How getting measles this week has made this non-vaxer think hard. - Page 6

[Taximom5]

Originally Posted by pinkytulip 

Yes, but you would have to be around a pediatric population, I would think, to make that even remotely likely. I don't believe that is this case here. I think shedding occurs more often in the stool so someone changing diapers at daycare, for example, without proper hygiene is a realistic scenario.

Well, we are ALL around pediatric populations, and the shedding occurs in saliva. Babies and toddlers constantly have their fingers in their mouths, so anything they touch with their hands can spread the virus.

All we have to do is go to the grocery store and put our hands on the shopping cart.

[Taximom5]

I am also an RFV (Reformed Former Vaccinator) who no longer vaccinates.  However, I have to agree with the OP on the topic of adult measles infection:  most of the childhood diseases like mumps, measles, and chicken pox, ARE more severe for adults--far more severe.

I would consider vaccination of an adult for this reason--but I'm not necessarily convinced (yet).  

Are there any studies as to WHY these diseases are more severe in adults?  Could it be related to our (lousy) diets, or to widespread vitamin deficiencies?  We know that children who are vitamin-A deficient are far more likely to have severe complications from measles.  Are adults vitamin A deficient?  And we know that more people are vitamin D-deficient than not, thanks to sunscreen.

Children in developed countries are actually less likely to be vitamin-deficient than adults, especially children who had been breastfed.

All this doesn't prove anything--but it does raise interesting questions that perhaps should be considered before vaccinating.  Even adults can and do have severe, even fatal reactions to vaccines.

[an_domhan]

When you raise awareness to a specific condition, there are more reports of that condition.  There is no reason to believe they weren't always there before, just either misdiagnosed.
 

Originally Posted by raelize 

and if it was simply just proper hygiene, why do we see more VPDs showing up lately? are people suddenly living in filthy conditions? why is whooping cough back in california? is it because everyone there is skipping their veggies and not washing hands?

[an_domhan]

While I can appreciate your use of math to illustrate this point, I get hung up on a few things.  With respect to my bolding in your statements below, how do you know that Sarah's vaccination status did not prevent her from not presenting correctly to measles and therefore she exposes Amy anyway while they're playing all afternoon?  Just because a person does not exhibit symptoms to measles (insert disease of choice, really) doesn't mean they weren't exposed, and doesn't mean they aren't capable of spreading measles (insert disease of choice, really).  Being asymptomatic after disease exposure due one's vaccination status seems to not bother those insistent upon their widespread use as the best measure of disease prevention.

I'm sorry, but I ignored your 1 in 400 versus 1 in 20 example - too many variables to consider the scenario meaningful... this is only my opinion of course.

Finally, I don't think you've illustrated why a nonvaccinated person puts a vaccinated person at risk.  You've simply granted immunity (pun intended) to those with a postive vaccination status while ignoring the fact that any person can spread disease.  Some spread it a lot better than others... those who exhibit classic symptoms to disease causing agents are far more likely to be diagnosed than those not presenting correctly.

What if the little boy that Sarah played with had been vaccinated recently and he had been feeling okay, but during their time playing he started coughing and wiping his nose on his shirt (and a few other things that little boys like to do) and later that night he runs a fever and continues to show cold symptoms.  Since he was exhibiting symptoms during their play time, by symptomalogy/diagnostic definitions alone - you would have to consider him contagious.  Of course his parents called back to the peds office and they asked that they bring him in for some follow up testing that including nasal and throat swabs to test for measles contagion. 

Exactly.  This doesn't happen (a perfect scenario in which to purport that people are not asymptomatic after measles vaccination... if you don't look, you don't find) and instead, the peds office just tells them it's a normal side effect from the vaccine and onward we go.  On the contrary, you've shown me that it is probably best for people to be around unvaccinated people/kids because when they get sick from disease causing agents for which vaccines exist, they show symptoms and aren't playing hide and seek thinking they have a cold.

Originally Posted by pers 

Another example: Let's say there are two best friends Sarah and Amy.  Amy was vaccinated, but, though they don't know it, she was one of the 1 in 20 or so who don't become immune from the measles vaccine.  

One day, Sarah meets a boy at the playground and ends up hiding with him in a small space during a game of hide and seek.  She doesn't know his name, and when her parents hear about a local case of measles a couple days later, they have no idea that their daughter was right up in his face during the period he was most contagious.  If Sarah were not vaccinated, then she would be coming down with measles, and would then pass it on to Amy when they girls spent an entire afternoon playing in Amy's room right when Sarah was most contagious.  But thankfully, Sarah was vaccinated, and the vaccine worked, so Amy is never even exposed, and thus she was protected by Sarahs vaccine rather than her own failed one. 

Of course, the 1 in 400 chance will still happen from time to time, but still, 1 in 20 chance with only Amy's own vaccine vs. a 1 in 400 chance with both Sarah's and Amy's vaccines to protect Amy from getting measles in this particular instance.  Do you see why a parent would see an child who is not vaccinated as a greater risk than one who is?