Measles Outbreak

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
You can have breakthrough cases even if immunized, and these may be milder. But the 93% (one dose) and 97% (two dose) failure rates are true failures.

https://www.cdc.gov/pinkbook/hcp/table-of-contents/chapter-13-measles.html

Measles antibodies develop in approximately 95% of children vaccinated at age 12 months. Seroconversion rates are similar for single-antigen measles, MMR vaccine, and MMRV vaccine. Approximately 2% to 7% of children who receive only 1 dose of MMR vaccine fail to respond to it, i.e., they experience primary vaccine failure. MMR vaccine failure can occur because of passive antibody in the vaccine recipient, immaturity of the immune system, damaged vaccine, or other reasons. Most persons who fail to respond to the first dose will respond to a second dose. Studies indicate that more than 99% of persons who receive 2 doses of measles vaccine (with the first dose administered no earlier than the first birthday) develop serologic evidence of measles immunity.

Primary vaccine failure is the failure to mount an immune response and develop antibodies, NOT a "partial response" -- a failure of response. There are more details at the link, and if you have more questions, I'd advise to read there first.

The second place to go would be an overview such as this:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X18304857

A framework for research on vaccine effectiveness

2. Vaccine failure models (Table 1)

2.1. Primary vaccine failure (“All-or-None”)

Vaccine protection and failure are two sides of the same coin, but understanding how vaccines fail is a relatively under-explored area. Traditionally, vaccines were thought to generate life-long immunity, with a small proportion of vaccinees not protected because the vaccine did not “take” (“all-or-none”). This is considered “primary vaccine failure” and is frequently associated with live virus vaccines such as measles, mumps and rubella vaccines [7].

2.2. Secondary vaccine failure

In contrast, “secondary vaccine failure” refers to waning vaccine immunity in which protection decays with time. For example, in the absence of circulating pathogen, humoral protection might be expected to wane exponentially [8], [9]. Secondary failure has traditionally been more associated with inactivated, subunit, and toxoid vaccines (e.g., pertussis, diphtheria and tetanus).

[7] S.L. Deeks, G.H. Lim, M.A. Simpson, L. Gagné, J. Gubbay, E. Kristjanson, et al.
An assessment of mumps vaccine effectiveness by dose during an outbreak in Canada
CMAJ, 183 (9) (2011), pp. 1014-1020, 10.1503/cmaj.101371

[8] M.B. van Ravenhorst, A.B. Marinovic, F.R. van der Klis, D.M. van Rooijen, M. van Maurik, S.P. Stoof, et al.
Long-term persistence of protective antibodies in Dutch adolescents following a meningococcal serogroup C tetanus booster vaccination
Vaccine, 34 (50) (2016), pp. 6309-6315, 10.1016/j.vaccine.2016.10.049

[9] P.F. Teunis, J.C. van Eijkeren, W.F. de Graaf, A.B. Marinović, M.E. Kretzschmar
Linking the seroresponse to infection to within-host heterogeneity in antibody production
Epidemics, 16 (2016), pp. 33-39, 10.1016/j.epidem.2016.04.001

That article identifies that although measles remains the classic context for primary vaccine failure, OTHER live attenuated virus vaccines (specifically, mumps and rubella) demonstrate both primary and secondary models of vaccine failure -- but not measles.

I know that you can have breakthrough cases, but I am just making this statement because you don't truly know if your friend is being about getting the measles shot unless you attended the medical appointment with them. Most people with one shot that are exposed to measles will not get a breakthrough case and around 95% of measles cases have been among unvaccinated people. The point I am making is that there is a high probability (from a statistical perspective) that your friend is lying about her kids vaccination status. It is more likely than not she is lying about her kids getting the vaccine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not a good idea to be flying with kids these days unless they have had the MMR (dose 1--around one year and dose 2 around 4 years). I would not travel unless absolutely necessary for something like a family move.

If traveling internationally, they recommend an additional dose at 6-12 mos. Both my kids had this. Wonder if they will now start recommending this for domestic travel...

They don't actually ask for proof that you are traveling internationally. Just say that you are taking an international trip, no one will fact check you if you want your kid to get an MMR shot at 6 months.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You can have breakthrough cases even if immunized, and these may be milder. But the 93% (one dose) and 97% (two dose) failure rates are true failures.

https://www.cdc.gov/pinkbook/hcp/table-of-contents/chapter-13-measles.html

Measles antibodies develop in approximately 95% of children vaccinated at age 12 months. Seroconversion rates are similar for single-antigen measles, MMR vaccine, and MMRV vaccine. Approximately 2% to 7% of children who receive only 1 dose of MMR vaccine fail to respond to it, i.e., they experience primary vaccine failure. MMR vaccine failure can occur because of passive antibody in the vaccine recipient, immaturity of the immune system, damaged vaccine, or other reasons. Most persons who fail to respond to the first dose will respond to a second dose. Studies indicate that more than 99% of persons who receive 2 doses of measles vaccine (with the first dose administered no earlier than the first birthday) develop serologic evidence of measles immunity.

Primary vaccine failure is the failure to mount an immune response and develop antibodies, NOT a "partial response" -- a failure of response. There are more details at the link, and if you have more questions, I'd advise to read there first.

The second place to go would be an overview such as this:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X18304857

A framework for research on vaccine effectiveness

2. Vaccine failure models (Table 1)

2.1. Primary vaccine failure (“All-or-None”)

Vaccine protection and failure are two sides of the same coin, but understanding how vaccines fail is a relatively under-explored area. Traditionally, vaccines were thought to generate life-long immunity, with a small proportion of vaccinees not protected because the vaccine did not “take” (“all-or-none”). This is considered “primary vaccine failure” and is frequently associated with live virus vaccines such as measles, mumps and rubella vaccines [7].

2.2. Secondary vaccine failure

In contrast, “secondary vaccine failure” refers to waning vaccine immunity in which protection decays with time. For example, in the absence of circulating pathogen, humoral protection might be expected to wane exponentially [8], [9]. Secondary failure has traditionally been more associated with inactivated, subunit, and toxoid vaccines (e.g., pertussis, diphtheria and tetanus).

