Measles very contagious. Here's how to avoid getting infected

The best way to avoid measles is to get the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine.

Not only the most effective way, but the best way.

Getting another MMR shot as an adult is harmless if there are concerns about waning immunity

Complementing the last part, for people at risk, or in close contact with vulnerable people, immunity can be checked to see if there is need for a booster shot, but it is more practical and cheaper just to get the shot if in doubt.

This outbreak courtesy of the Trump administration, RFK Jr. and online anti-vaxxers.

In the US, the most effective way to avoid a measles infection is the MMR vaccine.

If one is only concerned with avoiding measles infection, and nothing else, then yeah certainly get the shot.

If one is only concerned with avoiding measles infection, and nothing else, then yeah certainly get the shot.

Not at all, this is not the most effective, as the article clearly says it is the best way to prevent infection. There is no consideration beside clear and specific medical exceptions that run contrary to this.

The MMR comes with significant risks. That's why Japan does not offer the measles vaccine as an MMR combo.

In the US, you don't have that option, you have to take the MMR if you want a measles vaccine. So I understand why some are opting out.

The MMR comes with significant risks. That's why Japan does not offer the measles vaccine as an MMR combo.

Not even remotely in the same league as not vaccinating, which is the option that come with the highest risks, an island nation with much easier isolation do not have the same burden to protect the population from this very easily transmitted disease that can be lethal, that is why the extrapolation is not adequate.

People are opting out because they are being mislead by crooks and quacks that have the nerve to say children with preexisting conditions are disposable and can be expected to die (like RFKjr said) not because of a rational decision based on actual facts, there is no comparison of the risks between being vaccinated with MMR and being unvaccinated.

Just don't go to the USA. Also, USA people should provide proof of being disease free before entering Japan. What do you expect from a person whose brain was half eaten by a worm and now is head of the health department.

....from a USA person (me)

Stay save in sane Japan even if you have to be a happy outsider.

An ICU nurse handling Covid-19 patients once said that even the most devoted anti-vaxxers would crumble in their conviction and say "I changed my mind, I'll take the vaccine now" when their symptoms got bad enough. 

There are many nurses who would also like to tell you about those who have come to regret getting the shot due to serious side effects.

Anyway, the measles vaccine is probably relatively safe, but I hope it will be properly tested.

But if they really want everyone to get it, why does the US only offer it as a combo?

Anyway, the measles vaccine is probably relatively safe, but I hope it will be properly tested.

But if they really want everyone to get it, why does the US only offer it as a combo?

Because it works.

One of the shots in the combo has serious risks. Why not offer them separately?

And evidently I was right about OT3?

No idea what your referring to. Is it relevant?

It's absolutely reasonable to question the MMR, especially when it's bundled into a single shot with no option to take the measles vaccine separately. People deserve the right to make informed choices, especially when there are documented risks and potential adverse effects. Public health shouldn't mean one-size-fits-all mandates - it should mean transparency, informed consent, and respect for individual risk assessment. Unfortunately, we saw all of that thrown out the window with a certain recent experimental vaccine - no long-term data, no real informed consent, and intense pressure to comply. That betrayal of trust only makes people more cautious now, and rightfully so.

There are many nurses who would also like to tell you about those who have come to regret getting the shot due to serious side effects.

Do they have evidence the risks from the vaccine outweigh the benefits and the risks from the infection or are you just trying to make an appeal to emotions to supposedly negate the evidence that clearly shows being vaccinated is hugely much better than not? just to be clear.

Anyway, the measles vaccine is probably relatively safe, but I hope it will be properly tested.

The best experts say vaccines are always properly tested before being used in the population, nameless people on the internet saying otherwise simply don't have the same weight on their opinions, specially when they don't show any evidence about their claims.

One of the shots in the combo has serious risks. Why not offer them separately?

Because this claim is false, none of the shots in the combo has risks even comparable with the risks from the infection.

It's absolutely reasonable to question the MMR

With actual evidence instead of false claims, and specially accepting when the question has been already answered repeatedly by the evidence collected until now.

What is not reasonable at all is to repeat endlessly the same questions because people can't accept the answers because of a personal antiscientific bias. If the best experts of the world that professionally question evidence for a living say the questions have been answered, why believe nameless people saying the opposite?

