Health officials on Thursday confirmed the country's first measles death since 2003, and they believe the victim was most likely exposed to the virus in a health facility in Washington state during an outbreak there. The woman died in the spring; a later autopsy confirmed that she had an undetected measles infection, the Washington State Department of Health said in a statement. The official cause of death was announced as "pneumonia due to measles."
According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 178 people from 24 states and the District were reported to have measles from Jan. 1 through June 26 of this year. Two-thirds of the cases, the CDC noted, were "part of a large multi-state outbreak linked to an amusement park in California."
Measles were effectively eliminated in the United States in 2000, according to the CDC. Health officials have said that the disease made a comeback recently, in part because of a growing number of adults deciding to delay or abstain from vaccinating their children. Last year brought the highest number of recorded measles cases since 2000, according to the CDC. Earlier this year, President Obama acknowledged the concerns some have about effects of vaccines but said: "The science is pretty indisputable." "You should get your kids vaccinated — it's good for them," Obama said. "We should be able to get back to the point where measles effectively is not existing in this country."
takyon: Celebrity critics recently denounced California's new mandatory vaccine law.
Original Submission
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 04 2015, @11:44PM
If their theories are correct, in the past nearly everyone got measles, so the population was 99% immune. Susceptible were only introduced via birth. In the measles vaccine era, which has thus far failed to eradicated measles, it is apparently very rare. Only ~90% of people in the US get vaccinated, and these vaccines are ~95% effective. Therefore ~15% of the population, or 45 million people (mostly adults) have no immunity to measles.
If they do not eradicate it (and this will be difficult because it can remain active for hours in dry air), there will be a gigantic measles epidemic eventually. The best thing is to maintain ~70% relative humidity which makes it very difficult to spread measles. There are never measles epidemics during humid seasons.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday July 05 2015, @12:28AM
If they do not eradicate it (and this will be difficult because it can remain active for hours in dry air), there will be a gigantic measles epidemic eventually.
Not if the population which isn't immune doesn't concentrate in one place.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 05 2015, @12:58AM
It is true the exposure depends upon the susceptibles being in the same location, but they do not have to be there at the same time.
Someone with measles can cough, sneeze, or breath in a room which exposes anyone who enters that room to the virus, even after they are long gone.[1] How long the air is contaminated depends upon the indoor relative humidity[2] and ventilation[3]. A measles virus can survive for hours in a poorly ventilated room during the winter (low indoor humidity).
If 15% (1/6) of the population is susceptible (and that is optimistically assuming zero waning immunity) the virus will easily spread via supermarkets, office buildings, etc. This is true even if they are uniformly distributed geographically. That is why the CDC makes such a giant deal out of quarantining any measles cases. If a critical number of cases is ever reached, there will be a gigantic one time epidemic dwarfing anything ever seen. Paradoxically, this last gasp will probably result in measles eradicating itself. There will not be sufficient susceptibles remaining to sustain transmission.
And honestly, the effect of anti-vaxxers on this has to be a rounding error.
[1] http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=397383 [jamanetwork.com]
[2] http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF01253797 [springer.com]
[3] http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.38.6.775 [aphapublications.org]
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 05 2015, @02:09AM
Same AC. According to the CDC the percent of children receiving zero vaccinations (as would be expected for anti-vaxxers) is under 1, a rounding error.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6334a1.htm [cdc.gov]
So this focus on anti-vaxxers is misguided. Who are these other 10% of unvaccinated? Poverty?
(Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday July 05 2015, @05:38AM
Not the way I read it.....
This report describes national, regional, state, and selected local area vaccination coverage estimates for children born January 2010–May 2012, based on results from the 2013 NIS. In 2013, vaccination coverage achieved the 90% national Healthy People 2020 target* for ≥1 dose of measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine (MMR) (91.9%);
Then there is this:
NIS is a random-digit–dialed cellular§ and landline telephone survey of households with children aged 19–35 months in the 50 states,
So when a Government Agent calls an Anti-vaxer, and asks if their kids have all their shots, what do you spoze they say....?
