US facing second measles surge this year as outbreak accelerates in South Carolina

Hans Blaster said:

Then why are you making excuses or arguments for it being "OK" if we roll back things and have our own native endemic sources?

Click to expand...

Where did I say that?

My first post in the thread was highlighting the challenges and difficulties with trying to reach elimination status as long as we live in a world where international travel is a thing, and there are other countries with poor coverage.

ThatRobGuy said:

Where did I say that?

My first post in the thread was highlighting the challenges and difficulties with trying to reach elimination status as long as we live in a world where international travel is a thing, and there are other countries with poor coverage.

Click to expand...

if you have herd immunity you eliminate it, funny how for when the US had herd immunity there was rarly any big outbreaks, now as numbers drop there are more and more.

Oh and to someones point ...I think it was here but could be elsewhere, but a common one I've seen about how in many cases it's a lot of vaccinated people being sick. Well it's just numbers if your 99% immune but run into 50 people that are sick your chances of getting sifck go up, and by a percent most people are vaccinated. So the initial burst is 40 people but quickly spirals out of control.

loveofourlord said:

if you have herd immunity you eliminate it, funny how for when the US had herd immunity there was rarly any big outbreaks, now as numbers drop there are more and more.

Oh and to someones point ...I think it was here but could be elsewhere, but a common one I've seen about how in many cases it's a lot of vaccinated people being sick. Well it's just numbers if your 99% immune but run into 50 people that are sick your chances of getting sifck go up, and by a percent most people are vaccinated. So the initial burst is 40 people but quickly spirals out of control.

Click to expand...

My purpose in bringing up that 20% of the infected people were vaccinated wasn't to diminish the accomplishment of the vaccine, but to highlight that as long as we have bi-directional travel with other countries with poorer coverage, and dealing with a virus that's R=14 (meaning highly transmissible...point of reference, covid was 2.9 and polio was around 7), it's an uphill battle from the get-go.

...however, in terms of "gauging sincerity" with regards to other posters in this thread, if doing the thing that would reduce this problem (vaccinating the global population against measles) should be the goal, why was my post pounced on, but others weren't seen as "irrelevant" or "off-topic"? (not by you, but by others in the thread)

For example, other posters specifically pointing to cases in "red states", or highlighting that an outbreak started at a creationist museum, or starting off the thread with "this is what happens when anti-vaxxers are in control" (clearly self-serving partisan jabs)

But when I point out practical limitations, challenges, and gaps with regards to other countries, that's considered a problem?


Was this thread about actually discussing the challenges relating to measles and lack of vaccine coverage? Or was it purely a way for people to take some jabs at people who don't vote the way they like?


If someone wants to shine a spotlight on some cases that emerged from some Noah's Ark tourist trap in Kentucky, and nobody objects or considers it "off topic" or "running cover for <insert person they don't like here>" (and gives it like reacts), but somehow it's problematic with regards to me pointing out that some EU countries only have 1st dose coverage in the 80's (and some don't even track 2nd dose coverage)

...and we literally have almost 3 million vectors of transmission coming in and out from those countries every year (between people from those countries coming here, and people from this country going to those two places).

Then I question if "preventing measles" is actually the primary concern for those folks, or if it's just some sort of fodder they want to use for "smiting one's political rivals"

International travel remains the primary vector of transmission for measles cases finding their way to the US.

ThatRobGuy said:

"Europe as a Whole" is misleading, because the country with the highest population, Russia, actually has really good coverage (it's one of the few things they do well, they have immunization coverage of 97%... that goes up to nearly 99% for people currently under age 18)

In the EU region, vaccination coverage is 93.9% for the first dose of measles-containing vaccine (MCV1) and 88.8% for the second dose (MCV2)

...and obviously that's an average overall. You have some countries like Ireland that has first-dose coverage in the 80's. And then you have several of the other countries where the major gap seems to be getting the second dose. Many of the EU countries seem to fall short of the 95% threshold for herd immunity with that second dose.

Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong, low vaccination rates are a problem in some countries. I was just reacting to you highlighting that Europe would have a large general problem with them. We struggle with the same Wakefield-disinformation as the US.

If one is not vaccinated against measles and planning to travel around the EU, one should avoid going to Romania (approx 30k cases, population 20 millions) given one is worried of course. Come to Sweden (approx 40 cases, population 10 millions) instead, shameless tourism-plug.

