measles scare at the US airports

[newmum35]

Wow Im surprised nobody has mentioned the measles scare at the airports yet. I cam on to see  the discussion and there is none so I thought I'd start one.  You won't believe this article. We know measles typically has a very low mortality rate (I can't recall at the moment, isn't it like 1 in 5000 or 1 in 10,000 pre vaccination?)

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/217615.php

I'd love to know what people think about this excerpt:

"If the virus enters an area where nobody has ever been exposed or vaccinated, the results can be devastating. An outbreak in Cuba in 1592 killed nearly two-thirds of the native population of the island. Two years later another outbreak in Honduras killed half of all the people in that country. In the 1850s about 20% of the people in Hawaii died from an outbreak of measles."

Any thoughts on whether or not this is true, and if so, what could the reason be? Do you think those people were severely vitamin A deficient?

also its interesting they have to dig this deep in history to find some scary statistics like this. Also find interesting that the ADULTS who have come down with measles are just fine they haven't died, and yet there is the huge scare to find everyone who might have been exposed..

[allnaturalmom]

1592.... Are you kidding me?? Why didn't they use more current stats?

[pers]

Originally Posted by newmum35 

I'd love to know what people think about this excerpt:

"If the virus enters an area where nobody has ever been exposed or vaccinated, the results can be devastating. An outbreak in Cuba in 1592 killed nearly two-thirds of the native population of the island. Two years later another outbreak in Honduras killed half of all the people in that country. In the 1850s about 20% of the people in Hawaii died from an outbreak of measles."

Any thoughts on whether or not this is true, and if so, what could the reason be? Do you think those people were severely vitamin A deficient?

It is very much true.  However, while it is an interesting sidebar, it is not really relevant to the current situation. 

Europeans had been dealing with measles and other European diseases for thousands upon thousands of years.  Over that time the population grew more resistant to measles by means of natural selection - those who were the weakest at fighting it off were the most likely to die and so not pass on their genes, while those with genetic factors that helped them through the illness passed those on to their children.  Also, most people got it as children, which was fortunate as like chicken pox, measles is a lot harder on adults who get it than children. 

Then Europeans came to the Americas where there was no natural resistance built up over thousands of years and the adults were still vulnerable as they had not been exposed to measles as children.  The results were absolutely devastating.  

But our population still has all our genetic resistance and the vast majority of people are protected either by having had measles in their youth or vaccination, so no, no worry that that will be happening here. 

Still, measles can kill as many 1 or 2  or so per thousand cases in the first world, but still, to put it in perspective my kid's school has close to 500 students, some with other illnesses or underlying conditions as all schools do, and if we were back in the times when measles spread freely and everyone could be expected to get it at some point or another, well, to lose even just one of those kids as would be expected statistically would be quite the challenge.  And there are many more complications which are more common than death and can result in the need for hospitalization and potential permanent effects such as damaging eyesight.  

As I said, most people here are protected, and with any luck the infected passenger didn't pass it on to anyone vulnerable.  Also, there are indeed many worse diseases than measles.  But having a highly contagious disease in an airport is a bit of a disease prevention nightmare as it has the potential to send it off in so many directions at once, and I can see why they do want to track down potential cases that might have resulted from this so as to try and keep it from spreading at their destinations.  

[Otto]

Originally Posted by newmum35 

We know measles typically has a very low mortality rate (I can't recall at the moment, isn't it like 1 in 5000 or 1 in 10,000 pre vaccination?)

"One hundred years ago in Scotland, the measles case-fatality rate was 30-40 deaths per 1000 cases. In the United States, mortality from measles decreased from 25 per 1000 reported cases in 1912 to 1 per 1000 reported cases in 1962." (Citations omitted; here.) The measles vax was first introduced in the U.S. in 1963, right?

[mama1803]

Updated article on the measles "scare":

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.065c95c9ec87c66849736794b4625215.7f1&show_article=1 

[Marnica]

They should be contacting all the passangers who were ever on a flight with someone who then came down with the flu shortly thereafter - after all the flu can cause "severe symptoms and even death"

[Bokonon]

Originally Posted by Marnica 

They should be contacting all the passangers who were ever on a flight with someone who then came down with the flu shortly thereafter - after all the flu can cause "severe symptoms and even death"

[Bokonon]

How is 150 cases in the U.S. a year considered "eradicated"?  What is the CDC's definition of eradicated if that's the case?

[BeckyBird]

From the article: "Instead, authorities are now engaged in a protracted, costly process of contacting all passengers -- about 319 -- on the applicable flights."

Just wondering, but what is so costly about calling 319 people and warning them about measles?

Also, I had a thought. What about those of us who would rather be exposed to the measles virus so we can have natural immunity (like having chicken pox parties)? Since so many people are vaccinated, there is little chance of us finding the wild virus. [Which says something about the success of the vaccine, I hate to admit. I'm still more concerned about vax reactions, rather than actually getting measles, which is why I'm still against the vax]

In a way, the vaccinations have robbed us of our chance for natural immunity lol! Can we sue for that, for being deprived of finding the natural virus?

[Bokonon]

Originally Posted by BeckyBird 

From the article: "Instead, authorities are now engaged in a protracted, costly process of contacting all passengers -- about 319 -- on the applicable flights."

