A child can have a reaction after having the measles vaccine which is an immuno-response that mimics what a body does when actually fighting off real measles. It is rare but more importantly -- while it can look like measles, it is not the same the same thing -- which is why your article notes the importance of proper identification to be sure when actual virulent measles is present and when it is something different. I believe (although I am not positive about this, actually asking an expert on this now) that it is logically more common for a body to experience an immune reaction like this if actually exposed to real measles even after having the vaccine if in close proximity -- thus why more would have appeared during the Disney issue. Measles is incredibly contagious and vaccines are not 100% perfect the moment they are are taken.

If you actually look up CDC reports of the Disney event, you won't see a report of 194 children at Disney with measles. I have seen numbers of 125 and 143, but never 194 - with the the actual strain of the virus carefully identified. To the extent that there were 73 others in 2015 who presented with symptoms but found not to have the actual "wild" virus, I believe it means they did not actually have measles at all but rather were presenting with this immuno-response -- which is not something remotely in the same danger category and if anything, further proof of how important it is to get the vaccine as they would have been at much higher risk without it even after a vaccine when exposed to the virus.

Therefore, I am saying your post is misleading because it seems to suggest there is some real risk/danger to children of getting measles actually caused by the vaccine -- even a "similar" risk to those who are unvaccinated by linking a number like 40% and the Disney outbreak. That paints a completely false picture about the measles vaccine. Perhaps this was not your meaning and if not, I apologize.

** One big edit to this -- I'm not sure I am correct classifying above as immune-responses so not really full-blown measles cases. It may well be that the article is noting that 73 cases of California measles (out of a larger number) was the same strain used to make the current version of the vaccine -- as opposed to my understanding of it being another strain that was identified as a kind of "ground zero" strain that started the Disney case (something from the Philippines). Different strains are used for vaccine formation and the article may have been stressing how important it is to identify particular strains to gain the best understanding of the public health concern at that moment (who has been exposed the most, what are the geographic areas most at risk, what is the plan of attack, etc...). The absolute key point in all of this still being that the measles vaccine does not in any way cause actual measles.

I have some very close to me involved in this work - why I am particularly active on this topic. If I am wrong about something, I will try and correct later.

[Post edited by fishhoo at 03/06/2019 2:40PM]