[7] S.L. Deeks, G.H. Lim, M.A. Simpson, L. Gagné, J. Gubbay, E. Kristjanson, et al.
An assessment of mumps vaccine effectiveness by dose during an outbreak in Canada
CMAJ, 183 (9) (2011), pp. 1014-1020, 10.1503/cmaj.101371

[8] M.B. van Ravenhorst, A.B. Marinovic, F.R. van der Klis, D.M. van Rooijen, M. van Maurik, S.P. Stoof, et al.
Long-term persistence of protective antibodies in Dutch adolescents following a meningococcal serogroup C tetanus booster vaccination
Vaccine, 34 (50) (2016), pp. 6309-6315, 10.1016/j.vaccine.2016.10.049

[9] P.F. Teunis, J.C. van Eijkeren, W.F. de Graaf, A.B. Marinović, M.E. Kretzschmar
Linking the seroresponse to infection to within-host heterogeneity in antibody production
Epidemics, 16 (2016), pp. 33-39, 10.1016/j.epidem.2016.04.001

That article identifies that although measles remains the classic context for primary vaccine failure, OTHER live attenuated virus vaccines (specifically, mumps and rubella) demonstrate both primary and secondary models of vaccine failure -- but not measles.

I know that you can have breakthrough cases, but I am just making this statement because you don't truly know if your friend is being about getting the measles shot unless you attended the medical appointment with them. Most people with one shot that are exposed to measles will not get a breakthrough case and around 95% of measles cases have been among unvaccinated people. The point I am making is that there is a high probability (from a statistical perspective) that your friend is lying about her kids vaccination status. It is more likely than not she is lying about her kids getting the vaccine.

You are responding to me, but I am not the poster with the friend. (FYI)

"Breakthrough cases" are not the same as "failure rate." The "breakthrough" is breaking through an immunized state, and the failure rate reflects a lack of immunization despite vaccination.

You are correct about the odds, but I'm not sure it adds much to this discussion to tell PP to suspect the friend. Part of the failure rate has to do with problems with a vaccine -- e.g., the storage temperature has to be well-controlled, or it will fail. There are plenty of cases where a clinic or pharmacy may draw up vaccines in advance (which is against protocol, but which saves time if you are very busy). Or if that family was vaccinated overseas, some areas have a known problem with temperature control along the supply chain.

Regardless, it's enough to point out that this would be a rare occurrence if vaccinated in the US to have 2 cases in the same family where the vaccine was ineffective. Mind you, there would be around a 1 in 100 to 1 in 300 chance of this happening, anyway. If your pediatrician has an average panel (around 3000 children, or around 1200 families), that would some up by happenstance in around 4 families. I don't think that's rare enough to try to force a confrontation when there is pretty much no upside.

That is why herd immunity is so important.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You can have breakthrough cases even if immunized, and these may be milder. But the 93% (one dose) and 97% (two dose) failure rates are true failures.

https://www.cdc.gov/pinkbook/hcp/table-of-contents/chapter-13-measles.html

Measles antibodies develop in approximately 95% of children vaccinated at age 12 months. Seroconversion rates are similar for single-antigen measles, MMR vaccine, and MMRV vaccine. Approximately 2% to 7% of children who receive only 1 dose of MMR vaccine fail to respond to it, i.e., they experience primary vaccine failure. MMR vaccine failure can occur because of passive antibody in the vaccine recipient, immaturity of the immune system, damaged vaccine, or other reasons. Most persons who fail to respond to the first dose will respond to a second dose. Studies indicate that more than 99% of persons who receive 2 doses of measles vaccine (with the first dose administered no earlier than the first birthday) develop serologic evidence of measles immunity.

Primary vaccine failure is the failure to mount an immune response and develop antibodies, NOT a "partial response" -- a failure of response. There are more details at the link, and if you have more questions, I'd advise to read there first.

The second place to go would be an overview such as this:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X18304857

A framework for research on vaccine effectiveness

2. Vaccine failure models (Table 1)

2.1. Primary vaccine failure (“All-or-None”)

Vaccine protection and failure are two sides of the same coin, but understanding how vaccines fail is a relatively under-explored area. Traditionally, vaccines were thought to generate life-long immunity, with a small proportion of vaccinees not protected because the vaccine did not “take” (“all-or-none”). This is considered “primary vaccine failure” and is frequently associated with live virus vaccines such as measles, mumps and rubella vaccines [7].

2.2. Secondary vaccine failure

In contrast, “secondary vaccine failure” refers to waning vaccine immunity in which protection decays with time. For example, in the absence of circulating pathogen, humoral protection might be expected to wane exponentially [8], [9]. Secondary failure has traditionally been more associated with inactivated, subunit, and toxoid vaccines (e.g., pertussis, diphtheria and tetanus).

[7] S.L. Deeks, G.H. Lim, M.A. Simpson, L. Gagné, J. Gubbay, E. Kristjanson, et al.
An assessment of mumps vaccine effectiveness by dose during an outbreak in Canada
CMAJ, 183 (9) (2011), pp. 1014-1020, 10.1503/cmaj.101371

[8] M.B. van Ravenhorst, A.B. Marinovic, F.R. van der Klis, D.M. van Rooijen, M. van Maurik, S.P. Stoof, et al.
Long-term persistence of protective antibodies in Dutch adolescents following a meningococcal serogroup C tetanus booster vaccination
Vaccine, 34 (50) (2016), pp. 6309-6315, 10.1016/j.vaccine.2016.10.049

[9] P.F. Teunis, J.C. van Eijkeren, W.F. de Graaf, A.B. Marinović, M.E. Kretzschmar
Linking the seroresponse to infection to within-host heterogeneity in antibody production
Epidemics, 16 (2016), pp. 33-39, 10.1016/j.epidem.2016.04.001

That article identifies that although measles remains the classic context for primary vaccine failure, OTHER live attenuated virus vaccines (specifically, mumps and rubella) demonstrate both primary and secondary models of vaccine failure -- but not measles.

I know that you can have breakthrough cases, but I am just making this statement because you don't truly know if your friend is being about getting the measles shot unless you attended the medical appointment with them. Most people with one shot that are exposed to measles will not get a breakthrough case and around 95% of measles cases have been among unvaccinated people. The point I am making is that there is a high probability (from a statistical perspective) that your friend is lying about her kids vaccination status. It is more likely than not she is lying about her kids getting the vaccine.

You are responding to me, but I am not the poster with the friend. (FYI)

"Breakthrough cases" are not the same as "failure rate." The "breakthrough" is breaking through an immunized state, and the failure rate reflects a lack of immunization despite vaccination.

