Robert_B

Hi CharonY - thanks for weighing in. I would typically agree, however, a severe allergic reaction is rarely a causal link. You could also say that the death rate of 0.01% (of people who contracted measles in 1963) is a causal link. It was only 450 people out of 4 million who contracted the virus. With the extremely low percentage stats on both sides, you can hopefully see how I have been having difficulty weighing the benefits of the vaccine with the risks.

Interesting data, however, it is actually only concerning children. Eg. "As many as one out of every 20 children with measles gets pneumonia..." and "For every 1,000 children who get measles, one or two will die from it." Which actually puts their death risk at roughly the same as the overall average; 0.01-0.02%. But a valid point nonetheless. I absolutely am not arguing the efficacy of the vaccine, but rather trying to compare the risk factors of the measles virus vs. the risk factors of the vaccine that protects against it. Based on the stats, those side effects you're referring to aren't as common as one might think. For your social responsibility point, I can't disagree with your personal opinion on the matter (which seems quite well thought out). I would simply pose this question to you; if, based on my preliminary research, the rate of measles infection as well as the complication rates seemed to be declining due to improved sanitation and healthcare, and if the death rate was already quite low (0.00026% chance for the general U.S. population), what do you imagine would happen if the vaccine disappeared altogether in modern-day U.S.A.?

Yup absolutely. I think my point is - simply "getting" a virus is not an issue, it is the complications and symptoms of that virus that become an issue. So, you're absolutely right, roughly 1 person in every 50 would contract measles if the vaccine wasn't around at all. But that one person who got it would have a 1.2% chance of being hospitalized, and a 0.01% chance of dying. At some point, those risks become infinitesimally small, no? Yup, I think my question is how *dangerous* is the measles. Risk of measles vs. risk of the vaccination that protects against it. To your point, I couldn't find any data at all on a solo measles vaccine, only the measles/mumps/rubella (MMR) one. Which to me, mumps and rubella seem to be quite a bit more dangerous than the measles. Anyone know where that data would exist? Would it be fair to say that by that logic, the restaurant cooking an immuno-compromised person's meal must cook their food with more caution than anyone else's, or a doctor's office must have a separate waiting room for them? At what point does an individual's health become their own responsibility? To give some anecdotal thoughts; my mother is immuno-compromised, and she makes sure anyone coming to visit is not currently sick, she doesn't eat out, etc. It isn't only the measles that would cause an issue for her, it's also the common cold, food poisoning, or any other bacteria/virus/fungus.

Hello fellow Science Forums readers, I have been somewhere in the middle of the pro-vaccine and anti-vaccine movement, and decided to crunch some numbers. Would love everyone's take on this, I still don't know where to stand for the measles (MMR) vaccination. For measles, the U.S. vaccine program started in 1963. I am using that year's population of 189.2 million for these calculations, and all data has been pulled from the CDC's website. I estimated on the high end for the pre-vaccine numbers. Pre-Vaccine Numbers (0% of the population vaccinated): - 2.1% chance of measles infection - 0.025% chance of being hospitalized for measles (1.2% of those infected) - 0.0021% of encephalitis as a side effect of measles (0.1% of those infected) - 0.00026% chance of death as a result of measles (0.01% of those infected) Current MMR Vaccine Numbers (assuming 100% of the population receives the vaccine, still based on the U.S. 1963 population as a reference point): - 0.03% chance of seizure (jerking or staring) caused by fever - 0.0033% chance of temporary low platelet count, which can cause a bleeding disorder - 0.0001% chance of a serious allergic reaction ("less than 1 out of a million doses" is the direct quote from the CDC website) So, based on those numbers, it is roughly 2.6 times more likely for you to have a serious allergic reaction from the current MMR vaccine than it would be to die from measles, even at the height of it's infection rate. It is also more likely that you would have a seizure caused by a fever as a vaccine side effect, than for you to be hospitalized for measles. Thoughts, everyone?