Measles or Ebola?

[Kathianne]

https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/07/measles-is-killing-more-people-in-the-drc-than-ebola-and-faster/


SCARIER THAN EBOLA —Measles is killing more people in the DRC than Ebola—and faster


"Frankly, I am embarrassed to talk only about Ebola," WHO director-general says.


BETH MOLE - 7/15/2019, 4:25 PM



As the world anxiously monitors the outbreak of Ebola in Democratic Republic of the Congo, health officials note that a measles outbreak declared last month in the country has killed more people—mostly children—and faster.


What to know about measles in the US as case count breaks record


Since January 2019, officials have recorded over 100,000 measles cases in the DRC, mostly in children, and nearly 2,000 have died. The figures surpass those of the latest Ebola outbreak in the country, which has tallied not quite 2,500 cases and 1,665 deaths since August 2018. The totals were noted by World Health Organization Director-General, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, in a speech today, July 15, at the United Nations Office in Geneva, Switzerland.


"Frankly, I am embarrassed to talk only about Ebola," Dr. Tedros said (he goes by his first name). He gave the speech in response to two new developments in the Ebola outbreak. That is that two Ebola responders were murdered in their home in the DRC city of Beni and that officials on Sunday had identified the first case of Ebola in Goma, a DRC city of over one million at the border with Rwanda.


"Both of these events encapsulate the challenges we continue to face on a daily basis in DRC," he said. Tedros was referring to the scattering of disease—including Ebola and measles—as violence hampers outbreak responses and access to medical care. Since January, officials have counted 198 attacks on health responders, which left seven dead and 58 healthcare workers and patients injured.

...

[STTAB]

Another totally foreseeable outcome of not securing our borders.

Let's see we require any US citizen who visits one of these countries prove that they have been innoculated before they will be allowed to travel back and forth , including our military ; but hey let's just not worry about millions of people from these countries flooding into our country completely unchecked. What could go wrong?

We truly are the dumbest nation on Earth.

[Drummond]

It seems to me that it's very, very, difficult to compare measles and ebola objectively ... UNLESS ... you use what may be an inappropriate context of African localities and communities to try to.

Measles reached the West long ago. Ebola has not. As statistics I posted elsewhere (& exhaustively) showed, there's just no comparison, when you talk about measles, to be made between mortality rates in the West compared to places like Africa.

Is ebola more deadly than measles ? Is it the other way around ? Are they roughly equally deadly ? I say that the observable samples of infection of both are too limited (- yet -) to know for sure. All I do know is that I still stifle the urge to laugh when people recoil in morbid fear of measles !

I'll give you this much. From the mere presumption that ebola truly IS deadly, even to Western societies, then OK, it makes sense to mass-immunise; that is, IF current vaccines are good enough to be considered reliable. I fear ebola in a way I could never fear measles (!!), truth be told ... countering ebola is a far newer science.

And I agree with the approach of doing all it takes to secure your borders. That makes absolute sense -- do whatever it takes. Which presumably would rule out my revisiting the US myself, as I've never been immunised against anything (... but I remain 'bafflingly' healthy, & always have done !!). If Americans feel they need to be protected against people like me ... I fully understand.

I just know that deaths from measles where the person ill with it has no underlying health issues, and a good immune system, are EXTREMELY rare, with the chance of death being literally many hundreds of thousands to one against !! Is that true also for ebola ?

I don't know.

And, I submit ... we cannot know. THAT is the POINT.

[STTAB]

It seems to me that it's very, very, difficult to compare measles and ebola objectively ... UNLESS ... you use what may be an inappropriate context of African localities and communities to try to.

Measles reached the West long ago. Ebola has not. As statistics I posted elsewhere (& exhaustively) showed, there's just no comparison, when you talk about measles, to be made between mortality rates in the West compared to places like Africa.

Is ebola more deadly than measles ? Is it the other way around ? Are they roughly equally deadly ? I say that the observable samples of infection of both are too limited (- yet -) to know for sure. All I do know is that I still stifle the urge to laugh when people recoil in morbid fear of measles !

I'll give you this much. From the mere presumption that ebola truly IS deadly, even to Western societies, then OK, it makes sense to mass-immunise; that is, IF current vaccines are good enough to be considered reliable. I fear ebola in a way I could never fear measles (!!), truth be told ... countering ebola is a far newer science.

And I agree with the approach of doing all it takes to secure your borders. That makes absolute sense -- do whatever it takes. Which presumably would rule out my revisiting the US myself, as I've never been immunised against anything (... but I remain 'bafflingly' healthy, & always have done !!). If Americans feel they need to be protected against people like me ... I fully understand.

