Should You Get A Measles Vaccine Booster? Here Are The Considerations
The return of measles to the U.S. may have many people wondering whether they should get a measles ... More vaccine booster. Pictured here is an information booth for measles vaccinations offered by Harris Public Health in Houston, Texas. (Raquel Natalicchio/Houston Chronicle via Getty Images)
Now that measles, which was declared eliminated from the U.S. in 2000, has been let back into this country, here's something you may be wondering about: whether you should get a measles vaccine booster. After all, drops in measles vaccination rates are what allowed the virus to sneak back into Texas, New Mexico and other parts of the country. And maybe you've heard about herd immunity, the fact that the amount of protection offered by vaccination does depend on the percentage of people around you who have been vaccinated or otherwise have immunity against the measles virus.
Well, it's natural to be concerned about the measles, since getting the measles isn't exactly a ho-hum thing, as I've written previously in Forbes. Sure, you may survive with just having a high fever, cough, runny nose, pink eye, rashes and feeling like bleep for a while. But don't be rash about catching the virus. It can essentially be playing measles roulette. You could end up with life-altering and life-threatening complications from this respiratory virus such as deafness, pneumonia, encephalitis and death. Yes, death is life-threatening. I've also detailed in Forbes bad stuff like subacute sclerosing panencephalitis (SSPE) and immune amnesia that can arise years after a measles infection.
This year has already seen over 930 confirmed cases of the measles across close to 30 different states in the U.S,, which far exceeds the 285 cases throughout all of 2024. So far, the vast majority (around 97%) of cases in 2025 have been in people who had no record of being vaccinated. But note that 97% isn't 100%. Neither is the protection offered by the measles vaccine, which is typically well over 90%. If you've got the highly contagious measles virus circulating around, there is still the risk of catching it even if you've been vaccinated.
That's why it's been routine since 1989 for children to get two shots of the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine, otherwise known as the MMR vaccine, because that's how acronyms work. The vaccine also offers protection against mumps and rubella, otherwise known as the German measles, two other things that you'd be better off not getting.
The first MMR shot usually occurs in 12 to 15 month age range. The second in 4 to 6 year age range. This is a live vaccine, containing small amounts of a weakened version of the measles virus. Even though the virus is still 'alive,' it's not strong enough to cause a real infection and problems. It's sort of like Darth Vader without the Force or his suit. But your immune system will likely recognize the weakened virus as a threat and in turn build up defense in case more such viruses show up. Studies have shown that two shots of the MMR tends to offer around 97% effective protection against the measles for life. But again that level depends on how many people around you have been vaccinated as well.
Many studies over the years have also shown the MMR vaccine to be quite safe. Think about how many people around the world over the years have gotten the MMR vaccine. Then think about how many people you personally know who have had verified problems after getting the vaccine. The CDC has long noted that most people have no side effects. If side effects do occur, the most common are soreness at the vaccination site, fever, and pain and stiffness in the joints. Some people may develop a mild rash in the three weeks after their vaccination, but this isn't a concern unless they have also had a known or suspected exposure to the measles, according to the CDC.
If you were born before the year 1957, chances are you got the measles at some point. That's because the measles was a pretty widespread problem before, guess what, routine measles vaccination occurred. Therefore, if you routinely used terms like 'hooey' , 'booksy', 'dullsville' and 'drop-dead gorgeous' when growing up, you probably have 'presumptive evidence' of immunity and don't need to get the measles vaccine even if you have no record of ever getting it. The exception are healthcare workers, who may need extra protection, especially these days. You can check your immunity against the measles by having your doctor check your blood for antibodies against the measles virus. If you don't have such antibodies and work in healthcare, it's a good idea to get the vaccine.
The first measles vaccine didn't get approved until 1963. So, there was a six-year period where you may have not gotten the measles and certainly didn't get the vaccine. Therefore, you could either check your blood for antibodies against the measles or just get the measles vaccine. Getting two doses is better than getting only one. But one is certainly better than none.