You are correct about the odds, but I'm not sure it adds much to this discussion to tell PP to suspect the friend. Part of the failure rate has to do with problems with a vaccine -- e.g., the storage temperature has to be well-controlled, or it will fail. There are plenty of cases where a clinic or pharmacy may draw up vaccines in advance (which is against protocol, but which saves time if you are very busy). Or if that family was vaccinated overseas, some areas have a known problem with temperature control along the supply chain.

Regardless, it's enough to point out that this would be a rare occurrence if vaccinated in the US to have 2 cases in the same family where the vaccine was ineffective. Mind you, there would be around a 1 in 100 to 1 in 300 chance of this happening, anyway. If your pediatrician has an average panel (around 3000 children, or around 1200 families), that would some up by happenstance in around 4 families. I don't think that's rare enough to try to force a confrontation when there is pretty much no upside.

That is why herd immunity is so important.

There is also the possibility that the 93% claimed protection is simply exaggerated, and has been able to stand because it hasn't been truly tested in the wild in a long time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You can have breakthrough cases even if immunized, and these may be milder. But the 93% (one dose) and 97% (two dose) failure rates are true failures.

https://www.cdc.gov/pinkbook/hcp/table-of-contents/chapter-13-measles.html

Measles antibodies develop in approximately 95% of children vaccinated at age 12 months. Seroconversion rates are similar for single-antigen measles, MMR vaccine, and MMRV vaccine. Approximately 2% to 7% of children who receive only 1 dose of MMR vaccine fail to respond to it, i.e., they experience primary vaccine failure. MMR vaccine failure can occur because of passive antibody in the vaccine recipient, immaturity of the immune system, damaged vaccine, or other reasons. Most persons who fail to respond to the first dose will respond to a second dose. Studies indicate that more than 99% of persons who receive 2 doses of measles vaccine (with the first dose administered no earlier than the first birthday) develop serologic evidence of measles immunity.

Primary vaccine failure is the failure to mount an immune response and develop antibodies, NOT a "partial response" -- a failure of response. There are more details at the link, and if you have more questions, I'd advise to read there first.

The second place to go would be an overview such as this:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X18304857

A framework for research on vaccine effectiveness

2. Vaccine failure models (Table 1)

2.1. Primary vaccine failure (“All-or-None”)

Vaccine protection and failure are two sides of the same coin, but understanding how vaccines fail is a relatively under-explored area. Traditionally, vaccines were thought to generate life-long immunity, with a small proportion of vaccinees not protected because the vaccine did not “take” (“all-or-none”). This is considered “primary vaccine failure” and is frequently associated with live virus vaccines such as measles, mumps and rubella vaccines [7].

2.2. Secondary vaccine failure

In contrast, “secondary vaccine failure” refers to waning vaccine immunity in which protection decays with time. For example, in the absence of circulating pathogen, humoral protection might be expected to wane exponentially [8], [9]. Secondary failure has traditionally been more associated with inactivated, subunit, and toxoid vaccines (e.g., pertussis, diphtheria and tetanus).

[7] S.L. Deeks, G.H. Lim, M.A. Simpson, L. Gagné, J. Gubbay, E. Kristjanson, et al.
An assessment of mumps vaccine effectiveness by dose during an outbreak in Canada
CMAJ, 183 (9) (2011), pp. 1014-1020, 10.1503/cmaj.101371

[8] M.B. van Ravenhorst, A.B. Marinovic, F.R. van der Klis, D.M. van Rooijen, M. van Maurik, S.P. Stoof, et al.
Long-term persistence of protective antibodies in Dutch adolescents following a meningococcal serogroup C tetanus booster vaccination
Vaccine, 34 (50) (2016), pp. 6309-6315, 10.1016/j.vaccine.2016.10.049

[9] P.F. Teunis, J.C. van Eijkeren, W.F. de Graaf, A.B. Marinović, M.E. Kretzschmar
Linking the seroresponse to infection to within-host heterogeneity in antibody production
Epidemics, 16 (2016), pp. 33-39, 10.1016/j.epidem.2016.04.001

That article identifies that although measles remains the classic context for primary vaccine failure, OTHER live attenuated virus vaccines (specifically, mumps and rubella) demonstrate both primary and secondary models of vaccine failure -- but not measles.

I know that you can have breakthrough cases, but I am just making this statement because you don't truly know if your friend is being about getting the measles shot unless you attended the medical appointment with them. Most people with one shot that are exposed to measles will not get a breakthrough case and around 95% of measles cases have been among unvaccinated people. The point I am making is that there is a high probability (from a statistical perspective) that your friend is lying about her kids vaccination status. It is more likely than not she is lying about her kids getting the vaccine.

You are responding to me, but I am not the poster with the friend. (FYI)

"Breakthrough cases" are not the same as "failure rate." The "breakthrough" is breaking through an immunized state, and the failure rate reflects a lack of immunization despite vaccination.

You are correct about the odds, but I'm not sure it adds much to this discussion to tell PP to suspect the friend. Part of the failure rate has to do with problems with a vaccine -- e.g., the storage temperature has to be well-controlled, or it will fail. There are plenty of cases where a clinic or pharmacy may draw up vaccines in advance (which is against protocol, but which saves time if you are very busy). Or if that family was vaccinated overseas, some areas have a known problem with temperature control along the supply chain.

Regardless, it's enough to point out that this would be a rare occurrence if vaccinated in the US to have 2 cases in the same family where the vaccine was ineffective. Mind you, there would be around a 1 in 100 to 1 in 300 chance of this happening, anyway. If your pediatrician has an average panel (around 3000 children, or around 1200 families), that would some up by happenstance in around 4 families. I don't think that's rare enough to try to force a confrontation when there is pretty much no upside.

That is why herd immunity is so important.

There is also the possibility that the 93% claimed protection is simply exaggerated, and has been able to stand because it hasn't been truly tested in the wild in a long time.

Do I detect the slight piquant flavor of ... "indoor plumbing?" And "personal hygiene?"

Oh, don't tell me -- you're a big believer in it was all due to "malnutrition," huh?

[Anonymous]

I'm just wondering when someone, someone is going to state the obvious: we are becoming a sh!thole country.

