Chicken pox vaccine dramatically reduces cases

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American


Routine vaccinations against the chicken pox have reduced the  incidence of the itchy potentially serious virus by as much as 90 percent  in the U.S. But the original one-shot protocol may not be as effective as the newer, two-dose regimen, new research suggests.

The vaccination program, launched in the U.S. in 1995, recommended that kids 12 months to 12 years old get immunized against chicken pox. Since then, the  number of cases has  dropped by 57-to-90 percent, according to government research published in the journal Pediatrics.

But the single shot, while 80-to-85 percent effective in preventing the disease, may not be enough to protect kids in schools and other "high-contact" settings. It's still too soon to tell if the double dosage, made routine in 2006, provides better protection, according to the study. (That regimen  calls for the first shot at around 12 to 15 months of age – and the second between ages 4 and 6.)

Will the findings encourage more parents to vaccinate their children? Chicken pox "parties" have been en vogue to varying degrees over the last decade among families who shun vaccines over fears of autism and prefer to have their kids develop immunity to the disease by exposing them to other children suffering from it.

Some other parents uneasy about the increase in vaccine dosing in childhood say one injection is good enough. While proponents of a vaccine link to autism often finger mercury preservative as a cause, others point to multiple shots at once.

One mom told the Chicago Tribune that while she abides by Illinois' vaccine requirements for children, she's wary of the expanding roster of shots, including the new vaccine against human papilloma virus. The one-shot dose against chicken pox is enough, Elizabeth Wright told the newspaper.

"If they don't have to have the vaccine," she said, "I'd rather they not have it."

 

 


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.


 

 

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe