or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Measles in Utah
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Measles in Utah - Page 2

post #21 of 54

 


Quote:
Originally Posted by Turquesa View Post

In some outbreaks, MOST of the people are vaxed, which calls "herd immunity" into question.  I have more examples, but here's two to start.

 

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-02-08/health/mumps.outbreak.northeast_1_mumps-outbreak-vaccinated-cases?_s=PM:HEALTH

http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/swcounty/article_cdd5eac3-2d89-54cd-b421-a668899709a4.html


 

The mumps vaccine is certainly not one of the most effective ones.  However just having the majority of mumps cases be in vaccinated people does not mean that the vaccine is ineffective - in a highly vaccinated population, and while the vaccine is still protecting many, there can be more people walking around having been vaccinate with a mumps vaccine that failed/didn't take than  there are people who are actually not vaccinated.  That the disease is still limited to outbreaks and has not returned to being a common childhood disease that nearly everyone gets at some point is due to herd immunity.  

 

Pertussis is a problem. I've heard it suggested that the newer vaccine may not be as effective and that we've bought a modicum of vaccine safety with the far more terrible price of letting a deadly disease return, that we would have been better off sticking with the old whole cell vaccine.  Or I've heard, as suggested in this article, that the bacteria has mutated (as bacteria is wont to do) and the vaccine is not as effective against the new strain. In either case, the vaccine did serve its purpose and made pertussis a very rare disease for decades, but it may be time for a new one. 

 

On the other hand, the measles portion of the MMR is a very effective vaccine.  Measles is very rare in vaccinated people.  While it can happen on occasion that a few vaccinated people will get it in an outbreak, the vast majority of measles cases occur in the unvaxed. 

 


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverMoon010 View Post

I always wondered about the herd immunity thing because when talking about the MMR vaccine, if the vaccine is not 100% effective, and it does in fact shed, even if everyone in the world was vaccinated against measles, it can still be spread between the vaccinated population.  Shedding from newly vaccinated people and thus infecting others where there is vaccine failure (not 100% effective)  So, is there ever a such thing as herd immunity in that case?  Also, it doesn't confer life-long immunity either, so unless everyone continues getting vaccinated for it throughout their entire lifetime (certainly not promoting that), there will never be a said herd immunity.  I could be totally off base but that's how I see it.  Sometimes I wonder if we are keeping the virus contained in the country by the vaccination. As long as we continue vaccinating with MMR, the measles virus (vaccine virus) will always be within our community and will continue to circulate and resurface.


 

As I wrote above, measles is very rare in fully vaccinated people, the vast majority of measles cases are in people who have not even had a single measles vaccine.  Shedding is a real problem with oral polio vaccine, chickenpox vaccine, and the inhaled flu vaccine.  While the measles vaccine could theoretically shed and cause measles in someone else, there is not a single documented case of it happening, so if it does ever happen, it is an extremely rare thing.  Also, while only time will tell for sure, it is currently generally believe that the measles vaccine does induce lifelong immunity.

 

Measles has pretty much been eradicated in the US, only it keeps being brought back from overseas.  It is the vaccine that keeps these imported outbreaks relatively small - stop vaccinating for a 5-10 years to let a large population of completely unprotected little kids build up, and the next imported case that infected one of them wouldn't be limited to a handful of cases or even a couple hundred, it would spread like wildfire and cross the entire nation.

 

It would, in theory, be possible to eradicate measles entirely, it is only political situations and poverty and such that has kept large populations from being vaccinated in some areas and thus allowed measles to thrive there and continue to exist. 

