Measles Outbreak

[Anonymous]

If she doesn't double down, she has to face the fact that she is responsible for this. Look at the child's face on the feeding tube. How would you feel if you did that to your child, and all because you asserted you knew better than medical science?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If she doesn't double down, she has to face the fact that she is responsible for this. Look at the child's face on the feeding tube. How would you feel if you did that to your child, and all because you asserted you knew better than medical science?

I would be utterly depressed and besides myself and no way would I have the guts to publicly double down like that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If she doesn't double down, she has to face the fact that she is responsible for this. Look at the child's face on the feeding tube. How would you feel if you did that to your child, and all because you asserted you knew better than medical science?

I would be utterly depressed and besides myself and no way would I have the guts to publicly double down like that.

You also likely would never have put your own desire to "own the Libs" or have special knowledge that makes you feel superior to others ahead of your child's actual welfare.

"I'd rather my child die than get the vaccine" is a real thing. That's not about the child, though -- it's all about the parent's ego.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What were insurance companies doing before? Its crazy to me that they allow people to be covered but dont require the typical vaccines.

Oh, I totally think we will see the day when people cannot be insured if they aren't vaccinated on schedule.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mom of the year

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/measles-encephalitis-south-carolina-anti-vaccine-b2918500.html

‘I still wouldn’t have given my son the vaccine’

Can she really feel this way? It is so hard to believe

Yes, the parents of one of the kids that died in Texas said the same thing. Their whole identity is anti-vaccine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If she doesn't double down, she has to face the fact that she is responsible for this. Look at the child's face on the feeding tube. How would you feel if you did that to your child, and all because you asserted you knew better than medical science?

I would be utterly depressed and besides myself and no way would I have the guts to publicly double down like that.

You also likely would never have put your own desire to "own the Libs" or have special knowledge that makes you feel superior to others ahead of your child's actual welfare.

"I'd rather my child die than get the vaccine" is a real thing. That's not about the child, though -- it's all about the parent's ego.

I dont buy that it's about their ego. I think a lot of people cant distinguish among authorities for sources. They look at the American Academy of Pediatrics and think their voice has the same weight as some random influencer. They dont know about peer reviewed studies . American education $ucks and we are all paying for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

You could benefit from learning how they test new vaccines. My daughter was part of a dengue study. She was infected as part of a non-vaccine control group. The flu control group had to be hospitalized for 2 weeks. They infect healthy people.

. That seems highly unethical and goes against standard vaccine studies, no? (Except under RFK Jr.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If she doesn't double down, she has to face the fact that she is responsible for this. Look at the child's face on the feeding tube. How would you feel if you did that to your child, and all because you asserted you knew better than medical science?

I would be utterly depressed and besides myself and no way would I have the guts to publicly double down like that.

You also likely would never have put your own desire to "own the Libs" or have special knowledge that makes you feel superior to others ahead of your child's actual welfare.

"I'd rather my child die than get the vaccine" is a real thing. That's not about the child, though -- it's all about the parent's ego.

I dont buy that it's about their ego. I think a lot of people cant distinguish among authorities for sources. They look at the American Academy of Pediatrics and think their voice has the same weight as some random influencer. They dont know about peer reviewed studies . American education $ucks and we are all paying for it.

That doesn't explain why people would have their child die -- and reaffirm this after the child's death -- than get vaccinated. That's not about not having the right sources, because they know their child is dead. They watched them die. To prefer that to vaccination is about something else with the parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Mom of the year

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/measles-encephalitis-south-carolina-anti-vaccine-b2918500.html

‘I still wouldn’t have given my son the vaccine’

This kid is 1000% on Medicaid as neither parent works.

And this is easily a million dollar hospital stay as this kid is getting all sorts of expensive stuff in that ICU (plasma exchange, etc).

A million dollar hospital stay paid for by the tax payers of South Carolina because of their refusal to get a $50 MMR vaccine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mom of the year

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/measles-encephalitis-south-carolina-anti-vaccine-b2918500.html

‘I still wouldn’t have given my son the vaccine’

This kid is 1000% on Medicaid as neither parent works.

And this is easily a million dollar hospital stay as this kid is getting all sorts of expensive stuff in that ICU (plasma exchange, etc).

A million dollar hospital stay paid for by the tax payers of South Carolina because of their refusal to get a $50 MMR vaccine.

I get your larger point but while the mom is a SAHM the dad works as an electrician (although not right at this moment since his kid is hospitalized, and probably not in a union because South Carolina.) We are definitely at the point where there need to be higher premiums and/or lack of coverage for those who choose not to vaccinate against preventable diseases.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mom of the year

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/measles-encephalitis-south-carolina-anti-vaccine-b2918500.html

‘I still wouldn’t have given my son the vaccine’

This kid is 1000% on Medicaid as neither parent works.

And this is easily a million dollar hospital stay as this kid is getting all sorts of expensive stuff in that ICU (plasma exchange, etc).

A million dollar hospital stay paid for by the tax payers of South Carolina because of their refusal to get a $50 MMR vaccine.

I get your larger point but while the mom is a SAHM the dad works as an electrician (although not right at this moment since his kid is hospitalized, and probably not in a union because South Carolina.) We are definitely at the point where there need to be higher premiums and/or lack of coverage for those who choose not to vaccinate against preventable diseases.

The dad is unemployed. I'm sure he does not have insurance. This stay is on the taxpayers.

[Anonymous]

That article was a hard read.

Decades ago, a lot of the chemical companies did extensive research and one of the reasons there are so many factories and dump sites in rural areas is because religious rural Americans often think things are God‘s will. So when they get staggering rates of cancer, infertility, birth defects etc. even though it is clear it is environmental they will blame Gods will. Sounds like exactly what this family is doing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If she doesn't double down, she has to face the fact that she is responsible for this. Look at the child's face on the feeding tube. How would you feel if you did that to your child, and all because you asserted you knew better than medical science?

I would be utterly depressed and besides myself and no way would I have the guts to publicly double down like that.

You also likely would never have put your own desire to "own the Libs" or have special knowledge that makes you feel superior to others ahead of your child's actual welfare.

"I'd rather my child die than get the vaccine" is a real thing. That's not about the child, though -- it's all about the parent's ego.

This speaks to the depths of depraved MAGA derangement and delusion. It's sad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mom of the year

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/measles-encephalitis-south-carolina-anti-vaccine-b2918500.html

‘I still wouldn’t have given my son the vaccine’

This kid is 1000% on Medicaid as neither parent works.

And this is easily a million dollar hospital stay as this kid is getting all sorts of expensive stuff in that ICU (plasma exchange, etc).

A million dollar hospital stay paid for by the tax payers of South Carolina because of their refusal to get a $50 MMR vaccine.

I get your larger point but while the mom is a SAHM the dad works as an electrician (although not right at this moment since his kid is hospitalized, and probably not in a union because South Carolina.) We are definitely at the point where there need to be higher premiums and/or lack of coverage for those who choose not to vaccinate against preventable diseases.

The dad is unemployed. I'm sure he does not have insurance. This stay is on the taxpayers.

Users and losers, always on the dole. Never taking responsibility for their own actions. Always wanting the free handout when they can't make choices that take care of their families.

[Anonymous]

PS: This is anecdote only, but I am seeing more people specifically asking about toe measles vaccine to get it for their child as soon as possible. In the clinic where I work, we had a temporary uptick in (usually young and not educated much past high school) women refusing the hepatitis B vaccine for newborns over the last 1-1.5 years, but the trend seems to be reversing.

There is definitely increased concern about measles and getting children protected. I'm interested in seeing where this shakes out.