Regarding elimination isn't that based on endemic spread? When vaccination rates are high enough, imported outbreaks are self-limiting. But imported cases are unavoidable.

Did someone start doing disease spread parties in January or what?


Taken from Measles Cases and Outbreaks

I just wonder why there's all this apoplectic reporting about the measles outbreaks in the US while there is nary a mention of the FAR WORSE measles outbreaks in Canada.

The official number of measles cases in the US in 2025 is 2,065. Given the current US population of 348,233,299, that means the 2025 rate for measles infection was 1 in 171,967.

The official number of measles cases in Canada in 2025 is 5,377. Given the current Canadian population of 40,326,346, that means the 2025 rate for measles infection was 1 in 7,500.

That means that the rate of measles infections in Canada was 2,193% higher than the rate in the US. Yet almost all of the media coverage is about the US outbreak. Most articles don't even mention the MUCH worse outbreaks in Canada.

Why? Canada is a pretty close neighbor to the US, yet the fact that measles has increased exponentially higher than it has in the US gets almost NO media coverage. I was talking to some friends over Christmas break about this, and they didn't even know Canada was experiencing any kind of outbreak.

Why is there such a discrepancy in media coverage of these two outbreaks? By any objective measure, Canada is currently faring FAR worse than the US with measles, yet the US is making the headlines. Any thoughts as to why that might be?

probinson said:

I just wonder why there's all this apoplectic reporting about the measles outbreaks in the US while there is nary a mention of the FAR WORSE measles outbreaks in Canada.

The official number of measles cases in the US in 2025 is 2,065. Given the current US population of 348,233,299, that means the 2025 rate for measles infection was 1 in 171,967.

The official number of measles cases in Canada in 2025 is 5,377. Given the current Canadian population of 40,326,346, that means the 2025 rate for measles infection was 1 in 7,500.

That means that the rate of measles infections in Canada was 2,193% higher than the rate in the US. Yet almost all of the media coverage is about the US outbreak. Most articles don't even mention the MUCH worse outbreaks in Canada.

Why? Canada is a pretty close neighbor to the US, yet the fact that measles has increased exponentially higher than it has in the US gets almost NO media coverage. I was talking to some friends over Christmas break about this, and they didn't even know Canada was experiencing any kind of outbreak.

Why is there such a discrepancy in media coverage of these two outbreaks? By any objective measure, Canada is currently faring FAR worse than the US with measles, yet the US is making the headlines. Any thoughts as to why that might be?

Click to expand...

They are both getting articles in Sweden at least.

Kanada


USA



With Canada getting slightly more press space.

If you are in the US, my guess is that it is simply because of the "localness" of the news.

Stopped_lurking said:

Regarding elimination isn't that based on endemic spread? When vaccination rates are high enough, imported outbreaks are self-limiting. But imported cases are unavoidable.

Click to expand...

It is, but the rub with regards to international travel is that the places that are the most likely destinations abroad that Americans typically want to go to are either UK, or a country in the EU zone (which only has 88% 2nd dose coverage) -- as noted Russia has really good coverage, but it's not exactly a "destination hotspot" for obvious reasons.



...and addressing the issue in a more comprehensive matter isn't "helped", shall we say, by the fact that they only seem to get brought up within the context of news stories that afford people a convenient political jabs at their opponents...hence the posts in here that are taking direct shots at South Carolina and a creationism museum in Kentucky.

Meanwhile, in reality, despite efforts to portray it as such, it's not a "red state problem"

Oregon, New Jersey, Washington State, Minnesota, Colorado, and New Hampshire have the same poor rates of coverage (a few are even worse than South Carolina in that regard)

And I think that could be one of the reasons why it's not taken as seriously as it should be, because when it only seems to get brought up in the context of stories where it's clearly a "political swipe", it conveys the notion of "well, clearly it's not something they're actually concerned about, it was just a cheap way of bashing their political rivals".

As you can see by the interactive map (lets you hover over each state and see their rate of MMR coverage), the implied tone of "those darn MAGA people are risking another measles epidemic" isn't remotely accurate.

If they want to say "A ha! see, look...it's those red hat people in Kentucky and SC following Trump and RFK and it made them reject science", then I'd like to hear what their explanation is for New Jersey, Colorado, Minnesota, and Oregon.

probinson said:

.....all this apoplectic reporting about the measles outbreaks......