If you are at higher risk for exposure to the measles like working in healthcare or a school, traveling a bleep-load or planning to get pregnant someday, two doses is highly recommended. Wait at least 28 days after the first dose to get the second, though. This will give your immune system enough time to fully react to the first dose. It's sort of like how the Avengers needed some time to realize, 'Hey, this purple guy, Thanos, is kind of threat. And we need to pull together our counterattack.'
Even if you were born after the measles vaccine became available, there was a four year period when you could have gotten the inactivated measles vaccine instead of the live virus one. A vaccine with a measles virus that's been killed may not get the same reaction from your immune system and thus not provide as effective protection. Therefore, if you may have gotten the inactivated vaccine, it's a good idea to either check your antibody levels or get at least one dose of the live MMR vaccine now.
From 1968 through 1989, chances are you got only one dose of the MMR vaccine as a kid. That's because it wasn't until after 1989 when getting two doses of the MMR vaccine became the standard recommendation. Therefore, if you are later Gen X or earlier Millennial where you might remember having heard the song 'Pass the Dutchie' at some point as a kid, you may want to check your immunization records, check your antibody titers or just go ahead and get another dose of the vaccine.
If you qualify as later Millennials or younger in the U.S. probably, you have probably already gotten two doses of the live MMR vaccine and should be all set. States around the U.S. required that kids get the vaccine to get and stay enrolled in schools. That was done so that everyone could protect each other. Such routine vaccination requirements are what helped eliminate measles from the U.S. by 2000. Things were seemingly all kumbaya leading up to then, at least, protecting everyone from measles-wise.
Then came that infamous article published in the British medical journal The Lancet in 1999 and authored by British physician Andrew Wakefield and some others. That paper suggested a link between the MMR vaccine and autism. The paper has since been debunked and retracted. Those originally listed on the original study besides Wakefield withdrew their names from authorship. Since then no other legit scientific study has really supported the claims made by the paper. Yet, for some reason, it's unsubstantiated claims have persisted and spread.
Therefore, if you happened to have parents who bought into anti-vaxxer claims and potentially kept you from getting the MMR vaccine, you may want to check your vaccination records or your antibody titer. Not having gotten two doses of the MMR vaccine will leave you at much higher risk for getting the measles and all the bad stuff associated with it.
There are some legit reasons not to get the measles vaccine. One is if you are under six months of age. Your immune system may not be ready to fully react to the measles vaccine. So, enjoy your cooing and pooping in your diapers for now until you are old enough. By the way, if you are that young and can somehow read this, congratulations.
Another reason is if you've had a severe allergic reaction to the MMR vaccine previously. This is uncommon. But if you've had such a reaction before, no real doctor should say, 'Oh, just tough it out a second time.' Having a bleeding condition is a reason to be careful about any needle in any part of your body.
A third reason is if your immune system is weakened for whatever reason. This may because you have an immunological disease or are receiving immune system suppressing medications like chemotherapy. If you have a family history of immune system problems, it's a good idea to check with your doctor to see if you have such an issue too.