It should be patently obvious that there would never have been an outbreak of measles at Disneyland if there was 99% coverage of the entire population.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 05 2015, @06:14AM
You think anti-vaxxers make up at least 10% of the US population, and further that we have no idea what percent of people are actually vaccinated for measles but 90% is an overestimate?
Possible, and very, very important if true. Do you have any supporting evidence for this?
(Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday July 05 2015, @06:53AM
Using the same source as the AC I was responding to. Exact same link.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 05 2015, @08:33AM
That was me, the same AC. I'm not sure why I got modded funny. That makes the problem I brought up even worse. Do you know of any additional evidence that these polls the CDC is basing their decisions on are inaccurate. I have read that this data was inaccurate in the past, but thought they resolved that by now:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749379701002860 [sciencedirect.com]
You seem to be saying we still have no idea what percent of people are vaccinated, but we should take the phone survey results as an upper bound.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday July 05 2015, @04:55PM
I'm saying phone survey data can't be trusted at all.
You claimed only 1 percent were unvaccinated, and posted a link to back it up.
I was merely pointing out that YOUR OWN LINK says 90 only percent were vaccinated. (which doesn't even achieve herd immunity).
I copied and pasted from your own link.
You should maybe read links you post. And maybe stop posting as AC if you expect to carry on conversations.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 05 2015, @11:15PM
Perhaps we have a miscommunication. The CDC link said that ~90% of children received measles vaccinations, but over 99% received at least one vaccine. Since anti-vaxxers are against all vaccines, that indicated to me that anti-vaxxers are only a small minority of the 10% of children not vaccinated for measles.
You also pointed out that it is a phone survey, which "can't be trusted at all" and gave reasons that the survey would overestimate the percent of people vaccinated against measles. I agree, phone survey data is dubious and should not be used to influence public health policy, at least in the absence of supporting evidence.
If the only data available is the phone survey, it would appear we have no idea what percent of people are vaccinated. I'm not sure you realize how important that is.
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Sunday July 05 2015, @02:42AM
Spend some time in oldtown Portland. Which would work best, to renovate the ventilation or to vaccinate the residents?
I personally am far more concerned about dying in an electrical fire because I cannot escape than I am about catching measles.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 05 2015, @08:40AM
I don't know. I could come with a model showing either way is superior with the right assumptions. We need data to constrain it.
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Sunday July 05 2015, @11:25AM
what that means is that if the City of Portland were to enforce electrical, fire or building codes, they would be tied up in court for twenty years.
Ron Jeremy's Club Sesso just outside downtown portland just shut down because they stand accused of bribing a fire marshall. I have no opinion either way however I was once a member; it was plainly apparent that it has grossly inadequate fire escapes.
The Backspace Cafe on Fifth and Couch shut down a few months after I pointed out all of its electrical faults to the baristas, then wrote a detailed, eight-page explanation of what a ground fault tester is, how to use it as well as why one should use it. I gave it to a barista then said "Give this to your owner".
I am dead certain that either backspace's owner, or the building's owner was bribing the fire marshall as well; the barista protested that they had monthly fire marshall inspections. I expect the fire marshall did turn up once a month, but if I did he never looked at any of the many quite severe electrical hazards.
There is a hallway in a certain building in Portland in which one can be locked in. There is no escape if you find yourself in that hall after close of business. However there is a blue "fire alarm", with instructions to pull it to unlock the door, in event of fire.
So you are a child and cannot read. You are a foreigner as is common in portland and you don't read english. You are blind. The hall is filled with smoke.
Oh I know, I'll read the fine manual! That will save me from dieing in a fire!
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 05 2015, @12:30PM
That type of petty conspiracy shit is why it so hard to model this type of thing. So you agree then, noone can know the correct approach for a given area. I imagine it is even more complex in certain places outside the US.
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Monday July 06 2015, @12:12AM
You allocate funds to all the palms you grease.
Its far worse in southern italy. I once met a northern italian; she justified her fascism by pointing out that southern italians are not productive workers.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday July 05 2015, @02:48PM
It is true the exposure depends upon the susceptibles being in the same location, but they do not have to be there at the same time.