Just wondering, but what is so costly about calling 319 people and warning them about measles?

Also, I had a thought. What about those of us who would rather be exposed to the measles virus so we can have natural immunity (like having chicken pox parties)? Since so many people are vaccinated, there is little chance of us finding the wild virus. [Which says something about the success of the vaccine, I hate to admit. I'm still more concerned about vax reactions, rather than actually getting measles, which is why I'm still against the vax]

In a way, the vaccinations have robbed us of our chance for natural immunity lol! Can we sue for that, for being deprived of finding the natural virus?

I'm of the same mind, exactly.  I guess I'm fortunate that my mother had measles as a toddler, and breastfed me though not for very long, so she may have passed her natural immunity on to me (not totally clear on how often that works though).

Still, I wouldn't mind if my kids were exposed to wild measles.  As far as risks of severe complications from the illness - we face that every day, from any illness, and any injury.  Look how many people die from MRSA every year.  

[Otto]

Originally Posted by BeckyBird 

Also, I had a thought. What about those of us who would rather be exposed to the measles virus so we can have natural immunity (like having chicken pox parties)?

Pox parties are interesting in that parents can waive their own rights but not the child's. The host of a pox party really does bear substantial risk if an attempt at natural immunity goes awry.

[Marnica]

How so to both points?

 

Originally Posted by Otto 

Pox parties are interesting in that parents can waive their own rights but not the child's. The host of a pox party really does bear substantial risk if an attempt at natural immunity goes awry.

[ema-adama]

Originally Posted by Bokonon 

I'm of the same mind, exactly.  I guess I'm fortunate that my mother had measles as a toddler, and breastfed me though not for very long, so she may have passed her natural immunity on to me (not totally clear on how often that works though).

Still, I wouldn't mind if my kids were exposed to wild measles.  As far as risks of severe complications from the illness - we face that every day, from any illness, and any injury.  Look how many people die from MRSA every year.  

To the part I bolded.

Immunity from the mother is transfered via the placenta to the baby. The antibodies circulating in the baby are usually strong enough to protect the baby for 9 months, although mothers who are relying on immunity from a vaccine pass on antibodies that become weaker faster. Leaving younger babies more at risk.

[ASusan]

Originally Posted by Bokonon 

I'm of the same mind, exactly.  I guess I'm fortunate that my mother had measles as a toddler, and breastfed me though not for very long, so she may have passed her natural immunity on to me (not totally clear on how often that works though).

 

If the mother has had measles, and therefore built up a natural immunity, then her ability to pass on immunity to her breastfed child is much greater than if she has been immunized against measles. The immunity that is passed on to the breastfed infant for only as long as the breastfeeding continues.

[AFWife]

Am I the only one that thought "Where was I?" because I WANT my son to get it while he's young and get it over with??             I also agree with the PP that said they should contact people when a passenger has the flu! Or MRSA. Or a cough (because it could be pertussis!)  Or even the common cold because someone might be on board with compromised immunity and get severely ill. (I'm being a bit sarcastic now...I'm not saying REALLY call people...)

[Bokonon]

Originally Posted by ASusan 

If the mother has had measles, and therefore built up a natural immunity, then her ability to pass on immunity to her breastfed child is much greater than if she has been immunized against measles. The immunity that is passed on to the breastfed infant for only as long as the breastfeeding continues.

Good to know, thanks!  I was immunized anyway.

[BeckyBird]

Originally Posted by Otto 

Pox parties are interesting in that parents can waive their own rights but not the child's. The host of a pox party really does bear substantial risk if an attempt at natural immunity goes awry.

1. Vaccinating a child also waives the child's rights, doesn't it?

2. I don't know the law on this, but it's my opinion that the host of the party would not be at fault. The person who knowingly took the child to the party would be at fault.

I don't like to use the word "fault" though. If your child is vaccine damaged, or pox-party damaged, the parent always takes the blame. Whatever decision we make for our children, we will be blamed if something goes wrong.

[ema-adama]

I see we posted at the same time. If you have the time, and the resource readily available, I would be interested to read the evidence that breastfeeding is protective for measles in babies of mothers who were not vaccinated, and did have measles.

TIA
 

Originally Posted by ASusan 

If the mother has had measles, and therefore built up a natural immunity, then her ability to pass on immunity to her breastfed child is much greater than if she has been immunized against measles. The immunity that is passed on to the breastfed infant for only as long as the breastfeeding continues.

[Otto]

Originally Posted by BeckyBird 

1. Vaccinating a child also waives the child's rights, doesn't it?

I'm not sure what you mean by "also," but no, it doesn't. Keep in mind that the basis for recovery would be different, as well.

Originally Posted by BeckyBird 

2. I don't know the law on this, but it's my opinion that the host of the party would not be at fault. The person who knowingly took the child to the party would be at fault.

The person who knowingly took the child to the party would likely have a difficult time recovering any of their damages, but the host of such a party is still separately on the hook to the child, since the entire point of their actions was to try to transmit an infectious disease to someone who by definition cannot consent. And intent opens you up to punitive damages.

[ASusan]

I'll look into it. It was a few years ago when I learned this, and Im at work now, so it might be a few days.