Click to expand...

Ive heard maybe 10 total reports about this topic.

Not a single one was foaming with rage or emotionally unhinged or anything like that. I think youre making this up. Or did your prefered sources tell you the reporting is apoplectic? If so you might want to question their accuracy. Or avoid random youtubers as a news source - who admittedly can get a little red in the face sometimes.

Stopped_lurking said:

They are both getting articles in Sweden at least.

Kanada
View attachment 374987

USA
View attachment 374988


With Canada getting slightly more press space.

If you are in the US, my guess is that it is simply because of the "localness" of the news.

Click to expand...

ThatRobGuy said:

It is, but the rub with regards to international travel is that the places that are the most likely destinations abroad that Americans typically want to go to are either UK, or a country in the EU zone (which only has 88% 2nd dose coverage) -- as noted Russia has really good coverage, but it's not exactly a "destination hotspot" for obvious reasons.



...and addressing the issue in a more comprehensive matter isn't "helped", shall we say, by the fact that they only seem to get brought up within the context of news stories that afford people a convenient political jabs at their opponents...hence the posts in here that are taking direct shots at South Carolina and a creationism museum in Kentucky.

Meanwhile, in reality, despite efforts to portray it as such, it's not a "red state problem"

Oregon, New Jersey, Washington State, Minnesota, Colorado, and New Hampshire have the same poor rates of coverage (a few are even worse than South Carolina in that regard)

Maps show states with highest—and lowest—kindergarten vaccination rates

Rates have been declining across the country, with all kindergartner coverage for each of the vaccines having dropped since 2021.

www.newsweek.com

And I think that could be one of the reasons why it's not taken as seriously as it should be, because when it only seems to get brought up in the context of stories where it's clearly a "political swipe", it conveys the notion of "well, clearly it's not something they're actually concerned about, it was just a cheap way of bashing their political rivals".

As you can see by the interactive map (lets you hover over each state and see their rate of MMR coverage), the implied tone of "those darn MAGA people are risking another measles epidemic" isn't remotely accurate.

If they want to say "A ha! see, look...it's those red hat people in Kentucky and SC following Trump and RFK and it made them reject science", then I'd like to hear what their explanation is for New Jersey, Colorado, Minnesota, and Oregon.

Click to expand...

There is something else going on in the US, see my post #25. Even if everybody stopped vaccinating at once, it wouldn't give that response in disease incidence.

durangodawood said:

Ive heard maybe 10 total reports about this topic.

Click to expand...

Then I have to believe you don't read a lot of news.

durangodawood said:

Not a single one was foaming with rage or emotionally unhinged or anything like that.

Click to expand...

If you say so.

durangodawood said:

I think youre making this up. Or did your prefered sources tell you the reporting is apoplectic?

Click to expand...

At least I post sources. You're just casting empty aspersions based on your wrong assumptions.

durangodawood said:

If so you might want to question their accuracy. Or avoid random youtubers as a news source - who admittedly can get a little red in the face sometimes.

Click to expand...

probinson said:

Then I have to believe you don't read a lot of news.

Click to expand...

Whats an example of apoplectic reporting on this topic?

durangodawood said:

Whats an example of apoplectic reporting on this topic?

Click to expand...

Sorry I don't have any red-faced YouTubers to cite, but this study shows that in June 2025 alone, there were at least 100 news reports about the US measles outbreak. Just slightly more than the "maybe 10" times you've read about it. And that was in just one month.

Why do you think there is is such an imbalanced media coverage of the US and Canadian measles outbreaks?

probinson said:

In 2025, US measles cases reached the highest levels since 2000, coinciding with persistent vaccine hesitancy and mixed media messaging. This study analyzed 100 Google News reports from June 2025. Nonmainstream outlets published more credentialed content (31.6% vs 11.6%, P = .02), yet fewer than 25% cited research. Most reports were informational (94%) and pro-vaccination (72%), though 28% presented mixed messaging. Findings highlight gaps in evidence-based reporting and opportunities for improved health communication.​

​

https://www.ajicjournal.org/article/S0196-6553(25)00556-5/abstract

​

​

Sorry I don't have any red-faced YouTubers to cite, but this study shows that in June 2025 alone, there were at least 100 news reports about the US measles outbreak. Just slightly more than the "maybe 10" times you've read about it. And that was in just one month.