Hours is not a significant length of time. And the problem is that you don't have a population mostly of susceptibles. If it really were that easy to spread measles in a vaccinated population, we would have had those epidemics already.
And honestly, the effect of anti-vaxxers on this has to be a rounding error.
Not at all. As long as the population of unimmunized is sparse and poorly connected, it's not an issue. But if you have a well connected population, even one that is small part of a larger population, then you have the means to spread measles throughout a larger population that has partial immunity.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 05 2015, @11:26PM
You seem to be assuming that measles spreads primarily via direct contact. That is what they assumed in the 1960s, but it is not true. Measles is airborne and that makes the herd immunity concept much more complex. Here is a retrospective (from 1980) by the head of the CDC during the introduction of the measles vaccine explaining why that idea is in error:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=6939399 [nih.gov]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday July 06 2015, @02:19AM
You seem to be assuming that measles spreads primarily via direct contact. That is what they assumed in the 1960s, but it is not true. Measles is airborne and that makes the herd immunity concept much more complex.
No, I believe that distinction is wholly irrelevant. For example, the two phenomena mentioned, air-borne contact and the somewhat higher number of contacts, "superspreader" don't actually change the model. You still have to be in near proximity to an infected person in order to catch the disease yourself.
But even if the contact model were somehow in enough error to be irrelevant as a model of the spread of measles, it still is irrelevant to our discussion. Herd immunity is not a consequence of physical contact-only models. It is instead a consequence of the physical reality and backed by decades of observation of measles and other diseases. And the obvious here is that measles has had plenty of opportunity to become a "gigantic epidemic" since vaccination and instead it has nearly vanished despite plenty of reseeding from places that still have measles.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 06 2015, @02:48AM
You are incorrect . The R0 values are used to calculate the percent of the population to be vaccinated for eradication (1/R0). RO depends crucially on the effective contact rate, which, as explained by Langmuir, was assumed to be relatively stable from person to person and day to day. Applying these models to a situation where one person may expose thousands of others in an hour will be misleading. Read the paper, Langmuir explains how *he* made this error in the 1960s when predicting the effectiveness of measles vaccination.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_reproduction_number [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday July 06 2015, @03:07AM
You are incorrect .
Then where's the argument that I'm wrong? It's not important that contact rate is relatively stable as long as the collective R0 rate is below 1. For example, suppose we consider the case of the one person who infects thousands. As a result, due to 15% immunity rate, only a few hundred will actually show symptoms of measles. In turn, these people will be considerably less infectious than the first person (since superspreaders are by historical observation rare) and infect maybe a few hundred more by the time the bout of infection peters out a few weeks or months later. Your gigantic epidemic causes perhaps a few thousand people in the worst case to show the symptoms of measles.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 06 2015, @05:41AM
It is not R0 that directly matters but the effective reproductive rate R=R0*S/N, where S=# Susceptibles and N=Total Population. When R is less than 1 but the disease is not eradicated, S will constantly increase. "Superspreading" is not (only) a property of the person, but the environment and population. Note that these calculations assume a homogeneously mixing population which may or may not be a good enough approximation of reality.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12176860 [nih.gov]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 06 2015, @12:55AM
I agree, this is surprising. Along those lines, it is interesting that this woman was asymptomatic. How many people *are* getting measles?
Perhaps the classic symptoms only occur in 10-20% of the population. That would explain a lot actually. Before the vaccine they thought they were only recording ~17% of the US cases, currently ~15% of US people react to the vaccine with a rash and fever... I wonder if there is a haplotype related to measles infection found in 10-20% of the US population.
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Sunday July 05 2015, @12:53AM
Some of those that do vaccinate have very poor coverage.
I was required a typhoid vaccination before I could work for the youth conservation corps in 1979. The nurse specifically warned me that the vaccination could give me the actual disease, but I figured I would survive.