Public health shouldn't mean one-size-fits-all mandates

It does not, there are valid (but infrequent) medical exceptions, the problem is people pretending the science don't apply to them because of personal and irrational beliefs.

Unfortunately, we saw all of that thrown out the window with a certain recent experimental vaccine

Zero experimental vaccines have been used in the population, this is still a false claim from antivaxxer propaganda groups that are trying to mislead people with false claims.

People are not more cautious, they are rejecting the evidence because it became a political decision on the US, and this is reflected in the people that are most affected now, it is not a coincidence that republicans have at the same time lower rates of vaccination and higher risks from measles and other preventable diseases.

The MMR comes with significant risks. That's why Japan does not offer the measles vaccine as an MMR combo.

The MMR combo was discontinued in Japan because of a concern with the Mumps element. There was concern over the incidence of serious aseptic meningitis. (I understand the Mumps element of the vaccine in Japan was different from other countries.) I've read that the incidence was 0.05%. I've also read that the incidence increased to 1.24% among unvaccinated people following the separation of the vaccines.

People are not more cautious, they are rejecting the evidence because it became a political decision on the US, and this is reflected in the people that are most affected now, it is not a coincidence that republicans have at the same time lower rates of vaccination and higher risks from measles and other preventable diseases.

Nope, the decision to be cautious about rushed medical products has nothing to do with politics - no left vs. right or whatever it is you think you believe - it’s between those who take charge of their health and critically evaluate what goes into their bodies, and those who blindly trust and outsource their health to pharmaceutical conglomerates with billion-dollar profit motives.

The MMR combo was discontinued in Japan because of a concern with the Mumps element

Absolutely none of those concerns are even remotely on the same scale as the concerns from the infection, that alone is enough to refute your criticism. No "serious" risks at all compared with the risks of not vaccinating.

 I understand the Mumps element of the vaccine in Japan was different from other countries.

So your argument is that a completely different component being replaced justifies the replacement from the one in the US vaccines? because that makes absolutely no sense. You are recognizing you can't generalize.

Nope, the decision to be cautious about rushed medical products has nothing to do with politics

The moment republicans are the ones more easily manipulated to being unnecessarily anxious about the vaccines this claim you make is demonstrated as false.

https://www.kff.org/health-information-and-trust/press-release/poll-trust-in-public-health-agencies-and-vaccines-falls-amid-republican-skepticism/

Republican-leaning parents are twice as likely as Democratic-leaning parents to say that the vaccines’ risks outweigh the benefits (33% vs. 15%)

See? it was very easy to prove the decision about the falsely claimed to be rushed medical products is a political decision.

Taking charge of your health in no way means that people have to believe in impossible conspiracies, and if people don't believe those conspiracies there is no reason to doubt the medical consensus that say vaccines have demonstrated to be safe and effective. Nobody has to blindly believe anything either, the scientific evidence is there for anybody to consult. The ones that have to blindly believe are those that trust that this information is false without any evidence to prove it.

Anyway, the measles vaccine is probably relatively safe, but I hope it will be properly tested.

The best experts say vaccines are always properly tested before being used in the population, nameless people on the internet saying otherwise simply don't have the same weight on their opinions, specially when they don't show any evidence about their claims.

It's not nameless people who are saying that vaccines have not been adequately tested with a proper placebo control. It is a claim made by the current US Secretary of Health and Human Services.

Most, if not all, vaccines have been tested using other vaccines as placebo. That would be like testing the safety of a new brand of cigarettes by using a different brand as control. And then when we see no difference in cases of cancer conclude that they are safe!

That betrayal of trust only makes people more cautious now, and rightfully so.

Yes, that very much sums up the problem. Because of the way they handled the pandemic, they lost much of the trust people had in them. Hopefully, RFKjr will succeed in restoring it.

It's not nameless people who are saying that vaccines have not been adequately tested with a proper placebo control. 

Incompetent people can also repeat the same claims, but that does nothing to make them less invalid, the difference is that nameless people at least have the excuse of not having a professional responsibility to be informed how unethical their proposals are, a doctor for example would not have this excuse and should be made responsible for proposing unethical human experimentation.

It is a claim made by the current US Secretary of Health and Human Services.