 

post #22 of 54


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverMoon010 View Post

I always wondered about the herd immunity thing because when talking about the MMR vaccine, if the vaccine is not 100% effective, and it does in fact shed, even if everyone in the world was vaccinated against measles, it can still be spread between the vaccinated population.  Shedding from newly vaccinated people and thus infecting others where there is vaccine failure (not 100% effective)  So, is there ever a such thing as herd immunity in that case?  Also, it doesn't confer life-long immunity either, so unless everyone continues getting vaccinated for it throughout their entire lifetime (certainly not promoting that), there will never be a said herd immunity.  I could be totally off base but that's how I see it.  Sometimes I wonder if we are keeping the virus contained in the country by the vaccination. As long as we continue vaccinating with MMR, the measles virus (vaccine virus) will always be within our community and will continue to circulate and resurface.


While shedding from newly vaccinated people is a theoretical possibility from any live virus vaccine, I haven't heard of any documented cases of this actually happening with the MMR.  (Please let me know if there are any I haven't heard of.)  It was not uncommon with the oral polio vaccine (OPV not IPV).  In that case, the polio virus passed around by the vaccine was usually less dangerous than wild polio (except for people with immune deficiencies), though it could and did cause paralysis in many cases, could be caught by other non-immune individuals (including possibly causing paralysis), and tended to create immunity to polio for the individuals who were vaccinated and the individuals who caught the vaccine-related polio from vaccinated individuals.  For this reason, along with the fact that the OPV is cheaper, it is the polio vaccine of choice in areas that have high rates of polio since you can effectively immunize people who refuse vaccination by getting them to catch the vaccine-related polio, thus creating more people who are immune to wild polio, increasing "herd immunity."  This all was justified by the idea that fewer children were paralyzed by polio in a population where use of the OPV was widespread then in a population where it was not.  The decision of whether or not that risk was worth it should have been left to parents and individuals, not government organizations.  I think that this vaccine's use was and still is on shaky ground.  What do you say to the people whose children are paralyzed by the vaccine and might not have been if they had not been vaccinated?  What do you say to the people who refused vaccination and caught the more virulent vaccine-related polio from someone who was vaccinated.  In practice, both cases were met with lies that made people distrust even more.  Eventually, the IPV was developed using an inactivated virus, so viral shedding is impossible.  It is still not 100% effective, but enough people are immune that much of the world has not seen a case of wild polio in decades.  The OPV is still used in many parts of the world.

 

Vaccines do have the potential to eradicate disease.  An example of this is smallpox, which no longer exists in the world, and most historians credit this to the widespread use of vaccination.  However, it is a logic fallacy to believe that every vaccine will work this way if we all just submit and allow our children to be vaccinated for every disease we can.  Some vaccines (pertussis, Prevnar, etc) have been implicated as contributing to the mutation of the pathogens and/or an increase in other, often more dangerous strains of the diseases.  Some vaccines (DTP, original rotavirus vaccine, OPV, etc) have been so well documented to have adverse effects that they are no longer legal to use in the United States and many other countries (but we still send them to 3rd world countries in the case of the OPV), and even if they have the ability to contribute to the eradication of disease, it is questionable if their use is ethical and whether the benefits outweigh the risks because they don't for every child, and it is the responsibility of parents to weight the benefits and risks for their own children.

 

Back to measles.  The measles vaccine, while not 100% effective, is pretty effective against the measles, and it holds its effectiveness pretty well so that almost all people who are vaccinated against the measles as children will have immunity to the virus at least until they are past retirement age.  Very, very few vaccinated individuals get the measles.  This makes it easier to contain an outbreak because you only have to quarantine people who you suspect are not immune.  The health department is complaining about how expensive it is to contact all these unvaccinated people to tell them to stay home for a couple weeks, but the truth is that with so many people vaccinated and probably immune, that makes their job even manageable.  When vaxed kids start getting sick is when it gets scary, but this is less common with the measles than many other vaccines.  Others may argue, but I believe that the measles vaccine is effective enough that it is possible that if most people were vaccinated, outbreaks were handled carefully worldwide, and the virus does not mutate, we could possibly eradicate the measles worldwide.  I believe this is unlikely to happen any time soon, though, based on other factors that discourage people (like me!) from getting their children vaccinated.