Before we moved to Italy in 1970 I had many vacvinations, I dont recall but they are stamped in my old passport. There is a page on all passports where vaccinations may be recorded; US customs and immigration should require such vaccination stamps but they dont.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday July 06 2015, @12:06PM
The math assumes 0% legal and illegal immigration, which is a bit low. Or more precisely stated, it assumes the immigrants have the same percentage of vaccination as the locals. You can't import what boils down to the entire poor rural population of Mexico and not expect some measurable medical consequences, but it is very politically incorrect to talk about it. Note that I'm not blaming them as individuals but specifically complaining that until the root problem can be politically discussed, a real world solution is unlikely. Unfortunately we haven't "figured out" how to provide medical treatment to our own poor locals or even our middle class locals, so figuring out how to provide medical treatment to poor illegals is likely even less solvable. So ... either get used to more Measles and stuff like that, or get used to pretending to act surprised. Or if a miracle occurs and our medical system evolves our of the 3rd world in the middle ages, maybe we can fix this, maybe.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 06 2015, @06:52PM
Measles cases are correlated with birthrates and immigration rates (outbreaks occur when either or both are high). Besides year-to-year differences and trends, all of these things (plus mortality) also have annual cycles that correlate with each other and the weather (eg humidity). It is difficult to tease out the effect of each. The models usually used (Susceptible-Infected-Recovered; SIR) are really nonlinear, each possibility needs to be investigated separately. As far as I know there is not seasonal data on immigration that includes vaccination rates and age, which sucks because we need this going back to 1912 or so. Illegal immigration is then another can of worms.
(Score: -1, Disagree) by Hairyfeet on Sunday July 05 2015, @12:17AM
All you want but there is ZERO medical reason to have mercury in the vaccines, NONE. It was done to increase profits and the amount of kids having bad reactions to the shots have skyrocketed.
Lets face it folks, this is a monopoly situation so there really is no point in continuing to cut corners to increase profits. Get rid of the shitty thimerosal, go back to the original formula and I bet all those kids having reactions? Would just dry up.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 5, Informative) by gman003 on Sunday July 05 2015, @12:44AM
Thiomersal (ethyl(2-mercaptobenzoato-(2-)-O,S) mercurate(1-) sodium) is a preservative. Vaccines are organic material, and so they are suspect to contamination with bacteria or fungi, just like food. Thiomersal is one of the few preservatives that does not decrease the effectiveness of the vaccine.
Do you have any evidence for your latter claim? I found no mention of rates changing over time in the WHO report [who.int].
As for the first claim, how exactly does it increase profits? You claim it increased rates of adverse reactions - how, exactly, does that increase profits?
Four different groups manufacture and sell MMR vaccines - Merck, Sanofi, GlaxoSmithCline and the Serum Institute of India. It is not in any way a monopoly.
You'll be glad to know, then, that thiomersal has been eliminated from all childhood vaccines in the EU, and mostly eliminated from childhood vaccines in the US (some influenza vaccines have kept it, and it may be present in trace amounts from manufacturing in others ("trace amounts" meaning "you could get 40 vaccines per day forever without exceeding WHO limits for safe mercury exposure")). However, rather than go back to the previous formulations, they have instead used refrigerated vaccines, because pre-thiomersal vaccines were much riskier, sometimes killing people.
It has not been removed from all adult vaccines, or vaccines no longer in common usage. It's also used in several antivenins, so try to avoid being bitten by any poisonous snakes if you're afraid of preservatives.
It has not been removed from developing-world vaccines because the only alternative, refrigeration, is not feasible. This actually argues against your position - if thiomersal was added to vaccines solely to boost profits, they would not use it in poor countries where there is little profit to be made. The fact that they continue to do so indicates they have some other reason.
(Score: 2) by cmn32480 on Sunday July 05 2015, @03:53PM
Regardless of the content of the anti-venom, would it be OK if I avoided getting bitten by poisonous snakes anyway? I heard once that it was bad for my health.
"It's a dog eat dog world, and I'm wearing Milkbone underwear" - Norm Peterson
(Score: 2) by arslan on Monday July 06 2015, @04:38AM
You sure can, don't come to Australia though as the poisonous snakes here (and other critters) won't avoid biting you just because you do them. I can't even remember the number of times I've found a red-back (black widow equivalent) nesting in my shoes...