It's unbelievable to me that anyone thinks the recent measles outbreaks are anything other than a total failure and the hallmark of a country with an ineffective public health infrastructure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You can have breakthrough cases even if immunized, and these may be milder. But the 93% (one dose) and 97% (two dose) failure rates are true failures.

https://www.cdc.gov/pinkbook/hcp/table-of-contents/chapter-13-measles.html

Measles antibodies develop in approximately 95% of children vaccinated at age 12 months. Seroconversion rates are similar for single-antigen measles, MMR vaccine, and MMRV vaccine. Approximately 2% to 7% of children who receive only 1 dose of MMR vaccine fail to respond to it, i.e., they experience primary vaccine failure. MMR vaccine failure can occur because of passive antibody in the vaccine recipient, immaturity of the immune system, damaged vaccine, or other reasons. Most persons who fail to respond to the first dose will respond to a second dose. Studies indicate that more than 99% of persons who receive 2 doses of measles vaccine (with the first dose administered no earlier than the first birthday) develop serologic evidence of measles immunity.

Primary vaccine failure is the failure to mount an immune response and develop antibodies, NOT a "partial response" -- a failure of response. There are more details at the link, and if you have more questions, I'd advise to read there first.

The second place to go would be an overview such as this:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X18304857

A framework for research on vaccine effectiveness

2. Vaccine failure models (Table 1)

2.1. Primary vaccine failure (“All-or-None”)

Vaccine protection and failure are two sides of the same coin, but understanding how vaccines fail is a relatively under-explored area. Traditionally, vaccines were thought to generate life-long immunity, with a small proportion of vaccinees not protected because the vaccine did not “take” (“all-or-none”). This is considered “primary vaccine failure” and is frequently associated with live virus vaccines such as measles, mumps and rubella vaccines [7].

2.2. Secondary vaccine failure

In contrast, “secondary vaccine failure” refers to waning vaccine immunity in which protection decays with time. For example, in the absence of circulating pathogen, humoral protection might be expected to wane exponentially [8], [9]. Secondary failure has traditionally been more associated with inactivated, subunit, and toxoid vaccines (e.g., pertussis, diphtheria and tetanus).

[7] S.L. Deeks, G.H. Lim, M.A. Simpson, L. Gagné, J. Gubbay, E. Kristjanson, et al.
An assessment of mumps vaccine effectiveness by dose during an outbreak in Canada
CMAJ, 183 (9) (2011), pp. 1014-1020, 10.1503/cmaj.101371

[8] M.B. van Ravenhorst, A.B. Marinovic, F.R. van der Klis, D.M. van Rooijen, M. van Maurik, S.P. Stoof, et al.
Long-term persistence of protective antibodies in Dutch adolescents following a meningococcal serogroup C tetanus booster vaccination
Vaccine, 34 (50) (2016), pp. 6309-6315, 10.1016/j.vaccine.2016.10.049

[9] P.F. Teunis, J.C. van Eijkeren, W.F. de Graaf, A.B. Marinović, M.E. Kretzschmar
Linking the seroresponse to infection to within-host heterogeneity in antibody production
Epidemics, 16 (2016), pp. 33-39, 10.1016/j.epidem.2016.04.001

That article identifies that although measles remains the classic context for primary vaccine failure, OTHER live attenuated virus vaccines (specifically, mumps and rubella) demonstrate both primary and secondary models of vaccine failure -- but not measles.

I know that you can have breakthrough cases, but I am just making this statement because you don't truly know if your friend is being about getting the measles shot unless you attended the medical appointment with them. Most people with one shot that are exposed to measles will not get a breakthrough case and around 95% of measles cases have been among unvaccinated people. The point I am making is that there is a high probability (from a statistical perspective) that your friend is lying about her kids vaccination status. It is more likely than not she is lying about her kids getting the vaccine.

You are responding to me, but I am not the poster with the friend. (FYI)

"Breakthrough cases" are not the same as "failure rate." The "breakthrough" is breaking through an immunized state, and the failure rate reflects a lack of immunization despite vaccination.

You are correct about the odds, but I'm not sure it adds much to this discussion to tell PP to suspect the friend. Part of the failure rate has to do with problems with a vaccine -- e.g., the storage temperature has to be well-controlled, or it will fail. There are plenty of cases where a clinic or pharmacy may draw up vaccines in advance (which is against protocol, but which saves time if you are very busy). Or if that family was vaccinated overseas, some areas have a known problem with temperature control along the supply chain.

Regardless, it's enough to point out that this would be a rare occurrence if vaccinated in the US to have 2 cases in the same family where the vaccine was ineffective. Mind you, there would be around a 1 in 100 to 1 in 300 chance of this happening, anyway. If your pediatrician has an average panel (around 3000 children, or around 1200 families), that would some up by happenstance in around 4 families. I don't think that's rare enough to try to force a confrontation when there is pretty much no upside.

That is why herd immunity is so important.

There is also the possibility that the 93% claimed protection is simply exaggerated, and has been able to stand because it hasn't been truly tested in the wild in a long time.

Do I detect the slight piquant flavor of ... "indoor plumbing?" And "personal hygiene?"

Oh, don't tell me -- you're a big believer in it was all due to "malnutrition," huh?

I actually dug into the 93% claim, and surprise the CDC doesn't source that very well. As far as I can tell it comes from this: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5557224/

This was a 2 year study in Rome, and from that they've extrapolated that the 93% is some universal and reliable value.

But it gets more and more hilarious.

The most hilarious part is that the people who only took one dose are far healthier than either the 2 dose or no dose cohorts.

The next most hilarious thing is that they didn't randomly assign anyone to the 0-2 dose groups, so there is some very obvious social stratification going on. The no dose cohort is rife with STDs and parasites for instance...

The last hilarious thing is they did their analysis in SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) and then didn't actually control for any social variables.

[Anonymous]

Isn't it misleading to say "vaccine failure"? Aren't they really look at the rate at which individual's immune response fails? I am familiar with people who have had, say varicella or the vaccine, who nonetheless show no immune response on titers. They are a statistic in "vaccine failure," but it is actually their immune system that failed, while the vaccine or exposure worked just fine for almost everybody else. So these individuals need herd immunity to stay safe from a disease against which, for whatever reason, their bodies have not developed immunity.

Wouldn't it be better from a public health perspective to change the language here? The vaccine isn't failing, immune systems are.

[Anonymous]

4th case reported in Wisconsin now.

We live in an idiocracy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You can have breakthrough cases even if immunized, and these may be milder. But the 93% (one dose) and 97% (two dose) failure rates are true failures.

https://www.cdc.gov/pinkbook/hcp/table-of-contents/chapter-13-measles.html

Measles antibodies develop in approximately 95% of children vaccinated at age 12 months. Seroconversion rates are similar for single-antigen measles, MMR vaccine, and MMRV vaccine. Approximately 2% to 7% of children who receive only 1 dose of MMR vaccine fail to respond to it, i.e., they experience primary vaccine failure. MMR vaccine failure can occur because of passive antibody in the vaccine recipient, immaturity of the immune system, damaged vaccine, or other reasons. Most persons who fail to respond to the first dose will respond to a second dose. Studies indicate that more than 99% of persons who receive 2 doses of measles vaccine (with the first dose administered no earlier than the first birthday) develop serologic evidence of measles immunity.

