The number one thing you miss is that other people don't give people heart disease, cancers, diabetes, etc., it's a whole different ballgame. Those are self inflicted diseases chosen by a person's own liberties to do so but not forced upon another person by contact with someone else. There is a whole army of professionals on the front lines fighting everyday to develop cures for what ails people and even governments give grants for research toward that endeavor.

That doctor you quoted on measles if way off base. There's only been 11 deaths of measles in the US since 2000. Worldwide that number is much larger, over a hundred thousand...but that's due to lack of vaccine protocol in third world countries for the most part. Sure back in the fifties and sixties four to five hundred people a year died of measles but that's a far cry from the 11 over nearly two decades and the nearly six thousand a year who died in the early 1900's. Until vaccines people learned to deal with viruses through isolation and hygiene to bring down the death toll over the decades but vaccines eliminated a lot of those problems. What she is talking about is what a lot of them do now, there is a data base that all doctors have to enter a person's name when they get a vaccine, if that person shows up at the doctors office for any reason what so ever after receiving a vaccine the reason for the visit has to be reported to that data base. So if you stub your toe and break it that gets reported but it does not mean the vaccine caused it. If you die while skiing downhill four weeks later that does not mean the vaccine caused it....in other words the data base has become a windfall of excuses for the anti vaxxers to besmirch the vaccine industry....they'll report the number of reports to the data base without telling you what befell the person.

Yes Sars and Mers were more deadly....that's why there was such a low number of deaths attributed to it and partially why it was so easily contained....you can't spread something if you are dead and the other part is it had a low transmission rate. During a normal flu season forty to fifty thousand people do die of the flu, the higher number comes in after the cdc goes over the death records for two years prior. Everyone who died of a upper respiratory infection or pneumonia are then added as having died of influenza regardless that it's not stated on the death certification. The reasoning is is that person may have had the flu prior to becoming so ill they had to go to the hospital. Not showing any more symptoms of the flu they are not tested but the flu reeked such havoc on their bodies they end of succumbing to whatever ailed them prior to getting the flu. People can complain all they want but the fact of the matter is there will never be a way they can explain away a hundred and sixty thousand some deaths in a six month period compared to the average flu season of September through the spring of only forty to fifty thousand people....this virus has done tripled that.

Here's the problem. I vaguely remember the first influenza coming onshore, or at least one of them. I was young and it was basically killing older people....now in retrospect I see exactly how selfish and self centered I was back then when my friends and I just went about our business as usual because we didn't have to worry about dying, we hung out with each other not our grandparents if any were still alive, or our parents for that matter...we were to busy off partying and for the most part none of us lived at home back then....here's the most selfish part...we never even considered the rest of the worlds elderly loved ones should we have gotten it and passed it along while in a store or to a elderly neighbor....let alone anyone we knew who was immune compromised, as a matter of fact back then it would of been: exactly what is that? We didn't sit around watching all the news, the doom and gloom, why should we have it didn't pertain to us.

With any new vaccine many people are going to wait, especially with this one with this virus incredible ability to latch onto and spread through the body's RNA....meaning it's viral load can spread rapidly through the cells through out the body, what they come up with would seem like they'd have to develop something that shuts it down from all the cells it can attach to....the big question would be how would that effect the differing cells in the body. Can they isolate it to just block off the main entrance? Find a way to block it's ability to attach to the cells to begin with?....there's just to many unknowns to be jumping first in line for whatever they come up with.