(Score: 3, Funny) by frojack on Sunday July 05 2015, @01:03AM
Hairy: Tinfoil on too tight.
Go take your meds, and let your hair breath.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 05 2015, @08:32AM
Hairy: Tinfoil on too tight.
Go take your meds*, and let your hair breath.
* Tinfoilera side effects may include: Hairy speech, ponderous itching, scalp tasting, and "hair breath".
Do not use Tinfoilera while operating Non-Lethal Energy Weapons, Chem-Trailing, or Phone Bugging.
Ask Obama if your Doctor should talk to you about Climate Change or other propaganda you may be prescribed before using Tinfoilera.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 05 2015, @01:12AM
I want to poke & prod your raw anus.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Reziac on Sunday July 05 2015, @02:32AM
Vaccine is at best marginally profitable for the manufacturers and wholesale distributors. There's so little money in flu vaccines that finding willing manufacturers can be tough. I know of one very effective animal vaccine that has fallen out of production entirely -- again, no money in it.
Markup at retail (ie. doctor's office) is a different matter, and varies considerably judging just by what I see when flu vaccine time comes around (Costco and Walmart $12, CVS $18, walk-in clinic $25, etc.) I buy bulk livestock vaccine at wholesale, and I pay under $4 per dose for what the veterinarian charges $25 to $70 retail for (tho most of that markup goes to cover operating overhead).
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday July 05 2015, @05:54AM
"marginally profitable" means little when you have an entire population held captive, mandated by the legislative branch, and enforced by the executive and judicial branches to make the purchases.
I wish that I could simply mandate that every man, woman, and child in the US cough up a dollar to deposit in my account. Or half a buck. Hell, a single thin dime would make me a rich man. If I could only get one red cent from every man, woman, and child, I could retire with no worries.
"Marginally profitable" my arse.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by dusty monkey on Sunday July 05 2015, @11:22AM
I was going to basically say the same thing, but with the addition that a small lab could start producing that vaccine the grandparent says isn't in production anymore, and assuming there is some demand for it then it could easily be set up as a profitable addition to the business.
- when you vote for the lesser of two evils, you are still voting for evil - stop supporting evil -
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Monday July 06 2015, @12:22AM
Because the FDA has made things difficult. Go look up the death of Combiotic. 70 year safe track record, but hadn't been tested the way currently required, and not enough profit in it to cover the ~$1million it would have cost. So it is no more.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 05 2015, @02:08PM
what i don't understand about the war on anti-vaxers is that if those arguing for vaccination have their kids vaccinated, why worry about kids that aren't? is exposure to unvaccinated kids supposed to reduce the effectiveness of vaccines or something?
(Score: 3, Informative) by kadal on Sunday July 05 2015, @03:03PM
The vaccines aren't 100% effective. You can try to vaccinate your kids but there's a small change that the vaccine doesn't work for them. In that case, those kids are dependent on herd immunity to prevent them from getting exposed.
There are also kids with other diseases that have to take medication that suppresses their immune system.
(Score: 3, Informative) by cmn32480 on Sunday July 05 2015, @04:15PM
Part of it is that the debilitating side effects of some of these childhood diseases can impair you for life. It isn't about exposing the vaccinated to the unvaccinated, it is about protecting those that CAN'T be vaccinated. Some people have reactions to the vaccines, or are on medication for other medical problems that prevent them from being vaccinated. It isn't so much that anti-vaxers are risking the health and safety of their own children (and they are), but putting at risk those that want to be vaccinated but cannot, and not giving those unable to be vaccinated a choice in the matter.
From the CDC [cdc.gov]:
There is a much higher cost to treating people with any of those side effects than the cost of the vaccine. And quite frankly, I would rather my tax dollars didn't pay to fix your mistakes when there is a preventative available at nearly zero cost.
I don't like that the government is starting to mandate some things (Healthcare is one of them), but in this instance, this actually IS somebody thinking of the children and trying to do what is best for them and for the rest of us.
Herd immunity is only a workable plan when most of the herd is immune. Once the herd stops being immune (as can be seen in some of the pockets of anti-vaxers that all live together), it can become a public health problem.