Primary vaccine failure is the failure to mount an immune response and develop antibodies, NOT a "partial response" -- a failure of response. There are more details at the link, and if you have more questions, I'd advise to read there first.

The second place to go would be an overview such as this:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X18304857

A framework for research on vaccine effectiveness

2. Vaccine failure models (Table 1)

2.1. Primary vaccine failure (“All-or-None”)

Vaccine protection and failure are two sides of the same coin, but understanding how vaccines fail is a relatively under-explored area. Traditionally, vaccines were thought to generate life-long immunity, with a small proportion of vaccinees not protected because the vaccine did not “take” (“all-or-none”). This is considered “primary vaccine failure” and is frequently associated with live virus vaccines such as measles, mumps and rubella vaccines [7].

2.2. Secondary vaccine failure

In contrast, “secondary vaccine failure” refers to waning vaccine immunity in which protection decays with time. For example, in the absence of circulating pathogen, humoral protection might be expected to wane exponentially [8], [9]. Secondary failure has traditionally been more associated with inactivated, subunit, and toxoid vaccines (e.g., pertussis, diphtheria and tetanus).

[7] S.L. Deeks, G.H. Lim, M.A. Simpson, L. Gagné, J. Gubbay, E. Kristjanson, et al.
An assessment of mumps vaccine effectiveness by dose during an outbreak in Canada
CMAJ, 183 (9) (2011), pp. 1014-1020, 10.1503/cmaj.101371

[8] M.B. van Ravenhorst, A.B. Marinovic, F.R. van der Klis, D.M. van Rooijen, M. van Maurik, S.P. Stoof, et al.
Long-term persistence of protective antibodies in Dutch adolescents following a meningococcal serogroup C tetanus booster vaccination
Vaccine, 34 (50) (2016), pp. 6309-6315, 10.1016/j.vaccine.2016.10.049

[9] P.F. Teunis, J.C. van Eijkeren, W.F. de Graaf, A.B. Marinović, M.E. Kretzschmar
Linking the seroresponse to infection to within-host heterogeneity in antibody production
Epidemics, 16 (2016), pp. 33-39, 10.1016/j.epidem.2016.04.001

That article identifies that although measles remains the classic context for primary vaccine failure, OTHER live attenuated virus vaccines (specifically, mumps and rubella) demonstrate both primary and secondary models of vaccine failure -- but not measles.

I know that you can have breakthrough cases, but I am just making this statement because you don't truly know if your friend is being about getting the measles shot unless you attended the medical appointment with them. Most people with one shot that are exposed to measles will not get a breakthrough case and around 95% of measles cases have been among unvaccinated people. The point I am making is that there is a high probability (from a statistical perspective) that your friend is lying about her kids vaccination status. It is more likely than not she is lying about her kids getting the vaccine.

You are responding to me, but I am not the poster with the friend. (FYI)

"Breakthrough cases" are not the same as "failure rate." The "breakthrough" is breaking through an immunized state, and the failure rate reflects a lack of immunization despite vaccination.

You are correct about the odds, but I'm not sure it adds much to this discussion to tell PP to suspect the friend. Part of the failure rate has to do with problems with a vaccine -- e.g., the storage temperature has to be well-controlled, or it will fail. There are plenty of cases where a clinic or pharmacy may draw up vaccines in advance (which is against protocol, but which saves time if you are very busy). Or if that family was vaccinated overseas, some areas have a known problem with temperature control along the supply chain.

Regardless, it's enough to point out that this would be a rare occurrence if vaccinated in the US to have 2 cases in the same family where the vaccine was ineffective. Mind you, there would be around a 1 in 100 to 1 in 300 chance of this happening, anyway. If your pediatrician has an average panel (around 3000 children, or around 1200 families), that would some up by happenstance in around 4 families. I don't think that's rare enough to try to force a confrontation when there is pretty much no upside.

That is why herd immunity is so important.

There is also the possibility that the 93% claimed protection is simply exaggerated, and has been able to stand because it hasn't been truly tested in the wild in a long time.

Do I detect the slight piquant flavor of ... "indoor plumbing?" And "personal hygiene?"

Oh, don't tell me -- you're a big believer in it was all due to "malnutrition," huh?

I actually dug into the 93% claim, and surprise the CDC doesn't source that very well. As far as I can tell it comes from this: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5557224/

This was a 2 year study in Rome, and from that they've extrapolated that the 93% is some universal and reliable value.

But it gets more and more hilarious.

The most hilarious part is that the people who only took one dose are far healthier than either the 2 dose or no dose cohorts.

The next most hilarious thing is that they didn't randomly assign anyone to the 0-2 dose groups, so there is some very obvious social stratification going on. The no dose cohort is rife with STDs and parasites for instance...

The last hilarious thing is they did their analysis in SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) and then didn't actually control for any social variables.

You don’t randomly assign people to not get a vaccine that prevents life threatening health issues. That is unethical. Also there doesn’t need to be a control group to evaluate the efficacy of the vaccine you can take blood samples for immune titers before and after people get the vaccine. Taking an immune titer for the MMR vaccine before the first dose, immediately before the second dose and a few months after the second dose is more than sufficient to determine the percentage of people after 1 and 2 doses that don’t get a sufficient immune response from the vaccine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You can have breakthrough cases even if immunized, and these may be milder. But the 93% (one dose) and 97% (two dose) failure rates are true failures.

https://www.cdc.gov/pinkbook/hcp/table-of-contents/chapter-13-measles.html

Measles antibodies develop in approximately 95% of children vaccinated at age 12 months. Seroconversion rates are similar for single-antigen measles, MMR vaccine, and MMRV vaccine. Approximately 2% to 7% of children who receive only 1 dose of MMR vaccine fail to respond to it, i.e., they experience primary vaccine failure. MMR vaccine failure can occur because of passive antibody in the vaccine recipient, immaturity of the immune system, damaged vaccine, or other reasons. Most persons who fail to respond to the first dose will respond to a second dose. Studies indicate that more than 99% of persons who receive 2 doses of measles vaccine (with the first dose administered no earlier than the first birthday) develop serologic evidence of measles immunity.

