Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 19 submissions in the queue.

Emergency Declared in Rockland County, NY over Measles: Unvaccinated Barred from Public Spaces

posted by chromas on Wednesday March 27 2019, @12:34PM   Printer-friendly
from the vax-papers-please dept.

martyb writes:

Emergency Declared in NY over Measles: Unvaccinated Barred from Public Spaces:

Plagued by a tenacious outbreak of measles that began last October, New York's Rockland County declared a state of emergency Tuesday and issued a directive barring unvaccinated children from all public spaces.

Effective at midnight Wednesday, March 27, anyone aged 18 or younger who has not been vaccinated against the measles is prohibited from public spaces in Rockland for 30 days or until they get vaccinated. Public spaces are defined broadly in the directive as any places:

[W]here more than 10 persons are intended to congregate for purposes such as civic, governmental, social, or religious functions, or for recreation or shopping, or for food or drink consumption, or awaiting transportation, or for daycare or educational purposes, or for medical treatment. A place of public assembly shall also include public transportation vehicles, including but not limited to, publicly or privately owned buses or trains...

The directive follows an order from the county last December that barred unvaccinated children from schools that did not reach a minimum of 95 percent vaccination rate. That order—and the directive issued today—are intended to thwart the long-standing outbreak, which has sickened 153 people, mostly children.

What were they waiting for? A pox on them all?

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Emergency Declared in Rockland County, NY over Measles: Unvaccinated Barred from Public Spaces | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 111 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 27 2019, @03:23PM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 27 2019, @03:23PM (#820692)

    Those who are too young to be vaccinated

    This is the most dangerous myth about vaccines out there. Please stop repeating it.

    The "too young" children are not vaccinated because they are already protected by maternal antibodies. The problem is that if the mother was vaccinated these maternal antibodies wane faster. So the age of vaccination needs to be moved up, but it isnt socially acceptable because of people like you.

    Just by the sheer numbers of people repeating this myth it is far worse than any effect a small number of "anti-vaxxers" could have. I repeat: You are putting children in danger by spreading this myth.

    The recommended age for vaccination in the US changed from 9 months in 1963 to 12 months in 1965 and 15 months in 1976 in response to data showing higher seroconversion rates at older ages in absence of maternal antibodies [7].
      [...]
    The first two studies comparing both groups of infants were conducted in the US [29] and the UK [30]. Women vaccinated with live attenuated measles vaccine had lower amounts of antibodies and passed on shorter term protection against measles to their children (up to the age of 8 months) than naturally infected mothers (up to the age of 11 months). Lennon and Black [29] calculated the proportion of children expected to be susceptible to measles infection and responsive to vaccine by infant's age and mothers birth year cohort in the US. The children of younger mothers appeared to be sooner susceptible to measles infection: measles GMT declined sharply among women with birth-years between 1955 and 1961. This was the cohort vaccinated at the start of vaccination programmes in the US.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21133659 [nih.gov]

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +1  
       Informative=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Total Score:   1  

  • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 27 2019, @05:15PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 27 2019, @05:15PM (#820775)

    You do realize what you write says in order to be vaccinated you must be susceptible to measles?
    Which means the first vaccination date will have to be AFTER the babies have lost the protection, ergo they are unprotected and at risk for some time in-between.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 27 2019, @06:01PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 27 2019, @06:01PM (#820822)

      Which means the first vaccination date will have to be AFTER the babies have lost the protection, ergo they are unprotected and at risk for some time in-between.

      Ideally they would individually test for maternal antibodies to drop below a certain level, but yea the goal is to minimize this time as much as possible. People who spread this myth are causing this time to be extended needlessly.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 27 2019, @08:58PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 27 2019, @08:58PM (#820945)

    There is research in the area that suggests that difference (among other differences) is that an actual measles infection results in a latent infection. Similar to herpes or chicken pox, you don't completely fight off measles, but rather it self-limits and then your body gets it under control. It also makes sense that mothers who got measles would provide more antibodies, as a higher level is needed to keep the latent infection under control.