"It's a dog eat dog world, and I'm wearing Milkbone underwear" - Norm Peterson
(Score: 1) by steelfood on Tuesday July 07 2015, @09:50PM
I wish that I could simply mandate that every man, woman, and child in the US cough up a dollar to deposit in my account.
If you were "the government," that'd be called a tax.
(Score: 1, Troll) by Whoever on Sunday July 05 2015, @09:27PM
I'm not going to call you a denier. Just an idiot.
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Tuesday July 07 2015, @02:21AM
All you want but there is ZERO medical reason to have mercury in the vaccines, NONE.
One probably gets more exposure to mercury sitting around a campfire for an evening than from all the vaccines one has received in their life.
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Tuesday July 07 2015, @08:21PM
That is fine and dandy...unless your child is deathly allergic and has a bad reaction. Remember there are kids out there where simply having a tenth of a speck of peanut will send them straight to the ER, and we are talking about something that is government mandated backed up with the gun of the state....sorry but under THOSE circumstances? If there is a way to do it safer then it should be done safer without even questioning.
What is frankly sad is so many here that believe if the state says its so? it is so, never question the state...which has been caught lying to us so damned many times the last 40 years it isn't even funny.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Wednesday July 08 2015, @01:45AM
Anyone who is allergic can get a waiver from any mandated vaccines. That is part of why it is important for for enough people to get vaccines to keep the herd immunity up, so that those who cannot get vaccines have a degree of protection.
(Score: 5, Informative) by frojack on Sunday July 05 2015, @12:26AM
The woman was on medication that had weakened her immune system, Washington State Department of Health spokesman Donn Moyer told reporters.
She was hospitalised for several health conditions in the spring at a facility in Clallam County, Mr Moyer said.
"She was there at the same time as a person who later developed a rash and was contagious for measles," he added.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-33373466 [bbc.com]
http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/02/health/us-measles-death/ [cnn.com]
Her case is an example of why herd immunity is important, even if measles isn't usually a problem for most people.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 05 2015, @01:02AM
Good catch. That also makes attributing this death to measles rather dubious. They say she died of pneumonia, was asymptomatic for measles, but they discovered it in her blood during autopsy. Even though she was asymptomatic for measles, they think it weakened her immune system. Now, it sounds like she was also on some medication that is known to weaken the immune system. It seems like a toss up to blame measles or the medication for the pneumonia death.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 05 2015, @03:02PM
All those years Oregon trail was telling me I died of Dysentery when it was really the Giardia. Damn MECC, damn you to hell!
(Score: 3, Informative) by gnuman on Sunday July 05 2015, @05:22PM
It seems like a toss up to blame measles or the medication for the pneumonia death.
Wake up! That's what measles does! People that get measles tend to die from, pneumonia.
http://www.cdc.gov/measles/about/complications.html [cdc.gov]
As many as one out of every 20 children with measles gets pneumonia, the most common cause of death from measles in young children.
And measles makes regular pneumonia very deadly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measles [wikipedia.org]
Complications with measles are relatively common, ranging from mild complications such as diarrhea to serious complications such as pneumonia (either direct viral pneumonia or secondary bacterial pneumonia), bronchitis, otitis media .... The death rate in the 1920s was around 30% for measles pneumonia
Measels make pneumonia very deadly, as you can hopefully see from historical data. It's only less deadly today because of antibiotics and better medical care.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 05 2015, @11:44PM
I don't disagree with that, but you can make the same argument regarding whatever medication she was on since they say it was immuno-suppressive. It has the same effects. We need additional information to distinguish between the two explanations.
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Sunday July 05 2015, @12:46AM
While I expect he meant well he should not mince words.
Your child's vaccination could prevent your own death. The vaccine is not completely effective for individuals. However it will stop the spread of the disease among groups of people who come into close contact.
That is, one unvaccinated child will kill a few vaccinated children but only a few.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 05 2015, @01:27AM
This borders on hyperbole but I hope the family sues Jenny McCarthy. Speech is free but free does not mean freedom from consequences.
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 05 2015, @01:44AM
Speech is free but free does not mean freedom from consequences.
