old Suzy died because XYZ Church members refused to vaccinate their children).
- abstractbill 13y ago
  ...this in in turn caused mostly by a combination of ignorance and bizarre religious beliefs... It's actually better/worse than that (depending on your perspective). People were mislead by a fraud. And not fraud with any kind of a noble purpose - it was for money.
  - rdl 13y ago
    Yeah - if it were just religious beliefs, those would be rare (although concentrated) enough to preserve herd immunity, I think. It's Jenny McCarthy and Andrew Wakefield who have turned this into a matter of national security.
  - zedpm 13y ago
    In addition to the secular anti-vaccination folks like McCarthy, there is also significant evidence of religion-based anti-vaccination movements, most recently seen in the measles outbreak in Texas which was traced back to a megachurch[1]. [1] http://www.npr.org/2013/09/01/217746942/texas-megachurch-at-center-of-measles-outbreak http://www.npr.org/2013/09/01/217746942/texas-megachurch-at-...
qq66 13y ago
It's interesting that the vast human intelligence that created all of these vaccines may be neutralized by vast human stupidity.
- noonespecial 13y ago
  It seems like stupidity but I suspect its actually greed. If everyone else is vaccinated and there is zero latent disease in a given area, it makes sense personally not to get the vaccine. If there is indeed zero chance of contracting the disease, then any risk at all associated with the vaccine is unnecessary. Bonus points for crackpot beliefs causing misestimation of the actual risks, but the fundamental equation is unchanged. Refuse to get vaccinated? Congrats, you're the betrayer in the prisoner's dilemma. Your train stops at the tragedy of the commons.
wbeckler 13y ago
Let me play devil's advocate here. The article says nothing about how many people died of measles, it just gave an estimate of how dangerous some doctors think measles is. Maybe none died and that's why they don't give a solid number? If so, the danger of measles was overstated in that estimate. Meanwhile, there's nothing in the article mentioning the danger of the vaccine, which nobody claims is nonzero. Maybe the vaccine's danger is 1 in a million. So with several million refusers 1 or 2 kids' lives were saved. At the expense of how many kids dying of measles? Zero? We need more information here.
- noonespecial 13y ago
  All we really need to know is how dangerous measles was and then count the cost of losing our herd immunity. Vaccines are not 100% effective (on an individual basis). Vaccines are a group effort that greatly diminishes in effectiveness if a large majority doesn't participate.
- grannyg00se 13y ago
  Pre-vaccine, measles would kill or seriously mess up about 1500 people yearly in the U.S. I think the vaccination rate now is in the 70% range and deaths from vaccination are hard to find. So it seems like vaccination is a win there. http://www.cdc.gov/measles/vaccination.html http://www.cdc.gov/measles/vaccination.html On the other hand, 1500 serious cases out of 300+ million people every year is a pretty low percentage. Seems like the entire threat is highly overstated.
  - davidw 13y ago
    > 1500 serious cases out of 300+ million people every year is a pretty low percentage You're using the number of cases then with the population now if I'm not mistaken.
    - grannyg00se 13y ago
      I didn't realize it started in the 70s. Still, 1500 serious cases out of 200+ million is low.
ibejoeb 13y ago
Just a week ago there was an outbrak of mumps in NJ: http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/05/health/new-jersey-mumps-outbreak/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/05/health/new-jersey-mumps-outbre... If you only give your child one vaccine, make it the MMR. It's a lot safer that measles, mumps, or rubella.

43 points by tcoppi 13y ago

rdl 13y ago

It seems difficult to fight this directly -- prosecuting anti-vaccinators would be viewed by supporters as persecution, and might actually make them more reluctant to vaccinate. Publicizing deaths due to lack of vaccination can work, but that lags -- by the time enough of the population is unvaccinated for the disease to spread and kill babies, it's too late. I'm in favor of quarantining Napa/Marin and certain LA suburbs, since that seems to be ground zero, at least in California, for this insanity. Andrew Wakefield should have been forced to personally meet every parent of a measles-infected baby as part of his punishment for fraud.

