First Person Dies of Measles in U.S. Since 2003

originally posted by: buddha
You know how she got it?
form some one would had just got a shot for Measles!

She was at a health center at the same time as someone who had measles (WP). That is probably how she got it. Measles is airborne and one of the most contagious diseases we know. What is your source that the vector "just got a shot for measles?" Are you saying this person got a shot for measles, developed measles because of the shot, went to this health center, and gave it to the woman?

There have been at least three other cases of measles in this county. Are they all due to shots?

a reply to: FurvusRexCaeli

But how long between the exposure and her death? This turns out to be a thread with very little substantive information. If those that advocate vaccine choice were to have started a thread with little to no information to support their argument they would be beaten down quickly by the usual suspects.

This thread is fodder. Nothing more.

a reply to: Witness2008
Little evidence is available for privacy reasons ... but what we do know agrees with the known facts of measles, viz. it is a viral disease spread by contact with infected persons. As there have been a number of measles cases in this county, and the victim was in close spatial proximity to at least one, it is a workable hypothesis that the person with measles transmitted it to the person who died. Buddha's hypothesis, which has something to do with the MMR vaccine, if I am parsing it correctly, has no evidence to support it, and is contrary to what we know about measles. It would be interesting if true, a real man bites dog story, but this is the kind of thing Occam sharpens his razor for.

a reply to: FurvusRexCaeli

But still.....there is no evidence to support where this woman was exposed to measles and whether it was the trigger for her pneumonia.

It seems to me that the media along with pro-vaxers don't practice the same exhaustive investigation methods that are demanded from the vaccine choice crowds.

I am going to assume that she was exposed to a recently vaccinated person.

a reply to: GetHyped

Lets look at the numbers.......US population is right around 320,000,000 and the case of measles in the US in 2014.......700.




That is.....What for it OP .000002%. Why are they pushing so hard for vaccination if the cases are so low.....I bet more people have allergic reaction issues with the vaccine than catch the disease.

a reply to: SubTruth

Ok, this really isn't rocket science.

1) Less people are being vaccinated today than 10 years ago

2) Measles incidences have thus risen accordingly

Therefore, the conclusion that measles incidence rates will continue to rise as more and more ignorant people decide not to vaccinate.

700 isn't a lot now, but compared to the figure of under 50 incidences 10 years ago that's a big increase.



This really isn't a complicated point to grasp so I am baffled that you would even make such an argument.

a reply to: GetHyped

exactly...the families don't vaccinate, the kids grow up don't vaccinate their kids...the pool of unvaccinated will continue to grow...how long until we hit the tipping point, only a matter of time....more and more people will get these diseases

originally posted by: jaws1975
a reply to: Pardon?

Some people are so stupid they need protection from themselves.

Don't you think that comment is a little bigoted?

No.
Not in the slightest.
It's fact, not opinion.

originally posted by: Witness2008
a reply to: FurvusRexCaeli

But still.....there is no evidence to support where this woman was exposed to measles and whether it was the trigger for her pneumonia.

Being in the same place as a person who has measles, then getting measles, is evidence. It's pretty much the definition of circumstantial evidence. We can't write it off as a coincidence because we know how measles is transmitted, and these circumstances fit the bill. It would be nice if we had HD video of this measles guy sneezing in the woman's face, and maybe a journal or scrapbook written by the measles virus as it made its journey from the vector to the deceased woman, but the circumstantial evidence really is enough until someone comes up with a better explanation.

The hypothesis that she got it from a recently-vaccinated person is not a better explanation. It is very rare for the measles component of MMR to spread person-to-person, and I don't think actual disease has ever resulted. There are countless millions of cases of the actual disease being transmitted person-to-person. And while there is evidence that she was in proximity to someone who had measles, there is no evidence that she was in proximity to someone who had recently been vaccinated. Obvious conclusion is obvious.

It seems to me that the media along with pro-vaxers don't practice the same exhaustive investigation methods that are demanded from the vaccine choice crowds.

