Measles math: What to know about 1,001 measles cases across the country

Npr - May 9th, 2025

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has confirmed 1,001 measles cases in the United States this year, marking the second-highest count in the past 25 years, surpassed only by the 2019 outbreak. The measles cases have been reported in 31 jurisdictions with 14 distinct outbreaks, the largest being in west Texas, which has seen a significant rise from 683 to 709 cases in a week. This surge includes three reported deaths, two of which were unvaccinated children in Texas. The CDC highlights the critical role of the MMR vaccine in controlling the spread, stressing that a 95% vaccination rate is necessary to maintain herd immunity and prevent outbreaks.

The current situation poses a risk of the U.S. losing its measles 'elimination' status, a designation it has held for about 25 years, if any outbreak continues beyond 12 months. Texas, particularly Gaines County, is a focal point due to its low kindergarten vaccination rate of just under 82%, well below the threshold needed for herd immunity. The implications are significant, as ongoing transmission could impact public health policies and highlight the importance of vaccination campaigns. The CDC continues to update case counts weekly, demonstrating the dynamic and urgent nature of the public health response required to manage this resurgence of measles in the U.S.

Cdc Public Health Measles Outbreak Mmr Vaccine Herd Immunity

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

8.2

Fair Story

Consider it well-founded

The article provides a comprehensive and accurate overview of the measles outbreak in the U.S. as of May 2025. It effectively uses CDC data to support its claims, ensuring high accuracy. The story is timely and of significant public interest, given the ongoing public health implications of measles outbreaks. While the article is well-balanced and generally clear, it could benefit from increased transparency regarding its sources and more engagement elements, such as personal stories or expert opinions. Overall, the article successfully communicates important public health information, encouraging informed discussions on vaccination and public safety.

Accuracy

The story is highly accurate, as it aligns closely with the CDC's reported data on measles cases in the U.S. for 2025. For instance, the article states there are 1,001 confirmed cases, which matches the CDC's updates. It also correctly identifies that this is the second-highest count in 25 years, following 2019's outbreak. The claim about the largest outbreak being in west Texas with 709 cases is supported by official reports. However, minor details, such as the exact number of jurisdictions initially reporting cases, could benefit from further verification to ensure precision.

Balance

The article maintains a balanced perspective by presenting factual information without apparent bias. It focuses on the spread of measles and the importance of vaccination, which are central to public health discourse. However, it could enhance balance by including perspectives from communities affected by the outbreaks or public health officials. This would provide a more comprehensive view of the situation's impact on different stakeholders.

Clarity

The article is well-structured and uses clear language to convey complex public health information. It effectively explains terms like 'herd immunity' and 'elimination status,' making the content accessible to a general audience. However, the inclusion of more detailed explanations or definitions for technical terms would further enhance clarity for readers unfamiliar with public health jargon.

Source quality

The article relies on credible sources, primarily the CDC, which is authoritative in public health matters. The CDC's data is regularly updated and publicly accessible, lending reliability to the article's claims. The story would be strengthened by explicitly citing these sources within the text, providing readers with direct access to the data supporting the claims.

Transparency

The article provides clear and concise information but lacks explicit transparency regarding its sources and methodology. While it references CDC data, it does not directly cite or link to specific reports. Including such references would enhance transparency by allowing readers to verify the information independently. Additionally, more context on how the data was gathered and any potential limitations would improve transparency.