noonespecial 13y ago
I've been thinking we should treat it as a free-rider problem. Given that eradicating diseases like this really comes down to herd-immunity, what we really have is free-riders unfairly benefitting from the slight risk that others are taking through a certain medical intervention. What gives a certain person the right to benefit from everyone else's vaccinations while refusing to subject their own children to the minimal risk? We don't need to prove that vaccines are "safe", just safer than a frikken measles epidemic... and then tax the snot out of everyone who choses to forgo that risk and expense by pushing it off onto others. Internalize that external cost and I bet you'll see a whole lot of zealotry dry right up in the cold face of monetary reality.
- fitzhume 13y ago
  I agree that if medical treatment for measles was put in a more punitive price range (depending on vaccination status, and economic background of course), I could imagine a significant drop in people who choose not to vaccinate. Use that extra money to immunize people who actually want it, but can't pay for it. Use it for programs that teach about the dangers of letting your child go unvaccinated, both for them and for other children.
  - rdl 13y ago
    The problem is the kind of fucktards who don't get their child vaccinated might then delay or avoid treatment of their highly contagious child...
    - noonespecial 13y ago
      This is why this cost must be front-loaded. There should be a penalty paid when the vaccine is refused, much like the penalty we're contemplating now for people who refuse to enroll in the pending national health system. The logic would be the same. By refusing this preventative treatment, you're likely to incur a public cost in the future. We'd just like you to pay for that up front.
mc32 13y ago
Maybe if people (physicians) can track down the patient zero child of a given outbreak, have downstream parents of affected children turn and sue the negligent parent(s) for tort, if it's proven they denied vaccination to their child(ren), then maybe this unfounded practice can be eradicated.
- tlrobinson 13y ago
  Would they actually have a case, or are you joking?
  - mc32 13y ago
    Just slightly more than wishful thinking. Some legal thinkers have posited that it's not that far-fetched of an idea, given that epidemiologists can track down a patient zero.[1,2] [1]http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/08/anti_vaxxers_why_parents_who_don_t_vaccinate_their_kids_should_be_sued_or.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudenc... [2]http://www.naturalhealth365.com/vaccine_dangers/lawsuits.html http://www.naturalhealth365.com/vaccine_dangers/lawsuits.htm...
nostrademons 13y ago
To be honest, I think it's fine to let evolution take care of this. Deaths from measles are disproportionately the unvaccinated, which means that over time they will either die off or wise up. Yes, there's some collateral damage in the form of newborns or other people who can't be vaccinated - but newborns are at risk for a lot of other things as well, and once they get past the critical first year of life you can take care of this problem on a personal level by vaccinating your own kids.
- NateDad 13y ago
  You obviously don't have kids. Also, the article said 92% of those that got measles were unvaccinated, meaning 8% had been vaccinated. And it's not just newborns... 40% of kids under 5 who get measles need to be hospitalized. Finally, it's not the kids that are choosing to be unvaccinated, it's their idiot parents. It's not fair to punish the kids for their parents' behavior. If it was the parents getting the measles, I'd be all for it.

dobbsbob 13y ago

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2013/08/08/bc-abbotsford-measles-threat.html http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2013/08... .. 31 kids could've died because 1 religious zealot refused vaccinations. For fuck's sake, get your vaccinations, and while I'm ranting stop drinking un-Pasteurized milk from dirt hippy stores illegally too. There is no elaborate conspiracy to keep nature down, it's to protect you from Salmonella, E. coli, and Listeria

hayksaakian 13y ago
While Vaccinations are certainly something you should get, let's not go down the slippery slope where we blindly consume physically refined food. Don't let big pharma abuse your trust of actually necessary vaccines
jpatokal 13y ago
The big difference is that a consenting adult can drink raw milk and endanger himself without harming anybody else, while anti-vaccination nutjob parents endanger both their own offspring and everybody else's. (Feeding raw milk to your kids is halfway in between; at least it's not contagious.)
- dobbsbob 13y ago
  True, but they arrested plenty of conmen peddling raw milk as safe to the same religoius communities that don't get vaccinated. It wasn't until an outbreak of E coli that killed a kid that they discovered a vast network of raw milk stores run by foaming at the mouth conspiracy theorists and neo hippies. Diptheria also made a comeback, something even more terrifying than measles. What's wrong with people, damnit stop listening to Jenny McCarthy
throwawayyyz 13y ago
We live in a crazy world where it is a federal crime to transport raw milk across state lines, yet cigarettes you can get at any corner shop kill 500,000 people every year, 50,000 of them from secondhand smoke. But yes, protect us all from the evil raw dairy.

