Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Covid

Mumsnet doesn't verify the qualifications of users. If you have medical concerns, please consult a healthcare professional.

Flip

1 2 3

Original poster

2.6 million people died of measles in 1980

73 replies

Kerlassic · 17/05/2020 23:08

Measles has an R of 12-18 and a fatality rate of around 15%.

It killed millions in 1980, in living memory for most of us.

No one mentioned lockdown. No one shut schools. No one stopped seeing their Nan. No one wore a mask.

Can someone explain to me WHY we are behaving this way when it comes to Coronvirus. I understand it was a novel virus so we didn’t know much about it initially. I know there was a hope we could stamp it out completely in the beginning, which sadly didn’t happen and it is now endemic.

So why are we carrying on with all this? Why for coronavirus and not for the measles?

Honest and agenda-free question. I am struggling to understand.

OP posts:

DianaT1969 · 17/05/2020 23:11

This again. How many people died of measles in the UK in 1980?

Flaxmeadow · 17/05/2020 23:12

I know measles is highly infectious but do you have a source for the fatality rate?

palacegirl77 · 17/05/2020 23:12

that would be 26!

NuffSaidSam · 17/05/2020 23:12

According to this gov website only 26 people died of measles in England and Wales in 1980?

Where are you getting your figures from?

KatyMac · 17/05/2020 23:13

I think in 1980 the UK had 26 deaths from measles

Possibly owing to vaccination?
I can't comment on the rest of the world

Doyoumind · 17/05/2020 23:13

They weren't dying here. They were dying in the developing world. It affects a different demographic. It wasn't new. Go away with your nonsense.

DianaT1969 · 17/05/2020 23:14

26 people died of measles in the UK in 1980.
How many have died of Covid-19 in the last 3 months? 34,000
That's with a lockdown.
How does that compare?

DippyAvocado · 17/05/2020 23:14

Yes, a quick Google shows 26 deaths from measles in the UK that year. Probably why there was no lockdown!

mrbob · 17/05/2020 23:15

I am not sure if your numbers are right (but they might well be worldwide)
The answer is that instead of locking down everyone got a vaccine and people stopped dying so much. Although looking at it the numbers worldwide are stark. But the answer to that wouldn’t be to lockdown it would be to be better at vaccinating. With covid that isn’t an option

CoCoCorona · 17/05/2020 23:16

You’re free to go and frolic and disobey social distancing rules. Honestly, no one gives a fuck if you want to. Don’t try to push it on other people with incorrect facts though.

RufustheLanglovingreindeer · 17/05/2020 23:16

Oh for gods sake

What are the deaths in the uk in the first third of thIs year 34k?

And if katys link is correct 26 measles deaths in the whole of 1980?

Original poster

Kerlassic · 17/05/2020 23:16

This is a global pandemic so I was looking at global figures.... the whole world is locking down for this, which it didn’t for measles....
We’ve had vaccination since the 60s.
I am asking an honest question.’I want to understand why we are reacting in this way. What is the nonsense?

OP posts:

RufustheLanglovingreindeer · 17/05/2020 23:16

Ive crosspost with just about everyone

Derbygerbil · 17/05/2020 23:18

On the basis that Covid-19:
a) has a case fatality rate of 0.5% (and it could well be higher based on recent studies)
b) is novel so no one has resistance
c) requires 60% of population to be infected to achieve herd immunity (and it could well be 70-80%)

If we just carried on as normal, that would lead to around 20 million deaths, so bad as measles was in 1980, Covid would potentially be a whole load worse!

LaurieFairyCake · 17/05/2020 23:19

Huh?

In this country we've had vaccination since the 60's

NOT IN THE COUNTRIES WHERE THEY ALL DIED

NUMPTY

user1495884620 · 17/05/2020 23:20

Nobody mentioned lockdown because there was a vaccine. If poorer countries could have afforded to lock down, they could have afforded a vaccination programme.

Purpleartichoke · 17/05/2020 23:24

Did those cases happen in any area with a high rate of vaccination? Did the outbreaks occur in areas where non-vaccinated people were likely to travel?

Derbygerbil · 17/05/2020 23:25

It might not be quite as bad as the figure I quoted, as the fatality rate of 0.5-1% is based on developed countries whose healthcare has enabled people to live to old age and people to live with chronic health issues. The impact in poorer parts of Africa probably wouldn’t be as bad, and would probably be less serious than some of the illnesses they routinely face.

But the the developed world, Covid in 2020 is many orders of magnitude worse than measles was in 1980 (and the measles vaccine was developed in 1968 I believe).

Equally, you could stretch things further and say “we had the Black Death in 1348... I don’t believe any countries locked down back then!”

NuffSaidSam · 17/05/2020 23:28

The whole world didn't need to lock down for measles because it wasn't a global pandemic.

Why the countries who had a big measles problem in 1980 didn't lock down is an interesting question, but it is in no way related to how the UK is dealing with Coronavirus in 2020.

Two completely unrelated things.

crustycrab · 17/05/2020 23:33

goingoverground · 17/05/2020 23:37

There was not a measles pandemic in 1980. It is an endemic disease (one that is always there).
Measles was largely under control due to vaccination in the UK, the deaths were in developing countries, so no measures were necessary here.
There was no need for "lockdown" in the developing world as there was a vaccine available, a far more effective (and cost effective) solution.

peonypower · 17/05/2020 23:41

Lockdown doesn't stop people catching a virus. Unless it is total and lasts forever. It just changes the timeframe over which you are most likely to catch a virus.

Which is fine if you are worried about hospital capacity. Less fine if you are trying to save lives because you can't keep the vulnerable segregated totally forever...the longer you lockdown, the longer you need to segregate them and the less likely you will be able to do so effectively so more will die. Like in care homes, which have not been shielded at all in any meaningful way.

The whole thing is just stupid.

Sweettea1 · 17/05/2020 23:42

Did measles put a huge strain on nhs to the point they might have to decide who they tryed to save or not? People don't seem to understand the lock down is so doctors an nurses don't have to choose who to try save. Lock down is not about us catching it its about hospitals managing it not sure what people don't understand about that.

RainbowMum11 · 17/05/2020 23:42

derbygerbil Eyam in Derbyshire did effectively lock down due to the plague though didn't it - they got it in the small village from rats travelling in a delivery I believe, and so many people in the village got infected that they closed themselves off, which prevented the disease from spreading further.

mumwon · 17/05/2020 23:42

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6659435/
your figures & dates are wrong - also when I was a child & there was no vaccinations you got measles when you were a child so you were immune as an adult -many people were disabled by the side effects or contracted other infections - people were more likely to die in countries with less developed healthcare or poverty. What I do remember is if one child got one of these diseases all the siblings had to stay at home for the incubation period - earlier generations when children had some infections were sent to fever hospitals (Diphtheria & scarlet fever for instance this happened to my mother & some of her siblings)

Flip

1 2 3