 

Criticism of the MMR centers less around its effectiveness in preventing the measles (but there is question about its ability to prevent the mumps) for individuals who are vaccinated at this point and more around whether or not measles is worth eradicating in this fashion, whether the use of the vaccine could contribute to the rise of other strains of the disease, whether the use of aborted fetal tissue in the manufacturing process of the vaccine is ethical or safe, whether other ingredients are safe, whether or not the MMR is a risk factor for other problems including autism, death, cancers, improper development of the immune system, and other health issues, and whether or not the benefits outweigh the risks/ethical concerns for individual children in different situations.


Edited by JMJ - 4/13/11 at 1:24pm
post #23 of 54
Thread Starter 


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MyBoysBlue View Post

The pink book quotes a 30% complication rate.

8% of which is diarrhea which is the most commonly reported complication.

7% is Otitis media (earache).

6% is Pneumonia.

Etc.

 

PDF

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/meas.pdf

Thank You!
 

 

post #24 of 54

 

Quote:
 
Vaccines do have the potential to eradicate disease.  An example of this is smallpox, which no longer exists in the world, and most historians credit this to the widespread use of vaccination. 

Smallpox was not eradicated by vaccines.  

post #25 of 54
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calm View Post

 

Smallpox was not eradicated by vaccines.  



This reminds me, I remember reading that only 10% of the population was vaccinated against small pox but now I can't find where I read it. Does anyone have a source for this?

post #26 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by pers View Post

 

 

As I wrote above, measles is very rare in fully vaccinated people, the vast majority of measles cases are in people who have not even had a single measles vaccine.  

 


Yes, in undeveloped countries.  The vast majority of measles cases in the U.S. are in vaccinated individuals.

 

post #27 of 54
post #28 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calm View Post

 

Smallpox was not eradicated by vaccines.  



I didn't make a judgment there.  I don't claim to know enough to be sure of much of anything.  I just stated what most historians credit polio's eradication to.  I'm interested in hearing your theories as well.

post #29 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bokonon View Post

Some good info about the efficacy of MMR here:

http://insidevaccines.com/wordpress/mmr/

 

http://insidevaccines.com/wordpress/2008/02/02/measles-the-grim-reality/

 

We do the MMR, but these are fascinating links.  Thanks!

 

I think this site could augment its credibility with some transparency about who runs it.  Just sayin'....

 

post #30 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMJ View Post





I didn't make a judgment there.  I don't claim to know enough to be sure of much of anything.  I just stated what most historians credit polio's eradication to.  I'm interested in hearing your theories as well.


This doctor's quote in February this year: "Smallpox was not eradicated by vaccines as many doctors readily say it was. They say this out of conditioning rather than out of understanding the history or science."

 

“It is pathetic and ludicrous to say we ever vanquished smallpox with vaccines, when only 10% of the population was ever vaccinated.”
- Dr. Glen Dettman source (but this can be sourced in many places)

 

Related to measles and the other VPD, think of the level of coverage we've had globally... it has been much higher than smallpox ever was, and we still can't eliminate the diseases.  

 

A page on Smallpox with stats.

 

If further discussion is warranted on smallpox, start a thread and let me know.  Don't want to lose posts if this is considered off topic.


Edited by Calm - 4/14/11 at 2:26pm
post #31 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bokonon View Post




Yes, in undeveloped countries.  The vast majority of measles cases in the U.S. are in vaccinated individuals.

 


No, in the US.  At least in the past decade or so, it may have been different back in the 1980s before they added another dose.  But in the current century at least, while there have been a few small outbreaks that consisted of vaccinated people such as one where nine vaccinated kids at a boarding school got it, the large outbreaks have mostly involved unvacinated people, and overall by far the majority of measles cases have been in those who were not vaccinated. I'm not sure about the 1990's but suspect it would have been the same. 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bokonon View Post

Some good info about the efficacy of MMR here:

http://insidevaccines.com/wordpress/mmr/

 

http://insidevaccines.com/wordpress/2008/02/02/measles-the-grim-reality/



Eh.. I have some issues with those links and how they portray things.  

