Millions of U.S. measles cases forecast over 25 years if shots decline
The United States faces millions of measles cases over the next 25 years if vaccination rates for the disease drop 10 percent, according to new research published Thursday.
No change in the current vaccination rate would result in hundreds of thousands of measles cases over the same period, according to a mathematical model produced by a team of Stanford University researchers.
'Our country is on a tipping point for measles to once again become a common household disease,' said Nathan Lo, a Stanford University physician and an author of the study published in the medical journal JAMA.
At current state-level vaccination rates, the model predicts measles could become entrenched, resulting in 'hundreds of thousands of cases, where deaths are commonplace and hospitalizations are happening all the time,' said Lo, who researches the transmission of infectious diseases and the impact of public health interventions.
The disease estimates are based on a simulation of what would happen in the United States under various vaccination rates for children. A small uptick in vaccination — a 5 percent increase in state-level rates — would prevent huge increases in measles cases, the study found.
But Lo said he feared the most likely scenario is that childhood vaccination rates will continue to decline and the cumulative number of infections will rise sharply.
Hesitancy to accept coronavirus vaccines has led more parents to question routine childhood vaccinations. Ongoing state policy debates about school vaccination requirements and Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s interest in reexamining the childhood vaccine schedule could substantially reduce immunization coverage, he said.
'This is a warning of what our future could look like,' said Mujeeb Basit, a professor and expert on modeling and disease spread at UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas. Basit was not part of the study.
The measles cases will accumulate over time, Basit said. 'To re-bend that curve, it's going to take a lot of time to revaccinate so many people.'
The United States already has recorded about 800 measles cases in the first 3½ months of 2025, the largest number in a single year since 2019.
The numbers continue to grow, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and state health departments. Montana last week reported its first measles cases in 35 years.
The majority of the infections have been reported in a West Texas outbreak that has led to the deaths of two children. A third death in New Mexico is also linked to the outbreak.
Amid the continuing spread of the infectious-disease, most Americans have encountered false claims about the measles vaccine, and many aren't sure what the truth is, according to a KFF poll released Wednesday. More than half the adults surveyed expressed uncertainty about whether to believe false assertions, such as that the measles vaccine is more dangerous than the disease — claims that Kennedy has amplified.
In the decade before a measles vaccine was introduced in 1963, an estimated 3 million to 4 million people in the United States were infected each year, 400 to 500 people died, 48,000 were hospitalized and 1,000 suffered swelling of the brain, or encephalitis, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
But in 2000 the United States was finally able to declare measles eliminated, a term that means no continuous spread for more than a year. Cases and outbreaks still occur because of international travel, typically by an under-immunized U.S. traveler returning from a country where measles is endemic.
For the new research, scientists used state vaccination, birth and death rates to find their results. They estimated current vaccination coverage for measles at between 87.7 percent and 95.6 percent. To prevent measles outbreaks, 95 percent of a community must receive two doses of the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine.
Based on what scientists know about the epidemiology of measles, one of the most contagious diseases on Earth, they forecast how it would spread from one community to another and how quickly it could spread regularly at increased rates throughout the country.
The study did not take into account the difference in vaccination rates within a state, the authors said. Nor did it account for changes in immunization rates when infections increased because of an outbreak, which occurred during the covid pandemic, Basit said. But even the most conservative estimates underscore the severe consequences if measles reestablishes itself in the United States, the authors said.
Measles outbreaks are surging globally, with Romania last year reporting the largest number of cases among 53 countries in Europe and Central Asia, according to the World Health Organization. Romania, with a population of about 19 million, had more than 30,000 cases in 2024, followed by Kazakhstan with about 28,000 cases. Romania's recent measles surge is linked to declining vaccination rates, vaccine hesitancy and disruptions in the health system during the coronavirus pandemic, health experts have said.
In the United States, public health and infectious-disease experts have been talking for months about ways to combat false claims about vaccines and misinformation. On Thursday, an infectious-disease research center at the University of Minnesota announced an initiative to provide a coordinated response.
'People who care about preventing needless suffering and death from vaccine-preventable diseases have watched the current measles outbreak and Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s rhetoric about vaccines with rising alarm,' said Michael Osterholm, director of the university's Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy, which launched the Vaccine Integrity Project.
Initial funding for the project is from a foundation established by Christy Walton, an heir to the Walmart fortune, Osterholm said. The group does not plan to accept funding from industry.
The goal is to address key vaccine issues 'if the U.S. government vaccine information becomes corrupted … or the system that helps to ensure their safety and efficacy are compromised,' Osterholm said in a news briefing.