I just know that deaths from measles where the person ill with it has no underlying health issues, and a good immune system, are EXTREMELY rare, with the chance of death being literally many hundreds of thousands to one against !! Is that true also for ebola ?

I don't know.

And, I submit ... we cannot know. THAT is the POINT.

Just to play devil's advocate .

If we had an ebola vaccine and were as efficient as getting people on it as we are with the Measles vaccine Ebola would be no more deadly than the Measles.

Again, we have a controlled experiment that proves this. In first world countries influenza is mostly a nuisance , only really killing people who have weakened immune systems, due to aggressive vaccinating. We know it is the vaccinations because in countries where they don't have the vast majority of people being vaccinated yearlly, infuenza is a killer.

[Drummond]

Just to play devil's advocate .

If we had an ebola vaccine and were as efficient as getting people on it as we are with the Measles vaccine Ebola would be no more deadly than the Measles.

Again, we have a controlled experiment that proves this. In first world countries influenza is mostly a nuisance , only really killing people who have weakened immune systems, due to aggressive vaccinating. We know it is the vaccinations because in countries where they don't have the vast majority of people being vaccinated yearlly, infuenza is a killer.

You may be making a fully valid point. The real problem is, we just don't know.

From what I've seen online, there is an ebola vaccine, and it's one thought to be effective. But, it's never been tested in the West.

Measles, and our ability to fight and resist it, is very well documented, and the science underpinning that ability is tried and tested. That isn't true for ebola. The 'efficient' vaccine against ebola has only been around for two years, not enough time to properly be confident that it's a match for anything we have to fight measles.

This is chiefly why I'd fear ebola, in a way I could never do about measles (& it's no doubt a far more virulent pathogen, anyway !).

I can't credibly oppose a mass vaccination effort made against ebola. Arguably much the same case does apply for measles. But I'll always believe that fear of measles, certainly for Western countries, is driven by hysteria rather than objectivity. The days of our having good reason to be in morbid fear of measles are long gone.

If there were such a thing in Britain as a hospital ward full of measles patients (- THERE ISN'T -) ... and, were I to spend a couple of hours in close proximity to those patients, surrounded by infection ... it wouldn't bother me. I may not contract measles, despite having no immunising protection from it. But even if I did contract it, my chance of dying from that would come close to being astronomically impossible. I have a good immune system, and no underlying health issues endangering me.

I'd be fine.

I have absolutely no way of taking the same attitude towards a ward full of ebola patients. Ebola is far more serious.

[STTAB]

You may be making a fully valid point. The real problem is, we just don't know.

From what I've seen online, there is an ebola vaccine, and it's one thought to be effective. But, it's never been tested in the West.

Measles, and our ability to fight and resist it, is very well documented, and the science underpinning that ability is tried and tested. That isn't true for ebola. The 'efficient' vaccine against ebola has only been around for two years, not enough time to properly be confident that it's a match for anything we have to fight measles.

This is chiefly why I'd fear ebola, in a way I could never do about measles (& it's no doubt a far more virulent pathogen, anyway !).

I can't credibly oppose a mass vaccination effort made against ebola. Arguably much the same case does apply for measles. But I'll always believe that fear of measles, certainly for Western countries, is driven by hysteria rather than objectivity. The days of our having good reason to be in morbid fear of measles are long gone.

If there were such a thing in Britain as a hospital ward full of measles patients (- THERE ISN'T -) ... and, were I to spend a couple of hours in close proximity to those patients, surrounded by infection ... it wouldn't bother me. I may not contract measles, despite having no immunising protection from it. But even if I did contract it, my chance of dying from that would come close to being astronomically impossible. I have a good immune system, and no underlying health issues endangering me.

I'd be fine.

I have absolutely no way of taking the same attitude towards a ward full of ebola patients. Ebola is far more serious.

You are just missing the entire point every time we discuss vaccines lol

Vaccines are not meant to protect individuals.

The real reality is as an individual you are more at risk from the vaccine itself than you are of the flu (for example)

But that's not the point, the point is 60-70% of people in first world countries would survive getting any strain of the flu. As you repeatedly have said it's not that deadly of a disease. As long as you're healthy.

Vaccines are meant to protect those who are NOT healthy. The 30-40% of the population who would not survive the flu. If you and I get the flu, we're sick for a bit, but we survive, but in the mean time how many people who can not survive the flu have contracted it from us?