 

1.  The first link seems to mix numbers around, it speaks of how effective the MMR is as a whole but then links to a supporting study that is just about the Mumps portion of the vaccine.  It quotes a bit from an abstract claiming that "a large proportion of children vaccinated under routine conditions do not have detectable measles and mumps antibody." But the abstract also says that kids vaccinated at a younger age were more likely to have undetectable measles levels, but what counts as a young age?  Are they looking at kids vaccinated before 12 months?  Comparing 12 months to 18 months or a few years?  And was this a study of kids who have had just a single dose of the vaccine, or does it take into account that kids are supposed to get another dose before starting school in order to create immunity for most of those for whom the vaccine didn't take the first time?  Who knows?  Someone who is willing to pay to read the full article, I suppose. Did the author of the webpage who quoted the abstract pay or otherwise have access to the full study to evaluate it, or did he/she just read the abstract and decided to throw the information at us without any context or discussion of methadology, etc?

 

2.  Apparently, according to the second link,  a disease isn't worth bothering to attempt to prevent unless it has parents absolutely wailing in terror?   

 

3.  The author discuses how infants and teens/adults (both ages at which measles is more dangerous than in the age range most kids used to get it) now make up a greater percentage of measles cases than they used to.  This is true since infants aren't vaccinated so much, much more likely to catch measles if exposed than older kids who would be protected by vaccination, and also as the author points out they are less likely to be protected (though still not completely unprotected) by the immunity transfer from a vaccinated mother than a mother who had measles.   On the other hand measles is rare enough that kids who are unvaxed or whose vaccine failed are unlikely to even encounter it during the short age-range that most kids used to get it at, leaving them open to getting it at some point later in their lives.  The author sums this up as a bad things saying "Translation: Mother Nature knows more about protecting infants from measles than we do.."  But what he/she seems to be overlooking is that the proportion isn't everything.   While most kids had measles during the safest period, there have always been some people who got it as infants or as teens or adults.  Since there used to be millions of cases per year, and now it is rare to have a year where there are hundreds, it stands to reason that far more babies/teens/adults used to get measles than they do now.  Also, now there are many years in which no one dies of measles compared to the past when at least several hundred if not more died each year.  Translation: infants are safer from measles in a highly vaccinated population than in one where measles is allowed to circulate freely. 

 

4. There are some concerns as to whether the measles vaccine will provide life long immunity or not. The CDC claims that current thought is that it will, but they are apparently still looking into it. The author seems to have decided that it will not and is presenting that immunity will wain enough to leave large portion of older people at risk, but does not provide any source to back that up.  Also seems to ignore that even if that did happen, that doesn't mean that there aren't other solutions such as a booster late in life, even if the author would be against one on principle, to prevent measles from running rampant among older people. 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by JMJ View Post





I didn't make a judgment there.  I don't claim to know enough to be sure of much of anything.  I just stated what most historians credit polio's eradication to.  I'm interested in hearing your theories as well.


 

Smallpox was eradicated through a combination of quarantine and targeted vaccination.  Getting the vaccine to everyone the world was not feasible.  Instead, they chased outbreaks, quarantining known cases and vaccinating everyone who may have been exposed (the vaccine could be effective at preventing smallpox even when administered a few days after exposure).  This worked with smallpox which is not quite as contagious as measles and where victims generally show signs of being ill before they are contagious.   It would not work so well with measles which is highly contagious, allowing a single contagious person to infect a large number in a short time and where a person can spread it up to four days before showing any sign of being sick. 

 

But the reason polio is no longer native to the US is due to vaccination, and measles mostly has been eradicated in the US, only it keeps being imported from places that still have it, generally by unvaxed travelers.   

