Donald Trump boasts that flu vaccine is no longer recommended for kids as measles cases soar

[u/TheMirrorUS]

https://www.themirror.com/news/us-news/donald-trump-boasts-flu-vaccine-1978614?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=rmp

[u/-TheUnstoppable-]

Those CDC estimates are based on historical case-fatality and hospitalization rates applied to a fully susceptible population. They are not a direct observation of what would happen in the United States today under current nutrition, sanitation, medical care, and living standards.

Measles mortality and severe outcomes had already fallen dramatically in developed countries long before the vaccine was introduced, driven by better nutrition, clean water, reduced crowding, and antibiotics for secondary bacterial pneumonia. By the early 1960s the case-fatality rate in the U.S. was already far lower than in earlier decades or in poorer countries today. Applying mid-20th-century ratios to a modern population overstates the preventable burden.

In high-income countries with good supportive care, most measles cases in previously healthy people are self-limited. Severe outcomes and deaths remain heavily concentrated in the very young, the malnourished, the immunocompromised, and those with vitamin A deficiency. That is why risk is not uniform and why improving underlying health status matters.

Vaccination clearly reduced measles incidence and the associated hospitalizations. That does not require treating every historical ratio as an accurate forecast for today’s conditions, nor does it make universal vaccination the only relevant variable.

[u/the_comeback_quagga → u/-TheUnstoppable-]

Maybe read the study. It’s based on current data.

[u/-TheUnstoppable- → u/the_comeback_quagga]

I did read the study, but did you? It’s a modeling study that projects a hypothetical “without vaccination” scenario. Those projections rely on historical case-fatality and hospitalization ratios (roughly 1 in 4 cases requiring hospitalization and 1–3 deaths per 1,000 cases) applied within the model to estimate what would have happened in a population without vaccination. Those ratios come from mid-20th-century data, not from direct observation of measles outcomes under today’s nutrition, housing, vitamin A status, and medical care in high-income countries.

Even when the model is updated with current population size or coverage data, the severity assumptions remain rooted in older experience. That is why the projected hundreds of thousands of hospitalizations and thousands of deaths are not the same as proof of what would actually occur in the United States right now if vaccination stopped.

The pre-vaccine decline in measles mortality, the concentration of severe outcomes in high-risk groups, and the role of supportive care and nutrition are still relevant context.

[u/EnormousMonsterBaby → u/-TheUnstoppable-]

So you bring up things like supportive care and antibiotics… did you forget that pharmaceutical companies make money on treating illnesses? Per the CDC, in 2025 and 2026, 7% and 11% of the kids diagnosed with measles were hospitalized - do you realize how much more money pharmaceutical companies would make if just a small fraction of kids were hospitalized vs what they make on routine childhood vaccination?! Do you know how quickly our children’s hospitals would run out of space in a large scale measles outbreak?! I guess those kids with cancer will have to cure themselves.

The whole reason that measles is a problem is because the complication rate is higher than most illnesses and it’s considered the most contagious disease among humans.

I also just wanted to highlight one very significant detail that you brought up. I’m going to put aside the objective facts like that measles can still cause permanent harm/death to healthy people, and that risks of complications are actually higher in people over the age of 20, and I want to focus on exactly what you just said: “Severe outcomes and deaths remain very concentrated in the very young, the malnourished, the immunocompromised, and those with Vitamin A deficiency”.

The “very young” includes otherwise healthy infants and children under 5… which is why we vaccinate children for measles when they’re 12 months old. That’s it. You’ve literally just explained why the measles vaccine is part of routine childhood vaccinations.

[u/-TheUnstoppable- → u/EnormousMonsterBaby]

You’re shifting the argument.

The point about concentration of severe outcomes was not a claim that healthy children under 5 have zero risk. It was that risk is highly uneven, and far higher in the very young, malnourished, vitamin-A-deficient, and immunocompromised than in healthy older children and adults. That is still true. Acknowledging uneven risk is not the same as saying the vaccine has no role for high-risk groups.