Primary vaccine failure is the failure to mount an immune response and develop antibodies, NOT a "partial response" -- a failure of response. There are more details at the link, and if you have more questions, I'd advise to read there first.

The second place to go would be an overview such as this:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X18304857

A framework for research on vaccine effectiveness

2. Vaccine failure models (Table 1)

2.1. Primary vaccine failure (“All-or-None”)

Vaccine protection and failure are two sides of the same coin, but understanding how vaccines fail is a relatively under-explored area. Traditionally, vaccines were thought to generate life-long immunity, with a small proportion of vaccinees not protected because the vaccine did not “take” (“all-or-none”). This is considered “primary vaccine failure” and is frequently associated with live virus vaccines such as measles, mumps and rubella vaccines [7].

2.2. Secondary vaccine failure

In contrast, “secondary vaccine failure” refers to waning vaccine immunity in which protection decays with time. For example, in the absence of circulating pathogen, humoral protection might be expected to wane exponentially [8], [9]. Secondary failure has traditionally been more associated with inactivated, subunit, and toxoid vaccines (e.g., pertussis, diphtheria and tetanus).

[7] S.L. Deeks, G.H. Lim, M.A. Simpson, L. Gagné, J. Gubbay, E. Kristjanson, et al.
An assessment of mumps vaccine effectiveness by dose during an outbreak in Canada
CMAJ, 183 (9) (2011), pp. 1014-1020, 10.1503/cmaj.101371

[8] M.B. van Ravenhorst, A.B. Marinovic, F.R. van der Klis, D.M. van Rooijen, M. van Maurik, S.P. Stoof, et al.
Long-term persistence of protective antibodies in Dutch adolescents following a meningococcal serogroup C tetanus booster vaccination
Vaccine, 34 (50) (2016), pp. 6309-6315, 10.1016/j.vaccine.2016.10.049

[9] P.F. Teunis, J.C. van Eijkeren, W.F. de Graaf, A.B. Marinović, M.E. Kretzschmar
Linking the seroresponse to infection to within-host heterogeneity in antibody production
Epidemics, 16 (2016), pp. 33-39, 10.1016/j.epidem.2016.04.001

That article identifies that although measles remains the classic context for primary vaccine failure, OTHER live attenuated virus vaccines (specifically, mumps and rubella) demonstrate both primary and secondary models of vaccine failure -- but not measles.

I know that you can have breakthrough cases, but I am just making this statement because you don't truly know if your friend is being about getting the measles shot unless you attended the medical appointment with them. Most people with one shot that are exposed to measles will not get a breakthrough case and around 95% of measles cases have been among unvaccinated people. The point I am making is that there is a high probability (from a statistical perspective) that your friend is lying about her kids vaccination status. It is more likely than not she is lying about her kids getting the vaccine.

You are responding to me, but I am not the poster with the friend. (FYI)

"Breakthrough cases" are not the same as "failure rate." The "breakthrough" is breaking through an immunized state, and the failure rate reflects a lack of immunization despite vaccination.

You are correct about the odds, but I'm not sure it adds much to this discussion to tell PP to suspect the friend. Part of the failure rate has to do with problems with a vaccine -- e.g., the storage temperature has to be well-controlled, or it will fail. There are plenty of cases where a clinic or pharmacy may draw up vaccines in advance (which is against protocol, but which saves time if you are very busy). Or if that family was vaccinated overseas, some areas have a known problem with temperature control along the supply chain.

Regardless, it's enough to point out that this would be a rare occurrence if vaccinated in the US to have 2 cases in the same family where the vaccine was ineffective. Mind you, there would be around a 1 in 100 to 1 in 300 chance of this happening, anyway. If your pediatrician has an average panel (around 3000 children, or around 1200 families), that would some up by happenstance in around 4 families. I don't think that's rare enough to try to force a confrontation when there is pretty much no upside.

That is why herd immunity is so important.

There is also the possibility that the 93% claimed protection is simply exaggerated, and has been able to stand because it hasn't been truly tested in the wild in a long time.

Do I detect the slight piquant flavor of ... "indoor plumbing?" And "personal hygiene?"

Oh, don't tell me -- you're a big believer in it was all due to "malnutrition," huh?

I actually dug into the 93% claim, and surprise the CDC doesn't source that very well. As far as I can tell it comes from this: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5557224/

This was a 2 year study in Rome, and from that they've extrapolated that the 93% is some universal and reliable value.

But it gets more and more hilarious.

The most hilarious part is that the people who only took one dose are far healthier than either the 2 dose or no dose cohorts.

The next most hilarious thing is that they didn't randomly assign anyone to the 0-2 dose groups, so there is some very obvious social stratification going on. The no dose cohort is rife with STDs and parasites for instance...

The last hilarious thing is they did their analysis in SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) and then didn't actually control for any social variables.

You don’t randomly assign people to not get a vaccine that prevents life threatening health issues. That is unethical. Also there doesn’t need to be a control group to evaluate the efficacy of the vaccine you can take blood samples for immune titers before and after people get the vaccine. Taking an immune titer for the MMR vaccine before the first dose, immediately before the second dose and a few months after the second dose is more than sufficient to determine the percentage of people after 1 and 2 doses that don’t get a sufficient immune response from the vaccine.

This response about randomization is ridiculous. Under your logic we should not approve any vaccines unless challenge trials are conducted where people are intentionally exposed to dangerous pathogens, with a double blind placebo vaccine group as a control arm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those who think the vaccine is a choice. I know the family that has 2 of the cases in Virginia. A 14 month and 3 year old both had their first vaccine but are not of age yet for second. Caught measles at airport or on plane. Developed pneumonia. Went to pediatrician and urgent care multiple times before spots appeared exposing others unknowingly. Ended up in ICU with feeding tubes and breathing difficulty. Doctors aren't even diagnosing correctly because this used to be and could be now: preventable. Family quarantined for 21 days from work etc. Younger one almost died. This family did everything right and still suffered greatly and could have been worse. Why are people supporting this? My own maga family supports this. I just don't understand. My maga mom was against the covid vaccine in her 80s. Had a few friends die from it and is now just starting to think it might be worth getting. Just thinking about it though. No action.

Absolutely horrible. I am so sorry for your friends. It is unforgivable.

Are you sure they are being honest about their kids getting the vaccine though? Usually one dose of the vaccine is 90%+ effective at preventing someone from getting a measles infection after exposure. They might just be embarrassed to admit that their kids didn’t get the measles shot since the kids got sick.