 

 

post #32 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calm View Post



 

I further discussion is warranted on smallpox, start a thread and let me know.  Don't want to lose posts if this is considered off topic.


http://www.mothering.com/community/forum/thread/1308476/vaccine-eradication-of-disease#post_16389901

 

post #33 of 54

Update on the situation in Utah:

There have now been 9 confirmed cases and one more probable case.  Cases 1-5 were unvaccinated.  (Cases 1-3 were in the same family.)  Case 6 was vaxed, and now the health department is citing "privacy laws" and not telling us if cases 7-9 were vaxed or not.  Case 6's family came forward in the comments section of a local newspaper to identify themselves and to say that a toddler in the family who had received one MMR dose both got the measles.  It's strange that privacy laws are being applied now, but they didn't apply until vaxed kids started getting sick, and I really wonder if that means 4 of the 9 were vaccinated.

 

One of the confirmed cases (no mention of vax status) attended 2 events last week where there were a total of almost 1000 people there, so health officials are trying to get vax records from or quarantine everybody at those two events.

 

It's getting closer to home for us.  One of the events was where I went to school, and we relate regularly to people who are often on that campus.  I don't have a problem with DD getting the measles.  I think she'd be fine.  I'm just concerned because we have travel planned with our pro-vax family (so pro-vax that they don't know we're skipping some because we don't want to deal with that conversation) in the next few weeks, and I don't want to deal with the fallout if we get quarantined and miss the trips just because DD ends up in the same room as somebody who might have had the measles.  I'm sick of the blame in the news and especially the comments on the news.

post #34 of 54

I suppose unvaccinated people don't deserve privacy?

 

I agree it seems suspicious they are citing privacy laws all of a sudden

post #35 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marnica View Post

I suppose unvaccinated people don't deserve privacy?

 

I agree it seems suspicious they are citing privacy laws all of a sudden



I agree.  

post #36 of 54

You guys may have seen this already as it was from 2 weeks ago, but they mention the whole privacy thing in here: 

 

"School and health officials have sought to shield the family’s identity, citing state and federal privacy laws and concern for their well-being.

“We are wary of any potential push back they could receive from the community because of the circumstances,” said Ben Horsley, a spokesman at Granite School District, the only district affected by the outbreak so far. “Parents have a right under state law to make the best decisions for their child’s well-being and education. We as a district fully respect that right.”

 

I find it a bit strange that they state this now, yet the fact that the family was unvaccinated has been all over the news. They certainly made sure that info got out there, didn't they? Now that there is a case who WAS vaccinated, the rest of the cases are hush hush.shrug.gif

 

I guess we will never know. 

 