Osterholm cited an example in Minnesota, where Republican lawmakers introduced a bill that classifies mRNA vaccines as 'weapons of mass destruction' and criminalizes their manufacture, distribution and possession.
The cutting-edge mRNA technology was behind the rapid development of lifesaving coronavirus vaccines.
'Is anybody at the federal government level going to respond to activities like that?' Osterholm said. 'That's a question I think we are left to at this point, unanswered.'
The group will be led by an eight-member committee chaired by Margaret Hamburg, a former Food and Drug Administration commissioner, and Harvey Fineberg, past president of the National Academy of Medicine.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Politico
13 minutes ago
- Politico
The ‘Medicaid moderates' are the senators to watch on the megabill
The Senate's deficit hawks might be raising the loudest hue and cry over the GOP's 'big, beautiful bill.' But another group of Republicans is poised to have a bigger impact on the final legislative product. Call them the 'Medicaid moderates.' They're actually an ideologically diverse bunch — ranging from conservative Josh Hawley of Missouri to centrist Susan Collins of Maine. Yet they have found rare alignment over concerns about what the House-passed version of the GOP domestic-policy megabill does to the national safety-net health program, and they have the leverage to force significant changes in the Senate. 'I would hope that we would elect not to do anything that would endanger Medicaid benefits as a conference,' Hawley said in an interview. 'I've made that clear to my leadership. I think others share that perspective.' Besides Hawley and Collins, other GOP senators including Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Jerry Moran of Kansas and Jim Justice of West Virginia have also drawn public red lines over health care — and they have some rhetorical backing from President Donald Trump, who has urged congressional Republicans to spare the program as much as possible. Based on early estimates from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, 10.3 million people would lose coverage under Medicaid if the House-passed bill were to become law — many, if not most, in red states. That could spell trouble for Majority Leader John Thune's whip count: He can only lose three GOP senators on the expected party-line vote and still have Vice President JD Vance break a tie. Republicans already have one all-but-guaranteed opponent in Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky so long as they stick to their plan to raise the debt limit as part of the bill. They also view Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson as increasingly likely to oppose the package after spending weeks blasting the bill on fiscal grounds. Meeting either senator's demands could be enormously difficult given the tight fiscal parameters through which House leaders have to squeeze the bill to advance it in their own chamber. That in turn is empowering the senators elsewhere in the GOP conference to make changes — and the Medicaid group is emerging as the key bloc to watch because of its size and its overlapping, relatively workable demands. Heeding those asks won't be easy. Republicans are counting on savings from Medicaid changes to offset hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts, and rolling that back is likely to create political pain elsewhere for Thune & Co., who already want to cut more than the House to assuage a sizable group of spending hawks. At the same time, Speaker Mike Johnson is insisting the Senate make only minor changes to the bill so as to maintain the delicate balance in his own narrowly divided chamber. Thune and Finance Committee Chair Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) have already acknowledged that Medicaid, covering nearly 80 million low-income Americans, will be one of the biggest sticking points as they embark this month on a rewrite of the megabill. They are talking with key members in anticipation of difficult negotiations and being careful not to draw red lines publicly. 'We want to do things that are meaningful in terms of reforming programs, strengthening programs, without affecting beneficiaries,' Thune said, echoing language used by some of the concerned senators. Crapo voiced support in an interview for one pillar of the House bill — broad new work requirements for Medicaid beneficiaries — but rushed to add that he's 'still working with a 53-member caucus to get answers' to how the program can be overhauled: 'I can only speak for myself.' Complicating their task is the fact that some in the group — namely Collins and Murkowski — have a proven history of bucking their party even amid intense public pressure. The pair, in fact, helped tank the GOP's last party-line effort on health care, in 2017. Leaders view them as unlikely to be moved by the type of arm-twisting Republicans are planning to deploy to bring enough of the fiscal hawks on board. And then there's Hawley, who is playing up Trump's own warnings to congressional Republicans about keeping their hands off Medicaid. Hawley and Trump spoke shortly before the House passed its bill, with the senator recounting that the president said 'absolutely categorically, 'Do not touch Medicaid. No Medicaid benefit cuts, none.'' Hawley, like Crapo, has indicated he is comfortable with work requirements, but he is pushing for two major tweaks to the House language: undoing a freeze on provider taxes, which most states use to help finance their share of Medicaid costs, and new co-payment requirements for some beneficiaries that he has been calling a 'sick tax.' The provider tax changes would present an issue with multiple senators, who fear it would exacerbate the bill's impact on state budgets and slash funding that helps keep rural hospitals afloat. Justice, a former governor, called it a 'real issue.' 