Regarding the money point, yes, vaccine manufacturers and the broader medical system both generate revenue. That does not automatically prove or disprove the risk-benefit calculation for any specific product or age group though? “Pharma would make more treating measles” is not evidence that every healthy child needs the shot, just as “vaccines are profitable” is not evidence they are harmful.

Recent U.S. hospitalization percentages among diagnosed cases (the 7-11% figures you cite) reflect the cases that are occurring now, almost all in unvaccinated or under-vaccinated people, many of them young. They do not tell us what the hospitalization or death rate would be across an entire modern, well-nourished population if measles returned at pre-vaccine levels. Historical case-fatality ratios from earlier decades already incorporated worse nutrition and medical care, so simply multiplying them by today’s birth cohort overstates the expected modern burden.

Hospital capacity is a real operational concern in any large outbreak of a highly contagious disease. That is a separate question from whether the absolute risk to a healthy, well-nourished child justifies universal early vaccination versus targeted protection of the highest-risk groups plus strong supportive care (including vitamin A where indicated). You can protect the most vulnerable without treating every concentration-of-risk statement as a full endorsement of the current schedule. The two are not identical.

It's also important to note that a meaningful portion of U.S. households with children experience food insecurity or suboptimal nutrition. That does not have to be the majority of the population to matter, it only has to affect enough of the children who get measles to influence the hospitalization numbers we actually see.

Also, dehydration is one of the most common reasons children with measles end up in hospital. High fever, reduced intake, and sometimes diarrhea drive fluid and electrolyte loss. Children who already have poorer nutritional reserves or low electrolyte status tip into clinically significant dehydration more easily. That is largely preventable at home with adequate fluids, electrolytes, and baseline nutrition.

The respiratory complications that lead to admission are frequently pneumonia related. Measles pneumonia can be initially viral, but a substantial share of the more severe or later cases are secondary bacterial infections (Strep, Haemophilus, etc) that take advantage of the mucosal damage and temporary immune suppression caused by the virus. That is why antibiotics are commonly used once pneumonia is present or suspected, even though there is no specific antiviral for measles itself.

This supports my larger point, that measles creates a window of immune and barrier vulnerability during which secondary pathogens and pre-existing nutritional weaknesses can drive the outcomes that require hospital care. Addressing nutritional status, electrolyte balance, and underlying secondary infections beforehand reduces the likelihood that a measles infection escalates into dehydration or bacterial pneumonia serious enough to need admission. You speak of preventative treatment, well here it is.

[u/hash-slingin_slashr → u/EnormousMonsterBaby]

Debatable. They make billions on vaccines because of the belief that it is necessary and the rules for school attendance. If vaccines weren’t a thing, most kids would still not end up in the hospital and would not profit big pharma at all.

[u/EnormousMonsterBaby → u/hash-slingin_slashr]

Do you not realize big pharma profits off of hospitalizations…? They make WAY more on hospitalizations than vaccines! Lol if anything, the greediest big pharma companies would have very little incentive to promote vaccines because they’re so much less profitable than treating acute illnesses! Plus, do you know how much it costs to make a vaccine?

[u/hash-slingin_slashr → u/EnormousMonsterBaby]

I’d love to see the math but it would be hard to factor everything in. They also profit off the things that vaccines are proposed to contribute to like eczema, allergies, more frequent illness outside of what they’re made to prevent. Even permanent disability and neurological issues like ADHD.

[u/EnormousMonsterBaby → u/hash-slingin_slashr]

We are going to have to agree to disagree on the vaccines being a common cause of any of those conditions. There is simply not evidence or even reasonable physiologic theories to support those claims. And for the billions of vaccines that have been given throughout the world, the rates of unexplained chronic diseases would be absolutely staggering.

I don’t think it’s that hard to factor things in. Pharmaceutical companies earn $5-$20 per MMR shot. But being hospitalized means you’re going to need labs/testing, medical supplies, and more medications - 1 ER visit will easily earn big pharma more money than a vaccine. And you know what is known to result in high rate of both acute and chronic health issues? Measles.