Measles deaths drop dramatically as vaccine reaches world's poorest children

[CFLarsen]

Measles deaths drop dramatically as vaccine reaches world's poorest children

Global goal of halving measles deaths can be achieved

27 APRIL 2004 | GENEVA/NEW YORK -- The World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nation's Children's Fund (UNICEF) today announced a global reduction of 30% in deaths from measles between 1999 and 2002. At 35%, the reduction in measles deaths was even greater in Africa, the region with the highest number of people affected by the disease.

This progress demonstrates that collectively countries can achieve the United Nations goal of cutting global measles deaths in half by the end of 2005.
Source: UN WHO (http://www.who.int/mediacentre/releases/2004/pr30/en/)

On a sidenote:

In 1986, there were 23,490 reported cases of measles in Denmark.
In 1987, kids began to be vaccinated routinely.
In the first half of 2003 (most current figures), there were exactly 0 reported cases of measles in Denmark.


It's a good thought to go to sleep on.

Further reading:
Cases of Measles, worldwide (http://www.who.int/vaccines)
Rates of vaccinations (http://www.who.int/vaccines)
EUvac.net (http://www.ssi.dk/euvac)

[Rolfe]

:) :) :) :clap:

Rolfe.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Kinda makes you wonder what the exciting new diseases of the future will be, doesn't it?

[Capsid]

This goes against the anti-vax argument that disease incidence is not attributable to vaccines but better health, sanitation and diet. Unless these three factors have improved in Africa since 1999.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Well, diseases are also related to nutrition and sanitation. Vaccinations are pretty important factors, too.

I wonder how long it will take for diseases to develop ways to shift their immune markers, like HIV does. Or the flu - if the flu evolves enough, we could face another worldwide plague.

[Capsid]

Originally quoted by Wrath
Well, diseases are also related to nutrition and sanitation. Vaccinations are pretty important factors, too.

It's interesting to note though that polio increased in incidence after improved sanitation.

Picornaviruses Minor P Chapter 25 Microbiology and Microbial Infections (9th edn)

Because of the universal presence of antibody to all 3 serotypes in women of child-bearing age, and the protective effect of maternal antibody on disease but not gut infection, most infants would be infected while still protected. Improvements in standards of hygiene in the late 19th century led to a delay in the exposure of infants to an age when maternal antibody had declined to non-protective levels. Patterns of disease then changed from the relatively uncommon and endemic kind to the occurrence of large epidemics, and poliomyelitis also became known as infantile paralysis.

Why hasn't the incidence of chicken pox declined with improved health care? This should have happened according to the anti-vax brigade.

Originally quoted by Wrath
I wonder how long it will take for diseases to develop ways to shift their immune markers, like HIV does. Or the flu - if the flu evolves enough, we could face another worldwide plague.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. I don't know of any diseases that have evolved within its host. Virulent strains of flu arise by antigenic drift and shift where human flu genes recombine with animal flu genes. H5N1 is a recent example where the strain was derived from avian flu.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Capsid
I don't know of any diseases that have evolved within its host. Virulent strains of flu arise by antigenic drift and shift where human flu genes recombine with animal flu genes. H5N1 is a recent example where the strain was derived from avian flu. I agree with you on this, Capsid.

You can play with Wrath for a while, I'm (very belatedly) off to bed.

Rolfe.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Rolfe, your PM box is full up.

~~ Paul

[Wrath of the Swarm]

The flu doesn't mutate very well within hosts. However, I've heard that HIV mutates so rapidly that it can develop into distinct strains within a single host, making it difficult for the immune system to fight them all.

Can anyone confirm or negate this assertion?

[Capsid]

Well mutation is not the same as evolution.

But yes HIV mutates very rapidly. Initially, the immune response to the virus is adequate but the virus infects and kills the very cells (CD4 T helper cells) that orchestrate the immune responses. The CD4 numbers decline over time and the immune response becomes inadequate. As a result, opportunisitic infections (clinical AIDS) arise. The name says it really Aquired Immunodeficency Syndrome.

The mutation of the virus has hindered vaccine development since so far it has been difficult to elicit an immune response that can neutralise a wide variety of HIV strains.

[Eos of the Eons]

Thank you for posting that CFLarsen :)
This is a resource I haven't explored much, and the article led me to this:

According to the latest WHO estimates, infectious disease caused 14.7 million deaths in 2001, accounting for 26% of total global mortality. Existing drugs and vaccines could have prevented many of theses deaths. Simple access to food and drinking water free of faecal contamination could have prevented almost 2 million more


Death by disease (many vaccine preventable)-14.7 million
Death from unsanitary conditions-2 million

http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2003/9241590297.pdf

This tells me that unsanitary conditions are not the biggest problem when it comes to fighting disease. It then is not the main prevention tactic. The vaccine preventable diseases cannot be stopped just because you have clean water and better living conditions. Airborne disease don't care how clean the surrounding area is.

The article goes on to show that respiratory disease was the biggest killer. AIDS came in 2nd place.

The article then went on to bacteria. There are no vaccines for most of them.

The anti-vax crowd would do better to be more vocal about the misuse of antibiotics. Not that they would do any better about actually finding something to help the situation. Instead they pick on vaccines (since they are injections) which are far better and more effective at fighting disease than antibiotics.

