Due to the mumps outbreak in Iowa, I am reading something that says that people born before 1957 have a natural immunity to this disease, just what makes people born before 1957 have a "natural" immunity?

zbeckabee

Most people born before 1957 have a natural immunity to mumps since nearly everyone caught the disease before a vaccine was introduced. http://www.boston.com/news/local/rhode_island/articles/2006/04/22/state_health_department_prepares_for_mumps_outbreak/ Apr 29 06, 12:50 PM

Waggette

Not true believe me. I and many of my contemporaries were born before 1957 and have had the Mumps. It is only in the recent couple of decades that there has been immunisation available. Apr 30 06, 9:04 AM

woodardr

Even if someone before then didn't catch it, they were exposed to it, and they would develop immunity from the frequent exposure. One of the problems with immunizations is that after a certain point, so few people are getting the disease that those that don't get immunized don't develop any resistance. There is actually a minimum percentage of people who need to be immunized in a population to prevent a severe outbreak - the immunized act as a breakwater for the spread of the disease. This is why the idea of a smallpox outbreak is so worrisome. Since smallpox was declared eradicated in 1979, there's virtually no one under the age of 25 with any resistance to the disease. Apr 30 06, 9:51 AM

lanfranco

I think, Waggette that you have misunderstood. The "natural immunity," among people born before 1957, came from actually having the disease and then recovering from it. In other words, merely being born before 1957 didn't confer immunity; actually having the disease before the vaccine became available did. Mumps is usually an utterly benign, if uncomfortable, illness. However, adolescents and young adults who develop Mumps can suffer long-term effects: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mumps Apr 30 06, 6:09 PM