http://www.sltrib.com/csp/cms/sites/sltrib/pages/printerfriendly.csp?id=51614160 


Edited by SilverMoon010 - 4/26/11 at 10:18am
post #37 of 54
I was getting ready to post about the SLCC Measles, but saw this Measles in Utah Post. So I go to SLCC (Salt Lake Community College) and at the Nicholas Kristof Lecture someone had the measles (http://www.slcc.edu/pdf/Measles.pdf). Well, Friday my Aunt just randomly texted me, I am guessing my cousin who just had a baby a few months ago saw or read something about it in the news and she told my Aunt(I still haven’t been formally told by my school). My Aunt then texted me ...“Has Kyler had his measles shots?" So I told her yes, (my son was vaccinated after I told the doctor that I didn’t want him vaccinated) and I responded yes, why do you ask? She responded "Patty heard there are cases at SLCC. Do you still go there? I didn't know if Kyler had his shots because you said you don't believe in it. I was just hoping that you changed your mind (then she put a smilie face)" I responded that I hadn't heard anything about measles, and that Kyler has had his MMR. I thought if it was a big deal the Lab School my son attends at SLCC would have said something or kicked him out of school. When I looked on the school website I could not find anything about measles, but when I googled measles at SLCC I found the link for the attendance of the Nicholas Kristof lecture. Then Monday (yesterday) when I dropped Kyler of at the lab school and checked the parent’s box this paperwork was in my box… (http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/vis/downloads/vis-mmr.pdf). I had to laugh to myself, because I had thought about this when my Aunt had told me about the measles cases on Friday. I usually get this kind of paperwork in my box randomly but so do other parents (at first I thought that it might just be me because I don’t vaccinate, but I have checked other parent folders to see and usually all the other parents get it too). Yesterday it was just Kyler and I that got the measles paperwork, I think that if he hadn’t had the MMR that they probably would have kicked him out of school, but who knows.
The reaction the public has to supposedly “deadly” diseases like, Measles, Chicken Pox, etc. Is really out there, I mean hello I had Chicken Pox and I am still breathing! My mother and most my ancestors all contracted Measles, Mumps, Chicken Pox, Rubella, and probably everything else they vaccinate for and they all survived. Where do people these days get their thinking from, I mean reading the articles from the Trib they do use a ton of scare tactics, but I mean come on common sense Measles and other childhood diseases that they now have Vaccines for used to just be a part of childhood, so how do people really believe that they are so deadly? Life is full of destructive deadly forces, the everyday Flu is still one of the most deadly killers, and there are also things like Drugs and Alcohol that kill people on a daily basis; every fifteen minutes someone is killed by drug use and that includes illicit and prescription drugs, people are killed in car accidents, and homicides and more. In this day and age if someone even gets sick with a cold, or the flu everyone freaks out! Really…? Last I checked getting sick was just part of being human, when did catching anything that makes us ill whether it be a cold, or the measles became the end of the world? The responds that are the Trib article just make me sick, and I can only shake my head at how people treat other people who choose not to vaccinate as if they were the scum of the earth!! e MMR that they probably would have kicked him out of school, but who knows.
post #38 of 54

SilverMoon, that's more about the privacy of the family that brought the measles home with them.  People around here are really angry about the whole thing, accusing them of purposely exposing people when they knew it was the measles (not sure if that is true or not), and they are upset that they don't think measles threatened their life.  I'm all for not telling the media the names of the minor children who got sick.

 

This was the article (also a week old, so it doesn't have information on the latest events) that talks about how the health department isn't mentioning vax status anymore.  It just makes no sense.  Why would they reveal vax status until one vaxed kid gets it and then not talk about vax status anymore because of "privacy laws."

 

Quote:
A case confirmed late last week involved a student who had received immunizations; however, department officials would not comment on the immunization status of the latest three cases, citing federal privacy laws.

 

I am almost positive that the kid who exposed 1000 people last week was vaxed.  All the unvaxed kids were told to stay home and were on alert.  They do mention that so far, people outside of the same schools haven't gotten it, and all the unvaxed kids at all those schools were quarantined and not allowed to attend any events.  It would have been nearly impossible for an unvaxed kid from any of those schools to make it to either of those events.  I'm not blaming the vaxed kid either, just saying it's not all the fault of unvaxed kids.  Vaxed kids may get it less often, but they've got a false sense of security.  When one gets it, s/he has more potential to expose a lot more people.

post #39 of 54



 

Quote:
Originally Posted by JMJ View Post

SilverMoon, that's more about the privacy of the family that brought the measles home with them.  People around here are really angry about the whole thing, accusing them of purposely exposing people when they knew it was the measles (not sure if that is true or not), and they are upset that they don't think measles threatened their life.  I'm all for not telling the media the names of the minor children who got sick.

 

 

Oh, of course. I certainly support their right to privacy as well and would never want their identity to be exposed. (I hope you didn't think that's what I meant.)  They normally don't expose identity in these types of outbreaks anyway, do they?

 

post #40 of 54

Here is an article that I often cite:

http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/swcounty/article_cdd5eac3-2d89-54cd-b421-a668899709a4.html

 

Utahans should use the tactics that these journalists and journalism students did to obtain the data on vaccination status.  The public is every bit entitled to this data.

 

I’m finally coming to learn that “privacy” laws have little to do with protecting consumers and everything to do with serving the medical-industrial complex.  But I suppose that’s a whole other matter.  Another day, another thread perhaps.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Measles in Utah