Please stop repeating this garbage; it doesn't make sense and it attempts to justify infringing upon free speech rights. Using this logic, even North Korea has freedom of speech; you're just not free from the "consequences" of your speech (whatever that may be, and no matter how indirect), which the government can then punish you for. If the government punishes you (in this case, it would be by enforcing some court decision for speech, then you do not have freedom of speech in that instance. If you think that people should have limits on their right to free speech--which most people seem to--then just admit it.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 05 2015, @02:20AM
Did you notice the conspicuous absence of key information in this reporting? Was this woman vaccinated? Was the patient she supposedly contracted measles from vaccinated? Maybe you should think things through and assess the available evidence before threatening people. There does not appear to be sufficient evidence being made available to us.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 05 2015, @12:50PM
If someone listens to Jenny McCarthy, they have no one to blame but themselves. If someone is negatively affected by someone who listens to Jenny McCarthy, they should take issue with the people who listened to her, since they're the ones who took the harmful actions.
Don't blame others for your own foolish actions.
(Score: 2) by zafiro17 on Sunday July 05 2015, @01:31PM
Ignore the angry nerd below me. I fully support holding this loud-mouthed scaremonger accountable for her anti-science and anti-fact-based conjecture. She's had an unfortunately oversized pulpit to preach from and has used it ultimately to advocate for things that are fucking stupid.
I hope she gets measles and AIDS and anal warts and so many huge herpes warts all over her face that she dies a slow, miserable death from it. And I hope the whole thing gets televised, particularly the anal warts.
You mess with science? Science always wins, loudmouth!
Dad always thought laughter was the best medicine, which I guess is why several of us died of tuberculosis - Jack Handey
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 05 2015, @03:58PM
Ignore the angry nerd below me. I fully support holding this loud-mouthed scaremonger accountable for her anti-science and anti-fact-based conjecture.
Socially accountable? Criticizing her? Fine; she's an idiot, after all. Sicking the government on her for her speech? Not fine.
(Score: 2) by zafiro17 on Sunday July 05 2015, @06:10PM
I am absolutely /not/ advocating for siccing the government on her. What I want is a good, public shaming. I'd like to see her on someone else's news show, answering uncomfortable questions about how her ignorance led to a decrease in public welfare.
Screw the government, they've got enough to do trying to put back together their hacked systems ;) They haven't got the time to go after anybody.
Dad always thought laughter was the best medicine, which I guess is why several of us died of tuberculosis - Jack Handey
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 05 2015, @08:54PM
If your "free speech" leads to the death of others, then yes I want you held accountable.
It's illegal to yell fire in a theater unless there actually is a fire.
If you cause people to panic and someone gets trampled to death, the blame lands at your feet.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 06 2015, @02:20AM
If your "free speech" leads to the death of others, then yes I want you held accountable.
It's illegal to yell fire in a theater unless there actually is a fire.
If you cause people to panic and someone gets trampled to death, the blame lands at your feet.
Oh, please. Even people who agree that your example demonstrates that certain speech should be outlawed should realize the flaw with this comparison. The flaw here is that there is no imminent 'danger'; anyone who listens to this person can calmly do their research in a timely manner. If they fail to do so properly, and take harmful actions, that's completely on them. There is also no demonstrable intent to harm others with the speech. I doubt even our courts would agree with you here, and that's saying something.
(Score: 1, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Sunday July 05 2015, @06:10AM
Maybe anti-vaxxers are loonie-tunes. Maybe they're just plain stupid. Maybe all their worries and mistrust are entirely misplaced. Maybe, just maybe, all those inoculations are 100% entirely safe, and can never hurt a single soul. (read the warnings published and handed out with every inoculation to understand that ASSumption to be a lie)
EVEN IF all that be true, measles was eradicated in the US. So, where did it come from? Oh yeah, our gubbermint is importing hundreds of thousands of warm bodies from nations which have no inoculation regimen whatsoever. Mexico, the Caribbean, Central America, South America. They are being imported by the train load.
There are a number of other diseases which have been effectively eradicated in the US in the past century or so. Among them, polio.