Yes. The entire family was vaccinated. The older child had both vaccines and did not develop it. They are not anti-vax.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You can have breakthrough cases even if immunized, and these may be milder. But the 93% (one dose) and 97% (two dose) failure rates are true failures.

https://www.cdc.gov/pinkbook/hcp/table-of-contents/chapter-13-measles.html

Measles antibodies develop in approximately 95% of children vaccinated at age 12 months. Seroconversion rates are similar for single-antigen measles, MMR vaccine, and MMRV vaccine. Approximately 2% to 7% of children who receive only 1 dose of MMR vaccine fail to respond to it, i.e., they experience primary vaccine failure. MMR vaccine failure can occur because of passive antibody in the vaccine recipient, immaturity of the immune system, damaged vaccine, or other reasons. Most persons who fail to respond to the first dose will respond to a second dose. Studies indicate that more than 99% of persons who receive 2 doses of measles vaccine (with the first dose administered no earlier than the first birthday) develop serologic evidence of measles immunity.

Primary vaccine failure is the failure to mount an immune response and develop antibodies, NOT a "partial response" -- a failure of response. There are more details at the link, and if you have more questions, I'd advise to read there first.

The second place to go would be an overview such as this:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X18304857

A framework for research on vaccine effectiveness

2. Vaccine failure models (Table 1)

2.1. Primary vaccine failure (“All-or-None”)

Vaccine protection and failure are two sides of the same coin, but understanding how vaccines fail is a relatively under-explored area. Traditionally, vaccines were thought to generate life-long immunity, with a small proportion of vaccinees not protected because the vaccine did not “take” (“all-or-none”). This is considered “primary vaccine failure” and is frequently associated with live virus vaccines such as measles, mumps and rubella vaccines [7].

2.2. Secondary vaccine failure

In contrast, “secondary vaccine failure” refers to waning vaccine immunity in which protection decays with time. For example, in the absence of circulating pathogen, humoral protection might be expected to wane exponentially [8], [9]. Secondary failure has traditionally been more associated with inactivated, subunit, and toxoid vaccines (e.g., pertussis, diphtheria and tetanus).

[7] S.L. Deeks, G.H. Lim, M.A. Simpson, L. Gagné, J. Gubbay, E. Kristjanson, et al.
An assessment of mumps vaccine effectiveness by dose during an outbreak in Canada
CMAJ, 183 (9) (2011), pp. 1014-1020, 10.1503/cmaj.101371

[8] M.B. van Ravenhorst, A.B. Marinovic, F.R. van der Klis, D.M. van Rooijen, M. van Maurik, S.P. Stoof, et al.
Long-term persistence of protective antibodies in Dutch adolescents following a meningococcal serogroup C tetanus booster vaccination
Vaccine, 34 (50) (2016), pp. 6309-6315, 10.1016/j.vaccine.2016.10.049

[9] P.F. Teunis, J.C. van Eijkeren, W.F. de Graaf, A.B. Marinović, M.E. Kretzschmar
Linking the seroresponse to infection to within-host heterogeneity in antibody production
Epidemics, 16 (2016), pp. 33-39, 10.1016/j.epidem.2016.04.001

That article identifies that although measles remains the classic context for primary vaccine failure, OTHER live attenuated virus vaccines (specifically, mumps and rubella) demonstrate both primary and secondary models of vaccine failure -- but not measles.

I know that you can have breakthrough cases, but I am just making this statement because you don't truly know if your friend is being about getting the measles shot unless you attended the medical appointment with them. Most people with one shot that are exposed to measles will not get a breakthrough case and around 95% of measles cases have been among unvaccinated people. The point I am making is that there is a high probability (from a statistical perspective) that your friend is lying about her kids vaccination status. It is more likely than not she is lying about her kids getting the vaccine.

You are responding to me, but I am not the poster with the friend. (FYI)

"Breakthrough cases" are not the same as "failure rate." The "breakthrough" is breaking through an immunized state, and the failure rate reflects a lack of immunization despite vaccination.

You are correct about the odds, but I'm not sure it adds much to this discussion to tell PP to suspect the friend. Part of the failure rate has to do with problems with a vaccine -- e.g., the storage temperature has to be well-controlled, or it will fail. There are plenty of cases where a clinic or pharmacy may draw up vaccines in advance (which is against protocol, but which saves time if you are very busy). Or if that family was vaccinated overseas, some areas have a known problem with temperature control along the supply chain.

Regardless, it's enough to point out that this would be a rare occurrence if vaccinated in the US to have 2 cases in the same family where the vaccine was ineffective. Mind you, there would be around a 1 in 100 to 1 in 300 chance of this happening, anyway. If your pediatrician has an average panel (around 3000 children, or around 1200 families), that would some up by happenstance in around 4 families. I don't think that's rare enough to try to force a confrontation when there is pretty much no upside.

That is why herd immunity is so important.

There is also the possibility that the 93% claimed protection is simply exaggerated, and has been able to stand because it hasn't been truly tested in the wild in a long time.

Do I detect the slight piquant flavor of ... "indoor plumbing?" And "personal hygiene?"

Oh, don't tell me -- you're a big believer in it was all due to "malnutrition," huh?

I actually dug into the 93% claim, and surprise the CDC doesn't source that very well. As far as I can tell it comes from this: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5557224/

This was a 2 year study in Rome, and from that they've extrapolated that the 93% is some universal and reliable value.

But it gets more and more hilarious.

The most hilarious part is that the people who only took one dose are far healthier than either the 2 dose or no dose cohorts.

The next most hilarious thing is that they didn't randomly assign anyone to the 0-2 dose groups, so there is some very obvious social stratification going on. The no dose cohort is rife with STDs and parasites for instance...

The last hilarious thing is they did their analysis in SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) and then didn't actually control for any social variables.

You don’t randomly assign people to not get a vaccine that prevents life threatening health issues. That is unethical. Also there doesn’t need to be a control group to evaluate the efficacy of the vaccine you can take blood samples for immune titers before and after people get the vaccine. Taking an immune titer for the MMR vaccine before the first dose, immediately before the second dose and a few months after the second dose is more than sufficient to determine the percentage of people after 1 and 2 doses that don’t get a sufficient immune response from the vaccine.

