The Americas Are Now Officially 'Measles-Free' (theverge.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: The Americas are now free of measles and we have vaccines to thank, the Pan American Health Organization said earlier this week. This is the first region in the world to be declared measles-free, despite longtime efforts to eliminate the disease entirely. The condition -- which causes flu-like symptoms and a blotchy rash -- is one of the world's most infectious diseases. It's transmitted by airborne particles or direct contact with someone who has the disease and is highly contagious, especially among small children. To be clear, there are still people with measles in the Americas, but the only cases develop from strains picked up overseas. Still, the numbers are going down: in the U.S. this year, there have been 54 cases, down from 667 two years ago. The last case of measles that developed in the Americas was in 2002. (It took such a long time to declare the region measles-free because of various bureaucratic issues.) Health officials say that credit for this victory goes to efforts to vaccinate against the disease. Though the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine is recommended for all children and required by many states, anti-vaxxers have protested it due to since-discredited claims that vaccines can cause autism. NPR interviewed Dr. Seth Berkley, the CEO of GAVI, a Geneva-based nonprofit organization whose mission is to improve and provide vaccine and immunization coverage to children in the world's poorest countries. She says that 90 to 95 percent of people in a given region need to be vaccinated in order to stop transmission in a region. The rate worldwide is about 80 percent for measles, which means that 20 percent of people around the world are not covered.

Comments

Weird definition

[93 Escort Wagon]

So 54 people in the United States had the measles last year, but we're measles free because those people picked it up elsewhere?

I'm pretty sure some PR person must've come up with this definition...

Re:Weird definition

[bloodhawk]

No, but I would certainly not call it empty after someone else poured something into it just because it wasn't me.

Re:Weird definition

[Maritz]

I can see how they define it, but given the crazy anti-vaxxers, I don't think declaring the region 'free' of measles is such a great idea.

I can only see this announcement further emboldening idiots who don't want to vaccinate. I do not see the US remaining measles-free for long. It a shame, because it's another example of stupid winning.

Never was a reasonable conversation

[sjbe]

Calling people you disagree with "crazy" shuts down any reasonable conversation.

You are presuming the conversation was reasonable to begin with. The anti-vax crowd is not spouting off reasonable viewpoints based on considered evidence. There is nothing reasonable about their viewpoint or what they are saying. They are loudly proclaiming harmful falsehood and putting people in harms way by doing so.. No matter how polite on is, ANY discussion with them is basically an instance of pointing out that they are crazy and dangerous. These are fearful people who are either unwilling or unable to listen to reason and evidence. It never was a reasonable conversation in any meaningful sense.

Re:Never was a reasonable conversation

[plover]

I simply have the right to decide what I put into my body, regardless of what you think about it.

If you had the magical ability to not spread viruses, I would accept your statement, but you do not. When you have measles, it is exactly the same as walking around town with a handful of hypodermic needles, injecting random passers-by with viruses. You violate everyone else's "right to decide what they put in their bodies."

You live in a society, made of other people. Therefore, you have some responsibility towards the others who you interact with to provide you with food, gasoline, clothing, education, fire protection, etc., etc., etc.

The good news is that vaccines don't need to hit 100% of the population to be effective enough to prevent an outbreak. "Herd immunity" prevents the wide spread of a disease when most of your neighbors are immune. A level somewhere between 80-95% vaccinated is enough to stop an outbreak. But that's a very high level to achieve voluntarily. Vaccines are ineffective in some people. Some people with auto-immune diseases, or undergoing certain therapies, or are just too frail, can't risk taking some vaccines. And some people are so isolated by either geography, finances, or intelligence that they lack the opportunities to learn that they need vaccinations. Between those groups, there is almost no extra safety margin for tolerating people who think they deserve some special exemption because they "believe in" something divine, or think they have some special rights that they themselves violate on a daily basis.

We don't have a special "isolation island" to keep unvaccinated people from putting the rest of us at risk. Instead, we pass laws that enforce schoolchildren to put something in their bodies, or else we deny them schooling. But that's all the control we have, so far. Instead, we have to rely on public health education, and hope people voluntarily comply.

What we really could use would be swift punishment for the anti-vax deniers. Unfortunately, that crosses swords with free speech. So instead, we have to hope we can convince people that anti-vaxxers are stupid, hostile, anti-social jihadist monsters who are trying to destroy humanity with their lies and bioterroristic weapons. It turns out that a disturbingly high number of people are so extremely gullible or stupid that it's not as effective a strategy as we need.

Rights vs consequences

[sjbe]

Your right to be protected against disease does not override my right to decide what to put into my body.

Yes you have that right. HOWEVER that does not mean the rest of us have to accommodate you and the threat you present in society consequence free since you have chosen of your own free will (and delusions) to be a potential disease vector. Your unvaccinated children should not be allowed to attend school. You should not be allowed to have a job where you interact with people. Go ahead and stay unvaccinated and I'll defend your right to do so. But I also will insist that you remain in quarantine until it is safe to be around you.

Re:Rights vs consequences

[jeremyp]

Ah, no.

You have the right to remain unvaccinated but we have the right to exclude you from our spaces in order to protect ourselves from your stupid decision. It's actually a form of self defence.

Re:guess again

[ChromeAeonium]

It's like guns. I respect Second Amendment rights, but that doesn't mean I like someone shooting wildly in a crowded area. My right to not be shot trumps the rights of others to shoot. Same thing here. You choose, seemingly out of sheer spite, to be a disease vector, fair enough, just never do it around the rest of society. If your right to not put something that, in the vast majority of cases, is negligable into your body overrides my right to not get sick and possibly die, fine then, my right to not get sick and potentially die overrides your right to live in the rest of society.