Why do you think there is is such an imbalanced media coverage of the US and Canadian measles outbreaks?

Click to expand...

Im not seeing evidence of massive overemoting there.

We ususally accuse people over overemoting either because thats what they are doing, or because we think its helpful as as ad hominem tactic.

durangodawood said:

Im not seeing evidence of massive overemoting there.

Click to expand...

You think the measles outbreak in the US warranted 100 reports in a single month?

probinson said:

You think the measles outbreak in the US warranted 100 reports in a single month?

Click to expand...

Im just point out the lack of apoplectic tone. When people are apoplectic, we tend to view that alone as evidence we should dismiss their views, as they are too emotional to think straight.

So when I see you accuse various media of being apoplectic when they clearly arent, it makes me think the facts alone are insufficient for your case.

durangodawood said:

Im just point out the lack of apoplectic tone.

Click to expand...

You're also glossing over the fact that you tried to minimize the mass amount of reporting that has been done on the US measles outbreak from your original claim that you had seen "maybe 10" reports.

durangodawood said:

When people are apoplectic, we tend to view that alone as evidence we should dismiss their views, as they are too emotional to think straight.

So when I see you accuse various media of being apoplectic when they clearly arent, it makes me think the facts alone are insufficient for your case.

Click to expand...

The disproportionate coverage is evidence of the over-the-top reporting, particularly when compared to the MUCH worse outbreak in Canada, which received far less coverage.

The article I posted above stated:


The media coverage of the US measles outbreak has absolutely been driven by disproportionate alarm, while that same alarm has been all but completely absent in the much worse outbreak in Canada. "Apoplectic" may have been something of a hyperbole on my part, but there's no denying that the sheer volume of reporting on the outbreak in the US is incredibly disproportionate to the threat it poses.

probinson said:

You're also glossing over the fact that you tried to minimize the mass amount of reporting that has been done on the US measles outbreak from your original claim that you had seen "maybe 10" reports.

Click to expand...

Im not glossing over anything. I heard appx 10 reports. And that really should be enough of a sample to judge if the general tone of coverage is "apoplectic" or not.

probinson said:

The disproportionate coverage is evidence of the over-the-top reporting, particularly when compared to the MUCH worse outbreak in Canada, which received far less coverage.

The article I posted above stated:

When public discussion is driven mainly by alarm or novelty, it risks distorting priorities. Attention shifts toward what is most visible rather than what is most impactful.​

​

This disconnect matters. Public understanding influences policy, funding, and trust in health advice. ​

The media coverage of the US measles outbreak has absolutely been driven by disproportionate alarm, while that same alarm has been all but completely absent in the much worse outbreak in Canada. "Apoplectic" may have been something of a hyperbole on my part, but there's no denying that the sheer volume of reporting on the outbreak in the US is incredibly disproportionate to the threat it poses.

Click to expand...

Obviously vaccine policy is a huge topic right now. So I expect a lot of coverage of events that touch on the issue.

Just look at your own behavior here in this regard. You find it important. And so you go on and on about vaccines while pretty much ignoring every other topic. Did you know we just deposed the leader of Venezuela?

probinson said:

In 2025, US measles cases reached the highest levels since 2000, coinciding with persistent vaccine hesitancy and mixed media messaging. This study analyzed 100 Google News reports from June 2025. Nonmainstream outlets published more credentialed content (31.6% vs 11.6%, P = .02), yet fewer than 25% cited research. Most reports were informational (94%) and pro-vaccination (72%), though 28% presented mixed messaging. Findings highlight gaps in evidence-based reporting and opportunities for improved health communication.​

​

https://www.ajicjournal.org/article/S0196-6553(25)00556-5/abstract

​

​

Sorry I don't have any red-faced YouTubers to cite, but this study shows that in June 2025 alone, there were at least 100 news reports about the US measles outbreak. Just slightly more than the "maybe 10" times you've read about it. And that was in just one month.

Why do you think there is is such an imbalanced media coverage of the US and Canadian measles outbreaks?

Click to expand...

Every report I've read that mentioned that the US is on track to lose its status of no endemic measles also made it clear that Canada had already lost its status.

As for the imbalance in reporting, too often it's not just America First, but America Only. How many Americans can tell you who the Prime Minister of Canada is or even that they have one?