A layman in science in medicine that have been proved to lie repeatedly for personal profit, that believes microbes don't cause infection and that proposed that children with preexisting conditions should be left to die. That is not making the claims less false, it only puts them in context about what kind of people are the ones repeating them.

Most, if not all, vaccines have been tested using other vaccines as placebo. 

No, not really.

https://www.voicesforvaccines.org/jtf_topics/why-arent-vaccines-tested-against-placebos/

 That would be like testing the safety of a new brand of cigarettes by using a different brand as control.

No, it would not be like that at all, for your analogy to be even remotely adequate cigarettes would have to prolong importantly the life expectancy of the people that use them.

Yes, that very much sums up the problem

As the reference provided clearly prove, that is not the problem, people of a specific political inclination are being mislead to reject science and evidence, with the expected negative consequences compared with less manipulated populations.

See? it was very easy to prove the decision about the falsely claimed to be rushed medical products is a political decision.

Nope, you haven't proved anything at all. You're simply actively ignoring the millions of people outside the U.S., across the globe, from every background - left, right, apolitical - who have raised valid concerns based on science, personal experience, and critical inquiry. The choice to scrutinize what's injected into your body is not the domain of 2 political parties - it's a universal human right and responsibility. Reducing it to U.S. partisan divides is an extremely lazy (but wholly unsurprising) deflection from the real issue of transparency, safety, and informed consent... all of which you seem strongly against.

Nope, you haven't proved anything at all. You're simply actively ignoring the millions of people outside the U.S., across the globe, from every background - left, right, apolitical - who have raised valid concerns based on science, personal experience, and critical inquiry. 

That is no an argument that can refute that in the US people from a political inclination are much more likely to be manipulated into completely unnecessary and unjustified anxiety about the vaccines, you said this was not happening, it was very easy to prove it does, very clearly. In the US (the place where measles outbreaks are rapidly growing in importance) it is a political decision to reject vaccines. No deflection, it is a clear reality proved by objective evidence you could not refute.

This also help explaining why hesitancy is not even remotely as common in most other developed countries, since the population have a much stronger scientific literacy lies and manipulations from politicians have a much less important effect, to the benefit of those nations that can be protected from preventable diseases thanks to safe and effective medical interventions like vaccines.

That is no an argument that can refute that in the US people from a political inclination are much more likely to be manipulated into completely unnecessary and unjustified anxiety about the vaccines, you said this was not happening, it was very easy to prove it does, very clearly. In the US (the place where measles outbreaks are rapidly growing in importance) it is a political decision to reject vaccines. No deflection, it is a clear reality proved by objective evidence you could not refute.

Accidentally clicked "post" too soon...

That is no an argument that can refute that in the US people from a political inclination are much more likely to be manipulated into completely unnecessary and unjustified anxiety about the vaccines, you said this was not happening, it was very easy to prove it does, very clearly. In the US (the place where measles outbreaks are rapidly growing in importance) it is a political decision to reject vaccines. No deflection, it is a clear reality proved by objective evidence you could not refute.

and in people from the other political inclination are much more likely to be manipulated into completely unnecessary and unjustified anxiety about the virus. In the US it is a political decision to accept vaccines.

That is no an argument that can refute that in the US people from a political inclination are much more likely to be manipulated into completely unnecessary and unjustified anxiety about the vaccines, you said this was not happening, it was very easy to prove it does, very clearly. In the US (the place where measles outbreaks are rapidly growing in importance) it is a political decision to reject vaccines. No deflection, it is a clear reality proved by objective evidence you could not refute.

Sorry, you still haven't "proved" anything. You're confusing demographic trends with individual motivations. That’s a basic logical fallacy.

Second, your argument collapses the entire debate into a binary of “trust experts or be manipulated,” which is both arrogant and historically ignorant. Scientific literacy doesn't mean blind obedience to whatever arbitary authority labels something “safe and effective.” It means understanding risk-benefit analysis, questioning conflicts of interest, and recognizing when regulatory processes have been compromised - like when pharmaceutical conglomerates have legal immunity and regulators have revolving doors with industry.

The reason trust has plummeted is not because of one political party, but because agencies like the CDC and FDA made contradictory statements, censored dissenting experts, and acted in lockstep with corporate interests. So no, the global rise in justified skepticism proves this is not a partisan issue, but a widespread reckoning with systems that demanded trust without earning it.