Vaccine studies with placebos have been done abroad by US researchers. I worked on US based studies in Pakistan and Guatemala within the past 25 yrs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You can have breakthrough cases even if immunized, and these may be milder. But the 93% (one dose) and 97% (two dose) failure rates are true failures.

https://www.cdc.gov/pinkbook/hcp/table-of-contents/chapter-13-measles.html

Measles antibodies develop in approximately 95% of children vaccinated at age 12 months. Seroconversion rates are similar for single-antigen measles, MMR vaccine, and MMRV vaccine. Approximately 2% to 7% of children who receive only 1 dose of MMR vaccine fail to respond to it, i.e., they experience primary vaccine failure. MMR vaccine failure can occur because of passive antibody in the vaccine recipient, immaturity of the immune system, damaged vaccine, or other reasons. Most persons who fail to respond to the first dose will respond to a second dose. Studies indicate that more than 99% of persons who receive 2 doses of measles vaccine (with the first dose administered no earlier than the first birthday) develop serologic evidence of measles immunity.

Primary vaccine failure is the failure to mount an immune response and develop antibodies, NOT a "partial response" -- a failure of response. There are more details at the link, and if you have more questions, I'd advise to read there first.

The second place to go would be an overview such as this:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X18304857

A framework for research on vaccine effectiveness

2. Vaccine failure models (Table 1)

2.1. Primary vaccine failure (“All-or-None”)

Vaccine protection and failure are two sides of the same coin, but understanding how vaccines fail is a relatively under-explored area. Traditionally, vaccines were thought to generate life-long immunity, with a small proportion of vaccinees not protected because the vaccine did not “take” (“all-or-none”). This is considered “primary vaccine failure” and is frequently associated with live virus vaccines such as measles, mumps and rubella vaccines [7].

2.2. Secondary vaccine failure

In contrast, “secondary vaccine failure” refers to waning vaccine immunity in which protection decays with time. For example, in the absence of circulating pathogen, humoral protection might be expected to wane exponentially [8], [9]. Secondary failure has traditionally been more associated with inactivated, subunit, and toxoid vaccines (e.g., pertussis, diphtheria and tetanus).

[7] S.L. Deeks, G.H. Lim, M.A. Simpson, L. Gagné, J. Gubbay, E. Kristjanson, et al.
An assessment of mumps vaccine effectiveness by dose during an outbreak in Canada
CMAJ, 183 (9) (2011), pp. 1014-1020, 10.1503/cmaj.101371

[8] M.B. van Ravenhorst, A.B. Marinovic, F.R. van der Klis, D.M. van Rooijen, M. van Maurik, S.P. Stoof, et al.
Long-term persistence of protective antibodies in Dutch adolescents following a meningococcal serogroup C tetanus booster vaccination
Vaccine, 34 (50) (2016), pp. 6309-6315, 10.1016/j.vaccine.2016.10.049

[9] P.F. Teunis, J.C. van Eijkeren, W.F. de Graaf, A.B. Marinović, M.E. Kretzschmar
Linking the seroresponse to infection to within-host heterogeneity in antibody production
Epidemics, 16 (2016), pp. 33-39, 10.1016/j.epidem.2016.04.001

That article identifies that although measles remains the classic context for primary vaccine failure, OTHER live attenuated virus vaccines (specifically, mumps and rubella) demonstrate both primary and secondary models of vaccine failure -- but not measles.

I know that you can have breakthrough cases, but I am just making this statement because you don't truly know if your friend is being about getting the measles shot unless you attended the medical appointment with them. Most people with one shot that are exposed to measles will not get a breakthrough case and around 95% of measles cases have been among unvaccinated people. The point I am making is that there is a high probability (from a statistical perspective) that your friend is lying about her kids vaccination status. It is more likely than not she is lying about her kids getting the vaccine.

You are responding to me, but I am not the poster with the friend. (FYI)

"Breakthrough cases" are not the same as "failure rate." The "breakthrough" is breaking through an immunized state, and the failure rate reflects a lack of immunization despite vaccination.

You are correct about the odds, but I'm not sure it adds much to this discussion to tell PP to suspect the friend. Part of the failure rate has to do with problems with a vaccine -- e.g., the storage temperature has to be well-controlled, or it will fail. There are plenty of cases where a clinic or pharmacy may draw up vaccines in advance (which is against protocol, but which saves time if you are very busy). Or if that family was vaccinated overseas, some areas have a known problem with temperature control along the supply chain.

Regardless, it's enough to point out that this would be a rare occurrence if vaccinated in the US to have 2 cases in the same family where the vaccine was ineffective. Mind you, there would be around a 1 in 100 to 1 in 300 chance of this happening, anyway. If your pediatrician has an average panel (around 3000 children, or around 1200 families), that would some up by happenstance in around 4 families. I don't think that's rare enough to try to force a confrontation when there is pretty much no upside.

That is why herd immunity is so important.

There is also the possibility that the 93% claimed protection is simply exaggerated, and has been able to stand because it hasn't been truly tested in the wild in a long time.

Do I detect the slight piquant flavor of ... "indoor plumbing?" And "personal hygiene?"

Oh, don't tell me -- you're a big believer in it was all due to "malnutrition," huh?

I actually dug into the 93% claim, and surprise the CDC doesn't source that very well. As far as I can tell it comes from this: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5557224/

This was a 2 year study in Rome, and from that they've extrapolated that the 93% is some universal and reliable value.

But it gets more and more hilarious.

The most hilarious part is that the people who only took one dose are far healthier than either the 2 dose or no dose cohorts.

The next most hilarious thing is that they didn't randomly assign anyone to the 0-2 dose groups, so there is some very obvious social stratification going on. The no dose cohort is rife with STDs and parasites for instance...

The last hilarious thing is they did their analysis in SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) and then didn't actually control for any social variables.

You don’t randomly assign people to not get a vaccine that prevents life threatening health issues. That is unethical. Also there doesn’t need to be a control group to evaluate the efficacy of the vaccine you can take blood samples for immune titers before and after people get the vaccine. Taking an immune titer for the MMR vaccine before the first dose, immediately before the second dose and a few months after the second dose is more than sufficient to determine the percentage of people after 1 and 2 doses that don’t get a sufficient immune response from the vaccine.

Vaccine studies with placebos have been done abroad by US researchers. I worked on US based studies in Pakistan and Guatemala within the past 25 yrs.

I dont trust you. You sound like Mr Brainworm. They literally just rejected a flu shot that works better than the existing flu shot on the market because there was no double blind placebo which was a retroactive policy change.

[Anonymous]

PP, did you want to follow up on measles vaccines not causing child death through SSPE, after all?