'They haven't done anything to really cut into the bone except that one thing,' Justice added. 'That's gonna put a big burden on the states.' Moran grabbed the attention of his colleagues when he warned in a pointed April floor speech that making changes to Medicaid would hurt rural hospitals. A 'significant portion' of his focus, he said, 'is to make sure the hospitals have the capability and the revenues necessary to provide the services the community needs — Medicaid is a component of that.' Collins, who is up for reelection in 2026, has also left the door open to supporting work requirements, depending on how they are crafted. She has also raised concerns about the provider tax provision, noting that 'rural hospitals in my state and across the country are really teetering.' Murkowski, meanwhile, isn't as concerned about the provider tax, because Alaska is the only state that doesn't use it to help cover its share of Medicaid spending. But she has expressed alarm over the House's approach to work requirements, including a decision to speed up the implementation deadline to appease House hard-liners. She said it would be 'very challenging if not impossible' for her state to implement. As it is, any effort to water down the House's Medicaid language will face steep resistance in other corners of the GOP-controlled Senate, where lawmakers are pushing to amp up spending cuts, not scale them back. Some senators, in fact, want to further tighten the House's work requirements or reduce, not just freeze, the provider tax. 'I'd be damned disappointed if a Republican majority with a Republican president didn't make some reforms,' said Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.). 'The provider tax is a money laundering machine. … If we don't go after that, we're not doing our jobs.' Ron Johnson and a few others are continuing to push to change the cost split for those Medicaid beneficiaries made eligible under the Affordable Care Act. The federal government now picks up 90 percent of the cost, and House centrists nixed an effort by conservatives to reduce it. One idea under discussion by conservatives is to phase in the change to appease skittish colleagues and state governments, but that is still likely to be a nonstarter for 50 GOP senators. Hawley warned that 'there will be no Senate bill if that is on the table.' Adam Cancryn contributed to this report.
Business Insider
3 hours ago
- Business Insider
Moderna announces FDA approved mNEXSPIKE, new vaccine against COVID-19
Moderna (MRNA) announced that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, FDA, has approved mNEXSPIKE, a new vaccine against COVID-19, for use in all adults 65 and older, as well as individuals aged 12-64 years with at least one or more underlying risk factor as defined by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 'The FDA approval of our third product, mNEXSPIKE, adds an important new tool to help protect people at high risk of severe disease from COVID-19,' said Stephane Bancel, Chief Executive Officer of Moderna. 'COVID-19 remains a serious public health threat, with more than 47,000 Americans dying from the virus last year alone. We appreciate the FDA's timely review and thank the entire Moderna team for their hard work and continued commitment to public health.' Confident Investing Starts Here:
Yahoo
11 hours ago
- Yahoo
The Best Time to Take Vitamin D for Maximum Absorption, According to Health Experts
Reviewed by Dietitian Sarah Pflugradt, Ph.D., RDN, CSCSIt can be challenging to meet your vitamin D needs through diet alone. It doesn't matter whether you take vitamin D in the morning or evening. Take vitamin D with a meal or snack containing fat to enhance it comes to the supplement aisle, multivitamins, omega-3s and probiotics might score the most real estate on the shelf. However, if that multi doesn't come with a dose of vitamin D, your doctor might recommend adding another pill to your routine. Known as the "sunshine vitamin," vitamin D is something most of us aren't getting enough of, and if you're wondering what time of day you should take it, we're here with the answer. Roxana Ehsani, M.S., RD, CSSD, explains that vitamin D is one of four fat-soluble vitamins (A, E and K are the others). Our bodies make vitamin D after being exposed to the sun, and we can also get it through our diet. It plays 'many important roles in our body,' adds Ehsani. These include supporting your immune system, muscle and nerve function, your body's ability to absorb calcium and more. Even though vitamin D is critical for overall health, research suggests that an estimated 25% of Americans are deficient in it. This could be because there are few food sources of vitamin D, and many people don't see sunshine during winter, live in regions with limited sunlight, and/or keep their skin covered while al fresco. The average older adult's recommended Daily Value of vitamin D is 20 micrograms, which is equal to 800 international units (IU). For reference, one egg and a 3-ounce can of tuna each have above 1 mcg, 3 ounces of sockeye salmon delivers around 12 mcg, and 3 ounces of trout offers around 14 mcg. Unless you're taking a spoonful of cod liver oil (34 mcg) or eating salmon or trout daily, it can be challenging to meet that mark through food alone, since most food sources of vitamin D offer small amounts. In the U.S., people get most of their dietary