So pick your battles. Viruses can be fought by vaccines, but you get ones like HIV and you can't keep up with the growing strains. Bacteria are another area of big concern.

I think that bacteria are easier to fight with sanitary conditions though, and not sharing spit or other body fluids with a bazillion people in a short period of time.

If anybody can advise further, I'd be glad to hear it. What is scarier? Viruses or bacteria? I do know for sure that antibiotics are a problem, and not vaccines.

[The Bad Astronomer]

Hurray for humans! :)

And more specifically, hurray for scientists! Seriously. So many people take science for granted, or outright loathe it (I can name names, too easily, I fear). Maybe if we understood why they hate it so, it would make it easier for us skeptics to reintroduce it to them... but I should only speak for myself.

But look what science can do! Measles on the decline. Smallpox gone. Gone.

And some can (and will) say, "Science brought us better weapons, and ways to destroy the environment, and and and"

And I say that science is what we make of it. It's an investigation. I can use fire to light the night and warm myself, or I can burn down a forest with it. It doesn't make me love or hate the fire. I only love or hate the choices made on how to use it.

So hurray for humans! And for some of the choices we make.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
Kinda makes you wonder what the exciting new diseases of the future will be, doesn't it?

Now I understand what is meant by "Some people see their glass as half-full, some see it as half-empty."

No matter how good the news is, somebody will always turn it around and find something negative to say.

Oh, well. Screw you, WotS. Hope you got your shots! :)

[Denise]

And such progress for little money.
At 26 cents for each administration, which includes safe equipment and vaccine, measles immunization is one of the most cost-effective public health investments, saving more lives than most other health interventions. From here: http://www.childinfo.org/eddb/measles/

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Denise
And such progress for little money.
From here: http://www.childinfo.org/eddb/measles/

For the $1 million won in the JREF Challenge, 3,846,153 children could be vaccinated.

[Denise]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


For the $1 million won in the JREF Challenge, 3,846,153 children could be vaccinated.

Too bad all the "psychics" don't want to prove their powers eh?
It's amazing what mere pennies can do for the lives of children. Certainly, immunization programs are the most effective means for health in terms of money spent. I wonder how much John Edward gives to UNICEF?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Denise
Too bad all the "psychics" don't want to prove their powers eh?
It's amazing what mere pennies can do for the lives of children. Certainly, immunization programs are the most effective means for health in terms of money spent. I wonder how much John Edward gives to UNICEF?

All it takes is one psychic actually living up to their claim. And millions of children are safe from this disease.

Don't tell me that these psychics just want to help people. They don't - all they want is to scam grieving people.

[Deetee]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
The flu doesn't mutate very well within hosts. However, I've heard that HIV mutates so rapidly that it can develop into distinct strains within a single host, making it difficult for the immune system to fight them all.

Can anyone confirm or negate this assertion?

HIV's replication error rate is great, and it doesn't take long for quasi-species to "evolve". However, just because there is always a constant background of this going on, it does not always hold true that there will be multiple quasi-species fighting for dominance within any particular individual. In fact, new strains are often less adept at replication than the original wild-type, so they remain in the background.

The crucial factor is when HIV therapy is started - this then acts as a means of applying selection pressure for the other strains that may have pre-existent mutations conferring resistance. These quasi-species can then predominate.

The immune system itself is no more or less able to fight these diiffering strains since most of the mutations are occuring in domains that affect viral replication, and not recognition of the virus by cells within the immune system (mainly activated CD8 cells). So the comparison with organisms that show genuine antigenic drift - flu, trypanosomiasis etc, is invalid in this context.

[c0rbin]

Hasn't Bill Gates played a large part in this?

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Larsen, the glass is half full and half empty.

Deetee: Interesting. I was under the impression that immunologically distinct variations of HIV developed within a subject. Why would most of the mutations occur in the replication code and not change the aspects of the virus that are recognized?

[Deetee]

I wouldn't really describe the strains as immunologically-distinct per se. It is true that mutations are not confined to the specific replication enzymes, and can affect other parts relevant to immune recognition, such as on the envelope where epitopes for CD8/cytotoxic T cell recognition occurs. (It is just that treatment, currently focussed as it is against viral replication targets seems to get all the press, but when it shifts to immune-based research and treatment we will probably hear more about relevant mutations in this area)

However this does not seem to be the main inherent problem that the host has with HIV. The host has trouble mounting ANY decent immune response that would eradicate virus (or more specifically cells expressing viral markers on their surface which could be recognised). The failure to respond well immunologically to the virus is a problem distinct to any strain variation, to my understanding, but I may well be wrong

Your point is however highly relevant when one considers vaccination. It is very difficult to engineer a suitable vaccine that can cope with all potential variants, so there is logic in thinking that immune response in any individual host may also be impaired if various strains coexist.

Sounds a bit garbled - but you get my (antigenic)drift

Edited to add try this article - I haven't had a chance to read it yet but it looks good :http://www.iac.rm.cnr.it/~massimo/papers/icb1.pdf
and also: http://www.bentham.org/chivr1-1/colllins/collins.htm

[CFLarsen]

Update:

Not a single case of measles in Denmark in 2004. Same as 2003.

[Hydrogen Cyanide]

Versus how many in the UK? Or the USA?

(granted, in the USA several came by airliner)