I don't consider a disease that requires access to strong antibiotics, ventilators, ICUs, and everything else modern medicine can throw at it to get the death rate down to 1 in 1,000 to be a minor disease. As another member put it, let's just say the common cold doesn't require that kind of intervention.
As a "survivor" of measles, without the benefit of antibiotics, ventilators, ICUs or any of the other wonders of modern medicine, I find this rather sad. In the 1950s, when I went through measles, there were estimated to be 4 million cases per year. The death rate for this entire group, which included, no doubt a few adults, was 450 cases per year. By your assumption, there should have been 4,000 deaths. There should have been, let's see, 20% hospitalized? Something like 800,000 cases ending up in the hospital?
This is sadly typical. After a vaccine changes the demographics of the illness and before every single case gets counted, it is possible to rewrite history and make measles look as though it was consistently deadly and we were only saved by a) the vaccine and b) heroic medicine.
This is the sort of narrative that actually moves people away from trusting vaccinations.
The reasoning goes like this: I can look up the numbers and see that measles was not nearly as bad as it is being pictured. Someone is misusing statistics to tell a false story. The person I'm listening to has been deceived by this misuse of statistics. If there is a purposeful distortion of the facts to push a product...and it sure looks that way...can I trust anything from the source?
I find it very telling that my thread attempting to discuss the study about PDD rates in Montreal has attracted so few comments.
Let's be critical of the pro-vaccine narrative, of the pro-vaccine science and of the pro-vaccine statistics.