vitamin D from fortified milk, which contains around 100 IU per 8-ounce serving. But you'd need to drink a quart or more of milk daily to reach the DV—and milk consumption has been declining in recent years, a factor that some experts cite when discussing increased vitamin D deficiency. That's why many people take a vitamin D supplement. However, you want to make sure not only that you're taking the right amount but also that your body is absorbing it properly. Read along to learn when to take your vitamin D supplement and what factors you should consider. We'll cut to the chase: According to the current scientific consensus, our experts agree that it doesn't matter what time of the day you take your vitamin D supplement. Many people find it handy to take supplements in the morning before the day sweeps them away. Others like to store them in a drawer near the kitchen cleaning supplies to pop after tidying up after dinner. It shouldn't make a substantial difference in absorption rates whether you swing to one side or the other, although it's easiest to remember if you pick one time and stick with it. There are many factors to consider when taking any supplement, not just a vitamin D supplement; here's what you should keep in mind. First, several conditions can influence an individual's vitamin D levels (or needs). These include osteoporosis or osteopenia, depression, kidney or liver disease and having a family history of neurological conditions, to name a few. According to David Davidson, M.D., it's especially important for 'people with absorption issues, like inflammatory bowel disease or post-gastric bypass surgery' to work with their doctors to dial in their dose and receive personalized guidance about when to take vitamin D. Body size can also alter absorbency and dosing, so be sure to ask your doctor for an individual recommendation before you set off to shop for supplements. If you notice any nausea, constipation, noticeable appetite shifts or other adverse symptoms after taking your supplement, be sure to chat with your doctor. Regardless of why you're including a vitamin D supplement in your regimen, it's important to consider your routine. It's difficult to reap the health benefits of vitamin D if you forget to take it most of the time. Many people do well with 'habit stacking' or pairing the routine of taking vitamin D with something else they do daily on autopilot. Keep this in mind as you consider when to take your supplements. Ehsani shows how to put this into practice: 'If you always brush your teeth in the morning after breakfast, for instance, can you place your vitamin D supplements next to your toothbrush to remind you to take it each day?' As with any new medication or supplement, it's important to check with a health care professional to determine the best time for you. As a general rule, though, 'the 'best' time is what works best for you,' Ehsani says. 'The timing of when to take the vitamin D supplement shouldn't matter, but it should be taken with food,' Davidson says. 'Because it's a fat-soluble vitamin, food, specifically healthy fats, will help with the absorption of vitamin D.' For example, if you tend to have almond-butter toast each morning, 'consider taking it with that meal, as almond butter contains healthy fats,' Ehsani advises. Or, if you like to serve dinner with a side salad topped with a handful of walnuts and drizzled with a vinaigrette, take your vitamin D before you sit down to dig in. You could also choose to take your vitamin D with a glass of whole milk or a yogurt drink—you'll get the addition of calcium from the dairy and the vitamin D will help your body absorb the calcium. 'It may be impractical for you to take it with meals if you eat a majority of your meals away from home and can't realistically carry the vitamin D supplement with you everywhere you go,' Ehsani acknowledges. So, if that's not a realistic proposition, tell a health care professional about your schedule and when you think it might better fit, and ask for their runner-up recommendation. There are two types of vitamin D: D2 and D3. UV-grown plants, fungi and fortified foods deliver D2, while we get D3 from sunlight and animal-based ingredients. While both are important and beneficial, vitamin D3 is more bioavailable than vitamin D2. This means that your body uses vitamin D3 more efficiently, so you might need a higher dose of vitamin D2 to achieve the same effects as you might with a supplement that includes just D3. Before starting any new supplement regimen, talk to a health care professional about the best form of vitamin D for you. And if you already take a vitamin D supplement, confirm with them that you're taking the right form. Related: 7 Things You Should Look for When Buying a Supplement, According to Dietitians The best time to take a vitamin D supplement is when it fits well into your day—and when you can remember to take it. When choosing a vitamin D supplement, consider opting for vitamin D3 over D2 so your body can use it more efficiently. Additionally, Ehsani and Davidson confirm that, ideally, you should take your vitamin D supplement with a meal that contains fat to help with absorption. For instance, if you like to take vitamin D first thing in the morning, well before you typically eat breakfast, or prefer to pop your supplements just before bed, think about doing so with a handful of nuts or a spoonful of nut butter, Ehsani says. That way, you'll enjoy two wellness wins in one: better vitamin D absorption and all the health benefits of nuts. Related: 5 Supplements You Shouldn't Be Taking, According to a Dietitian Read the original article on EATINGWELL