I'm in the vaccine choice crowd, I just think non-vaccinators should be civilly liable when their informed choice inflicts harm on other people. Or they should pay additional taxes to fund compensation for the innocent victims of their refusal to vaccinate. I've never seen an anti-vaxer take the same position.

I am going to assume that she was exposed to a recently vaccinated person.

Why would you assume that? Does she work with young children, college freshmen, or military inductees? Or is this something you're assuming because it's convenient to the case you're trying to make?

originally posted by: SubTruth
a reply to: GetHyped

Lets look at the numbers.......US population is right around 320,000,000 and the case of measles in the US in 2014.......700.




That is.....What for it OP .000002%. Why are they pushing so hard for vaccination if the cases are so low.....I bet more people have allergic reaction issues with the vaccine than catch the disease.

Truth ^^. This is the problem (sarcasm) with evidence-based (statistical analysis) . There is always a tipping point where the odds of getting injured from a vaccine are greater than the odds of getting injured from the disease.

If people actually cared about their children, they would base things on statistics rather than fear. In the current time period, there is statistically greater chance of getting vaccine injured than getting many of the diseases AND getting injured.

It is just an unfortunate reality as the diseases become extremely rare, the odds of getting the disease become ridiculously low. It wouldn't take much to graphically show the tipping point at which you are better off not getting vaccinated for each disease based on the disease rates.

Think of it this way. Smallpox is essentially eradicated. There is some risk to getting a smallpox vaccine--even permanent damage. There a unbelievably miniscule risk of getting smallpox and getting permanent damage. Risk of the vaccine is greater than the disease in THIS current time.

a reply to: Halfswede

Another arithmetic fail.

It really shouldn't be a troublesome concept to grasp. But alas...

a reply to: GetHyped

I am not anti-vaccination......If measles cases became an issue I would want to be vaccinated. That being said my constitutional rights still allow me to opt out.

originally posted by: Halfswede

originally posted by: SubTruth
a reply to: GetHyped

Lets look at the numbers.......US population is right around 320,000,000 and the case of measles in the US in 2014.......700.




That is.....What for it OP .000002%. Why are they pushing so hard for vaccination if the cases are so low.....I bet more people have allergic reaction issues with the vaccine than catch the disease.

Truth ^^. This is the problem (sarcasm) with evidence-based (statistical analysis) . There is always a tipping point where the odds of getting injured from a vaccine are greater than the odds of getting injured from the disease.

If people actually cared about their children, they would base things on statistics rather than fear. In the current time period, there is statistically greater chance of getting vaccine injured than getting many of the diseases AND getting injured.

It is just an unfortunate reality as the diseases become extremely rare, the odds of getting the disease become ridiculously low. It wouldn't take much to graphically show the tipping point at which you are better off not getting vaccinated for each disease based on the disease rates.

Think of it this way. Smallpox is essentially eradicated. There is some risk to getting a smallpox vaccine--even permanent damage. There a unbelievably miniscule risk of getting smallpox and getting permanent damage. Risk of the vaccine is greater than the disease in THIS current time.

And how was smallpox eradicated again?
And what would happen if the few vials of smallpox virus were released in the wild now since very few people are vaccinated against it?

You've not really thought this through very well have you?

originally posted by: SubTruth
a reply to: GetHyped

I am not anti-vaccination......If measles cases became an issue I would want to be vaccinated. That being said my constitutional rights still allow me to opt out.

So you're leeching the benefit provided by the majority of people who have the sense and social responsibility to vaccinate before measles becomes an issue?
And you're using your "constitutional right" not to help that out?

How very civilised of you.

a reply to: SubTruth

"If enough people like me didn't vaccinate, I and those around me would be in danger so I would then need to vaccinate"

Sound logic there.

Possibly one of the most selfish comments I've read.

I assume you're also against donating your organs but would be more than happy to receive one if your life was in danger?

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: Halfswede

Another arithmetic fail.

It really shouldn't be a troublesome concept to grasp. But alas...

Haha!. I'm a stats guy by education.