There are temporary reasons as well to hold off on getting the measles vaccine for now. One is if you are pregnant. Another is if you are sick with an infection. A third is if you've had a blood transfusion within three months. If you have any of the aforementioned conditions or any doubts, it's a good idea to check with your doctor about what to do.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scientific American
2 hours ago
- Scientific American
How RFK, Jr.'s Dismissal of CDC Immunization Committee Panelists Will Affect America's Vaccine Access
In a striking move on Monday, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., secretary of the U.S. Department Health and Human Services, announced the dismissal of all sitting public health experts of an independent vaccine committee that counsels the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Called the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP, the group holds public meetings to review the latest scientific evidence on vaccine safety and effectiveness and to make clinical recommendations for people in the U.S.—guidance that greatly influences access to disease-preventing shots. In his announcement in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, Kennedy— who has a long history of as an antivaccine activist —framed the firings as taking 'a bold step in restoring public trust by totally reconstituting the Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices.' He also alleged there were 'persistent conflicts of interest' among committee members. Public health experts had been bracing for such a move. 'This was everybody's fear about having RFK, Jr., as our HHS secretary,' says Jennifer Nuzzo, an epidemiologist and director of the Pandemic Center at Brown University. On supporting science journalism If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today. ACIP's decisions shape immunization schedules —affecting which groups will be recommended vaccines, when and how often they should get them and whether health insurance will cover costs. The panelists hold three open meetings each year to assess and vote on the clinical use of various existing and new vaccines, including ones that protect people against pneumonia, chicken pox, shingles, measles, mumps and rubella (MMR), polio, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), influenza and COVID. According to the agenda of ACIP's next meeting, slated for June 25–27, members are expected to vote on highly anticipated recommendations that would influence the next winter respiratory illness season—including guidance for COVID, flu and RSV vaccines for adults and children. In response to various questions about the plans for ACIP, an HHS spokesperson directed Scientific American to the agency's statement about the announcement and said the committee is still scheduled to meet on June 25–27. According to the statement, new committee members are currently under consideration. The secretary of health and human services gives the final approval of newly appointed ACIP members. 'I cannot imagine that they could compose a new ACIP that has been sufficiently vetted in [less than] three weeks,' Nuzzo says. 'One of the reasons why there's so much concern right now is that changing the composition of ACIP, potentially stacking it with antivaccine members, as many fear could happen, could make it harder for Americans to access vaccines that they want, that their doctors think are beneficial for them.' Scientific American spoke with Nuzzo about how the ACIP dismissal may affect vaccine policy and access and people's health. [ An edited transcript of the interview follows. ] What is the primary role of ACIP? There are a few features of the committee that make it important. One is expertise. The membership of the committee is somewhat diverse to represent a range of expert backgrounds because when you're talking about vaccines, there are pediatric issues, adult issues—a lot of different types of expertise need to be brought to bear. It's also an independent group, meaning that it's not populated by any particular political party. ACIP's members are outside experts who are appointed through a very transparent, open process, up to a fixed term. These are independent, nonpolitical actors who also have their conflicts of interests managed. Who they get money from is public knowledge. [ Editor's Note: Members withdraw themselves from deliberations and voting on any product for which they have disclosed a conflict of interest. ] How does ACIP make its decisions? During the meeting, [the members] have documents, they have people giving presentations. Sometimes those presentations are given by government scientists who have reviewed evidence, or sometimes [the members will look at] evidence from studies on vaccines. All of the meetings are open: either you could show up in public or, usually, [see a] broadcast on the web. So all of the data that are used in the discussion about vaccines and vaccine policies are made public, and they are reviewed. And not only are they reviewed, but the rationale and the interpretation of those data are public. So the public can see, interrogate, and vet the conclusions and the data that the committees use to base their conclusions. It's a very open [process], and that openness adheres to a governance structure has existed throughout multiple presidential administrations, multiple political parties presiding [over] it. It's also important to note that the CDC director does not have to accept ACIP's recommendations—the CDC director usually does, but the CDC director does not have to. My worry is not just that politics enters into ACIP; it's also just that 'Will the will of ACIP be adhered to?' How do ACIP's recommendations affect people? ACIP is one of two key advisory committees that serve the U.S. government related to vaccines [the other is the Food and Drug Administration's Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) ]. ACIP makes recommendations regarding vaccine policies and utilization—and those recommendations are important, not just because they represent the scientific consensus that exists at the time but also because they usually influence people's access to vaccines. One real concern is: if ACIP doesn't recommend a vaccine, insurers may decide not to cover the cost , and some of these vaccines have important out-of-pocket costs. Some of us can afford that, but a lot of us can't. And so there are real issues about who is going to be able to benefit from vaccines, and it creates a real inequity. It may also have an effect on the market and companies' willingness to incur the risks of making vaccines. Vaccines are not like making a car. There are a discovery process and research-and-development process that have to occur. If vaccine manufacturers fear that they're not going to be able to sell vaccines, that people aren't going to be able to access them, then they may simply decide not to make them. They might decide that the U.S. market is not where they want to invest their resources and may decide to instead serve other countries. So it's not just that ACIP provides advice that the American public can use to make their own vaccine decisions but also [that it] is often the basis by which [vaccine] providers and insurers make vaccines available. So it's not just about information; it's also about access. What does this action potentially mean for future vaccine policies? I'm worried about all vaccines at this point. I can't rule out that that isn't just the first warning shot. Some of the rationale around who should or should not get COVID boosters, in my view, feels like an opening to removing the availability of flu vaccines. We've seen the secretary of HHS wrongly malign MMR vaccines amid one of the worst measles outbreaks the U.S. has seen in decades. So I fear that everything's fair game.