zedpm 13y ago

Given that this is caused almost entirely by anti-vaccination hysteria, and that this in in turn caused mostly by a combination of ignorance and bizarre religious beliefs, it's hard to imagine an effective response. It's been said that you can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into, and that seems apt here. Perhaps an attempt to shame people by presenting the young, innocent victims is best (e.g. little 8-month old Suzy died because XYZ Church members refused to vaccinate their children).

abstractbill 13y ago
...this in in turn caused mostly by a combination of ignorance and bizarre religious beliefs... It's actually better/worse than that (depending on your perspective). People were mislead by a fraud. And not fraud with any kind of a noble purpose - it was for money.
- rdl 13y ago
  Yeah - if it were just religious beliefs, those would be rare (although concentrated) enough to preserve herd immunity, I think. It's Jenny McCarthy and Andrew Wakefield who have turned this into a matter of national security.
- zedpm 13y ago
  In addition to the secular anti-vaccination folks like McCarthy, there is also significant evidence of religion-based anti-vaccination movements, most recently seen in the measles outbreak in Texas which was traced back to a megachurch[1]. [1] http://www.npr.org/2013/09/01/217746942/texas-megachurch-at-center-of-measles-outbreak http://www.npr.org/2013/09/01/217746942/texas-megachurch-at-...

qq66 13y ago

It's interesting that the vast human intelligence that created all of these vaccines may be neutralized by vast human stupidity.

noonespecial 13y ago
It seems like stupidity but I suspect its actually greed. If everyone else is vaccinated and there is zero latent disease in a given area, it makes sense personally not to get the vaccine. If there is indeed zero chance of contracting the disease, then any risk at all associated with the vaccine is unnecessary. Bonus points for crackpot beliefs causing misestimation of the actual risks, but the fundamental equation is unchanged. Refuse to get vaccinated? Congrats, you're the betrayer in the prisoner's dilemma. Your train stops at the tragedy of the commons.

wbeckler 13y ago

Let me play devil's advocate here. The article says nothing about how many people died of measles, it just gave an estimate of how dangerous some doctors think measles is. Maybe none died and that's why they don't give a solid number? If so, the danger of measles was overstated in that estimate. Meanwhile, there's nothing in the article mentioning the danger of the vaccine, which nobody claims is nonzero. Maybe the vaccine's danger is 1 in a million. So with several million refusers 1 or 2 kids' lives were saved. At the expense of how many kids dying of measles? Zero? We need more information here.

noonespecial 13y ago
All we really need to know is how dangerous measles was and then count the cost of losing our herd immunity. Vaccines are not 100% effective (on an individual basis). Vaccines are a group effort that greatly diminishes in effectiveness if a large majority doesn't participate.
grannyg00se 13y ago
Pre-vaccine, measles would kill or seriously mess up about 1500 people yearly in the U.S. I think the vaccination rate now is in the 70% range and deaths from vaccination are hard to find. So it seems like vaccination is a win there. http://www.cdc.gov/measles/vaccination.html http://www.cdc.gov/measles/vaccination.html On the other hand, 1500 serious cases out of 300+ million people every year is a pretty low percentage. Seems like the entire threat is highly overstated.
- davidw 13y ago
  > 1500 serious cases out of 300+ million people every year is a pretty low percentage You're using the number of cases then with the population now if I'm not mistaken.
  - grannyg00se 13y ago
    I didn't realize it started in the 70s. Still, 1500 serious cases out of 200+ million is low.

ibejoeb 13y ago

Just a week ago there was an outbrak of mumps in NJ: http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/05/health/new-jersey-mumps-outbreak/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/05/health/new-jersey-mumps-outbre... If you only give your child one vaccine, make it the MMR. It's a lot safer that measles, mumps, or rubella.