How many people are even capable of imagining the US in the wake of a polio epidemic? Hundreds of thousands, maybe millions dead, and millions more crippled for life.
But, border control and immigration policies are to much trouble - we just open the doors and allow anyone in from anywhere.
I read a list of diseases that these undocumented Democrats are carrying - things that I've never heard of, and the average American has zero resistance to. Other things we have heard of, but have been largely eradicated.
The thing about those diseases that have been mostly eradicated, we no longer inoculate our children for them. Meaning, today's children are susceptible, if and when they come in contact with the virus/germ/bacteria/spore that causes the disease.
We've been set up, people.
(Score: 3, Informative) by hemocyanin on Sunday July 05 2015, @09:32AM
I see why you were modded troll.
Immigration reform is about a lot of things, but high on that list are depressing wages so wall street can make more money (same as with H1Bs and free trade agreements making offshoring attractive), and secondly, creating demand for the massive amount of surplus housing that came out of the last bubble. Below that are the feel-good things that get publicized. As for who supports these types of jobs crushing policies, that would democrats AND republicans, the lot of which suck beyond the ability of science to measure. You're a troll for picking on only half the problem, implying that the other half of the problem isn't jointly responsible.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday July 05 2015, @09:42AM
You get points. I thought it would be funny to provoke our more liberal members - but BOTH parties have ruled Washington within the past thirty years. BOTH parties have failed to get the invasion under control while they held the reigns of power. BOTH parties collude to put the screws to us, natural born United States citizens and voters.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 05 2015, @09:49AM
Derepublicrats
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 05 2015, @11:50AM
Having moved to the EU several years ago I would say the two Party system that the US clings to needs to change.
Having no labor party is a big problem.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 05 2015, @11:05PM
Are you a commie?
No, I'm not actually trolling. I live in a country with a Labour party, and our particular one is more about right wing policies than it should be, and what seems to me is that Americans appear to be convinced (going for the euphemism here) that the only people who deserve to be paid well, have protection or political influence, are those who already have significant wealth, protection, and influence.
The usual thought-stopping cliche that's used to prevent further debate is an accusation of being a socialist or a communist, who's stealing from the hard-working millionaire earner for those who were just too lazy to work.
While this attitude exists, there is no way that the US will ever have any real support for such a party.
(Score: 2, Disagree) by stormreaver on Sunday July 05 2015, @12:34PM
Obama is correct, but not in the way he thinks he is. The science is indeed indisputable that Measles was eradicated, but not because of vaccination. It was almost entirely eradicated before the vaccine was introduced. But everyone trying to force vaccines on everyone else either forgets that, ignores it, or is simply ignorant of it.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 05 2015, @01:19PM
This is completely incorrect. Before vaccines they recorded 400k cases a year on average in the US. That was an underestimation since when they checked for antibodies they found it in nearly everyone by the time they were 20. So really there were ~ 2million cases a year. Now, there are less than a thousand and it is a big deal.
(Score: 2) by stormreaver on Monday July 06 2015, @12:55AM
Look at this graph. It is derived from US CDC data, and can be found at various places around the Web:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-RXRGd-_ZFy4/U6IWzEJOe2I/AAAAAAAABCU/eN6Cfc1i-a4/s1600/Measles+Mortality+1900-1984+-+NonLog+Scale.jpg [blogspot.com]
Your statistics are misleading at best, and simply wrong in any case.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 06 2015, @05:15AM
That is a graph of mortality rates, people whose deaths were attributed to measles. Most people get measles and do not die from it. It is certainly true and very interesting that the mortality rates dropped so drastically independent of any vaccination campaign, but that chart does not show that measles was eradicated. I suspect that the severity of a case of measles is related to nutrition. This brings up the interesting question of whether that decrease in mortality is reflective of a more general decrease in severity of measles, and whether moderate cases are diagnosed as such.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 05 2015, @01:37PM
Really? Is that why it still kills tens of thousands around the world?
Or do you think those thousands of deaths are from countries with high vaccination rates?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 05 2015, @08:58PM
Those statistics don't count if they don't support the narrative, or haven't you been paying attention?