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
'Gambling addiction cost my sick mum thousands'
The daughter of a woman who became addicted to slot machines and lost thousands while undergoing cancer treatment is calling on the government to introduce tougher controls. Jackie Olden said her late mother Wendy Hughes got hooked after working at a bookmakers where she was asked to play the machines on a free demonstration mode to help drum up customer interest. She said it prompted Ms Hughes, who died from cancer in 2024 at the age of 64, to begin playing slots in her own time before spiralling into debt. Ms Olden said: "My mum was never someone who would have gambled before this, she was absolutely dedicated to her family." She said her mother, a widow, had worked hard to make ends meet while raising her three children in Stockport, Greater Manchester. "She had her own house and some money saved but all of that just went and it went really, really, really quickly," Ms Olden said. Ms Hughes's children intervened in an attempt to get her excluded from gambling outlets but she relapsed years later after discovering 24-hour adult gaming centres. Ms Olden said: "When I found out, I was absolutely flabbergasted to hear that there are 24-hour slot machine places on almost every high street in the UK. "In Stockport, where I live, there are three of them." Ms Hughes continued gambling after being diagnosed with cancer in April 2023 and became progressively more unwell. In November of the same year, she lost almost £2,000 pounds in two sessions at the Merkur slots venue in Stockport. The German company was fined £95,450 earlier this year by the Gambling Commission following a complaint by Ms Hughes, which found the operator failed "to follow rules aimed at keeping consumers safe from harm". In a bid to protect others, Ms Olden earlier delivered a petition with more than 40,000 signatures to Downing Street, calling on the government to give local government stronger powers to refuse licences for gambling venues where concerns are raised. She said: "I'm not an anti-gambling purist or someone who wants to tell people what to do, but these places are so dangerous. "The products in there are known to be the most harmful, the most addictive and I just think we need to regulate them way more tightly." Merkur said the the failure was "due to premises staff not implementing our policies and procedures effectively". They continued: "Customer welfare is our priority and we have conducted a thorough internal review. "As a result, we have strengthened training for our 1,840 venue-based staff as well as enhancing reporting procedures to ensure our high standards are upheld." Listen to the best of BBC Radio Manchester on Sounds and follow BBC Manchester on Facebook, X, and Instagram. You can also send story ideas via Whatsapp to 0808 100 2230. Slot machines to go cashless as debit cards allowed
Yahoo
11 hours ago
- Yahoo
Merz hails BioNTech founders' 'courage' as they receive German prize
The co-founders of German drugmaker BioNTech, which was one of the first companies to develop an effective vaccine against the coronavirus, were honoured with Germany's National Prize on Tuesday. In his laudatory speech, Chancellor Friedrich Merz hailed Özlem Türeci and Ugur Sahin for their "extraordinary courage". "You both embody the future strength of a liberal society. As scientists who seek solutions. But also as entrepreneurs for whom responsibility is at the centre of their work," Merz said during the award ceremony held at Berlin's Französische Friedrichstadtkirche church. The two scientists, who specialize in the development of immunotherapies against cancer, infectious diseases and diseases of the immune and nervous system, developed a coronavirus vaccine in 2020, over the course of less than a year. Merz also praised the two researchers, who have Turkish roots, as examples of the importance of "skilled labour immigration as a driver of progress." "I want to live in a Germany in which talent is promoted to the best of our ability, regardless of social or ethnic background," said Merz. Ideologies calling this tenet into question jeopardize "the future of our liberal order with their narrow-mindedness," the German leader said. The German National Prize has been awarded by the German National Foundation since 1997 to individuals or organizations for their efforts to a democratic society. The award is endowed with a total of €50,000 ($57,000). The German National Foundation was established by former chancellor Helmut Schmidt and friends in 1993.