For example, the risk a child will have a severe reaction after the MMR (Measles Mumps Rubella) or DTaP (diphtheria, tetanus, and acellular pertussis) vaccines is less than 1 in 1,000,000


Just taking that from a pro-vaccine site Source and assuming it's true.

Lets take < 20 years as child age (even though the 1/1000000 may even younger demographic), and I will estimate upward based on the current yearly average disease rate and the 320,000,000 population. Also, we will assume that you are 100% protected if you get a vaccine (not true though).

I will use the formula (rate of serious injury * yearly average disease count* 20years/320million). Add these rates and you will get the probability that you get a serious injury from the disease. We will compare that to 1/1,000,000

Some stats taken from WHO
others from CDC

The odds of getting a serious injury IN THE US-- NOW from any one of those diseases is :
Measles (.003 CDC)(300 WHO)(20)/320mil +
Mumps (.003)(1000 WHO)20/320mil +
Rubella (.0005 CDC)(500 WHO)(20)/320mil +
Diptheria (.3)(1 WHO)(20)/320mil +
Tetanus(.12)(.5 WHO)(20)/320mil +
Pertussis(.00075)(5000 WHO)(20)/320mil

= 5.16 X 10^-7

1/1000000 = 1 x 10-6 (That is being generous and assuming the 1/1000000 isn't per vaccination in which case you would have to multiply by the average number of vaccinations -- maybe 10-15)

1 x 10^-6 is nearly twice as likely as 5.16 X 10^-7


I was more than generous in all of my numbers in favor of vaccines. Don't talk to me about math fails. If you break it up by disease, there are certainly ones that are more likely than the vaccine damage, but the stats don't lie.

originally posted by: FurvusRexCaeli

originally posted by: LibertasIntel

In fact I had the mumps too.

Mumps can cause sterility and deafness. Some rite of passage. "You have had the sickness, now you are a man. But you'll never be a father. I SAID, YOU'LL NEVER BE A FATHER."

I had the Chicken Pox very bad when I was 17 years old with a very high fever; I cannot have children. So what?! At least I didn't get the disease from the vaccination. Children now are given many many more vaccinations in their early lives these days compared to 30~50 years ago. Diseases change and mutate with each vaccination. I received an ungodly amount of immunizations while I was in the military so who knows what flows through these veins. What I don't do is take a damn flu shot and I also do not get sick. Yes I am happy with my healthy lifestyle without you doomsayers screaming the sky is falling every time someone catches a disease. Also are you aware of the incentives to the pharmaceutical and healthcare industries that are incentives to blowing a single case out of proportion?
And you wonder why people do not trust the industry? Autism rates climbing, mercury (thimerosal) as sterilization agents in vaccinations for no explainable reason, and a general public that thinks that anyone that does not share their point of view is simply stupid. These type of people kinda reminds me of Lemmings

originally posted by: Halfswede

Haha!. I'm a stats guy by education.

Evidently not.

originally posted by: GetHyped

Ok, this really isn't rocket science.

1) Less people are being vaccinated today than 10 years ago

2) Measles incidences have thus risen accordingly

Therefore, the conclusion that measles incidence rates will continue to rise as more and more ignorant people decide not to vaccinate.

700 isn't a lot now, but compared to the figure of under 50 incidences 10 years ago that's a big increase.



This really isn't a complicated point to grasp so I am baffled that you would even make such an argument.

evidently you don't like the CDC and WHO's statistics


However as to your point that rates are on the rise, that will push us back over the tipping point to where statistically vaccines will have the favor (IN the US). I don't think you fully understood my post, but the numbers don't lie. Let' say a disease is completely nonexistent in the US. The risk of vaccine injury would inherently be larger than the risk of getting the disease.

a reply to: Pardon?

Try that argument when you're ticketed for driving without a seatbelt.

Some people are so stupid they need protection from themselves.

Your analogy is false, driving is not a right but a privilege, so seatbelt laws are based off a privilege not a right.

Saying that some people are so stupid that our caring government needs to mandate things like vaccinations is a bigoted opinion, nothing factual whatsoever.