See, vaccines are NOT meant to protect individuals , they are strictly meant to prevent epidemics that would kill a lot of vulnerable people.

[Drummond]

You are just missing the entire point every time we discuss vaccines lol

Vaccines are not meant to protect individuals.

The real reality is as an individual you are more at risk from the vaccine itself than you are of the flu (for example)

But that's not the point, the point is 60-70% of people in first world countries would survive getting any strain of the flu. As you repeatedly have said it's not that deadly of a disease. As long as you're healthy.

Vaccines are meant to protect those who are NOT healthy. The 30-40% of the population who would not survive the flu. If you and I get the flu, we're sick for a bit, but we survive, but in the mean time how many people who can not survive the flu have contracted it from us?

See, vaccines are NOT meant to protect individuals , they are strictly meant to prevent epidemics that would kill a lot of vulnerable people.

You're correct, but only somewhat correct. On one detail, you're not only incorrect, but provably so.

I take your point about protection of those who aren't fully healthy, and so need protection against the otherwise widespread incidence of disease. Vaccinate enough people, you reduce to virtually zero the chance of the less-than-fully-healthy person contracting a disease they might be very susceptible to. Fair enough.

I've always disliked (at absolute minimum) MANDATORY vaccination programs, except where the need was so great for one that it had to be applied. For all I know (& I strongly suspect) ... ebola may well justify one such program, though.

But I'll also take your point about what you're being vaccinated WITH, maybe putting you more at risk than the disease itself (e.g your flu example). It's a reason I'm not keen to go in for getting myself vaccinated, not when I've had a full and healthy life steering clear of them.

As for what you're definitely wrong about: you said, 'Vaccines are not meant to protect individuals'. OK, then. So, if I go on holiday, say to a country where malaria is prevalent ... I won't be advised to be vaccinated against contracting it ? I'll never be advised to get my anti-malaria jab ?

Do I get one, in order to protect the local population against my immunity from their malaria .. ?

Perhaps, upon my return to the UK, my very presence at Heathrow or Gatwick (or at a pinch Cardiff airport, though the less said about that, the better) will threaten a malaria outbreak, if I'm not carrying some immunity from it in my bloodstream ?

No. You're both right, AND wrong. Vaccinations are done to protect populations, and individuals, alike.

[STTAB]

You're correct, but only somewhat correct. On one detail, you're not only incorrect, but provably so.

I take your point about protection of those who aren't fully healthy, and so need protection against the otherwise widespread incidence of disease. Vaccinate enough people, you reduce to virtually zero the chance of the less-than-fully-healthy person contracting a disease they might be very susceptible to. Fair enough.

I've always disliked (at absolute minimum) MANDATORY vaccination programs, except where the need was so great for one that it had to be applied. For all I know (& I strongly suspect) ... ebola may well justify one such program, though.

But I'll also take your point about what you're being vaccinated WITH, maybe putting you more at risk than the disease itself (e.g your flu example). It's a reason I'm not keen to go in for getting myself vaccinated, not when I've had a full and healthy life steering clear of them.

As for what you're definitely wrong about: you said, 'Vaccines are not meant to protect individuals'. OK, then. So, if I go on holiday, say to a country where malaria is prevalent ... I won't be advised to be vaccinated against contracting it ? I'll never be advised to get my anti-malaria jab ?

Do I get one, in order to protect the local population against my immunity from their malaria .. ?

Perhaps, upon my return to the UK, my very presence at Heathrow or Gatwick (or at a pinch Cardiff airport, though the less said about that, the better) will threaten a malaria outbreak, if I'm not carrying some immunity from it in my bloodstream ?

No. You're both right, AND wrong. Vaccinations are done to protect populations, and individuals, alike.

okay perhaps I should have clarified and said vaccines are not meant to protect healthy people.

The point being , I'll use myself as an example I'm a healthy 48 year old white upper middle class white male. The odds of the flu killing me are slim to none actually, but I get my vaccination every year, as do my children. Why ? Because my children go to school with plenty of children who are not from similar circumstances and either they or people in their families COULD be killed by the flu.

Now, I take your point about mandated vaccines. It doesn't seem like the place of the government to be telling people for example, that their children must be vaccinated to attend school. BUT the reality is that the government run the school, the government is providing healthcare insurance to the employees of the school, and those same families that are most susceptible to things that we currently vaccinate against , yeah they are probably on one form of government healthcare or another too, so all in all maybe the government does have a role in saying "nope, if you want to use our schools, you will follow our rules, including vaccinations."

Just my 2 cents on that