Dispatch from the front lines of the SC measles epidemic

I had measles as a child, before the vaccine. I survived with no discernible sequelae. My daughter got the vaccine, along with all the other childhood vaccines, also with no discernible sequelae.  

Now, thanks to the anti-vaxxer propaganda and the RFK Jr policy of sowing doubt about the benefits and safety of vaccines, the population of unvaccinated kids is growing. In red states like South Carolina, which is seeing a surge in measles cases, the government is part of the problem.  Here’s a South Carolina physician

“One of the most frustrating aspects of this outbreak to me has been the reluctance of state leaders, large hospital systems, and institutions to speak clearly and publicly about what is happening. Silence during a public health crisis has consequences. Our governor and lieutenant governor's statements have focused on avoiding mandates and stressed measles vaccination as a personal choice, rather than emphasizing the benefits of high vaccine rates. When trusted institutions do not share accurate information, misinformation fills the vacuum. Parents are left to piece together fragments of truth from social media, rumors, and fear.”

But perhaps there’s at least some cause for hope, as some vaccine-reluctant parents are realizing they were either blind or misled:

“What gives me hope -- and there is hope -- is what I've heard from upstate pediatricians this past weekend. Many shared that families who had previously declined the measles vaccine -- or all vaccines -- are now coming in asking for it. These parents are not met with judgment or lectures. They are met with open arms. In pediatrics, we do not keep score. We keep kids safe.

 

“South Carolina has the tools to stop this outbreak. We know how measles spreads. We know how to prevent it. What we need now is honesty, leadership, and clear communication. Hospital systems, public health leaders, educators, and policymakers must be willing to speak plainly about what is happening and why it matters.”

 

In the 3rd decade of the 21st century in the richest country on the planet, there’s no excuse to question the benefits of vaccination. Not only do they protect the vaccinated, but they prevent transmission to unvaccinated infants and the immune-compromised via herd immunity. Getting vaccinated is both healthy and patriotic.

 

https://www.medpagetoday.com/opinion/second-opinions/119720?xid=nl_secondopinion_2026-02-08&mh=eb71348a5ff6ae370cc6759bc5dc3300&zdee=gAAAAABm4u1YoCP4y5SBTJUyUyqo9KxZhft26L1xeGdP0BzzQQN1Pb_ifR6vFqhFh-3U6Q_nU7DbA-EawzzXKxSRhMOwjrOGuOKbf7OE641eN0HfnK6eObE%3D&utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=WeekendOpinions_020826&utm_term=NL_Gen_Int_SecondOpinion_Active

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Yes, the CDC can change its mind

The Nobel Laureate economist Paul Samuelson famously acknowledged in a Meet the Press interview: “Well when events change, I change my mind. What do you do?” This observation applies to the advice from medical authorities such as the CDC and WHO during the COVID pandemic. Some members of the public are fond of pillorying these agencies for having published different guidelines at different times, as though health officials are in the business of issuing ex cathedra dogma rather than responding to incomplete and ambiguous information. Science doesn’t deal in proof, it deals with the weight of evidence. A scientific hypothesis is one that is capable of being tested and falsified by experiment. I get it. I used to teach problem-based learning to first year medical students, and they often struggled with what to do with incomplete and ambiguous information, which is what physicians in clinics do every day. Sometimes, one cannot wait for all the tests to be completed and all the data analyz...
Read more

About that Trump lawsuit

So Trump is suing Rupert Murdoch for defamation because of the release of a salacious doodle. Nothing remarkable about Donald J. Trump weaponizing the legal system against his opponents, I know. But there are some things that do bear remark here: “ . . . he's suing Rupert Murdoch personally. But you know who he's not suing? Lachlan Murdoch, who's actually the chairperson of News Corp and Fox, who's actually the decision-maker. Rupert Murdoch has no official role there anymore. He's an adviser.   “So, I thought that was revealing in a lot of ways, because it isn't just about going after the entity. It's sort of this expansion spillover, trying to send as much of a message as you possibly can. He's sort of hitting every potential lever, not just against Murdoch and that empire, but then all the other media properties in the future. It's also about sending an example.” “HAYES: Yeah. That, to me, is the point here, is that these lawsuits are not lawsuits...
Read more

I agree with RFK Jr.

Though it feels weird to say it, RFK Jr and I agree on something: curtailing direct-to-consumer marketing of pharmaceuticals. “ The Trump administration is discussing policies that would make it harder and more expensive for pharmaceutical companies to advertise directly to patients, in a move that could disrupt more than $10 billion in annual ad spending.   Although the US is the only place, besides New Zealand, where pharma companies can directly advertise, banning pharma ads outright could make the administration vulnerable to lawsuits, so it’s instead focusing on cutting down on the practice by adding legal and financial hurdles, according to people familiar with the plans who weren’t authorized to speak publicly on the matter.   “The two policies the administration has focused in on would be to require greater disclosures of side effects of a drug within each ad — likely making broadcast ads much longer and prohibitively expensive — or removing the industry’s ability to d...
Read more