16

I'm seeing a claim trending on social media that more than 900 people died of measles in Madagascar recently. I'm referring to this article, which opens with:

Geneva: At least 922 people have died in a measles outbreak in Madagascar, the majority of them children, the World Health Organisation said on Friday.

I don't see a link to their source though. I'm seeing other articles linking back to the Sydney Morning Herald, but not the report itself that they refer to. (For example, this one and this Reddit thread both use it as their source.)

Further on, the article states:

In a report released last week, the WHO wrote that the outbreak was "unprecedented" and "occurred in a context of poor performance of routine vaccination."

That report listed 300 deaths and 53,000 infections. The dramatic increase in such a short time is due to a more complete collection of data in Madagascar, a spokesman said on Friday.

300 contradicts with 900 deaths. Can anyone find the actual report and confirm or refute the figure?

Community
  • 1
Jerome Viveiros
  • 2,639
  • 2
  • 16
  • 26
  • Asked because I was about to share the article myself, and then noticed the 300 vs 900 contradiction. – Jerome Viveiros Feb 18 '19 at 07:46
  • I wonder if you aren't misreading the article. "The dramatic increase in such a short time is due to a more complete collection of data in Madagascar, a spokesman said on Friday" appears to me to be using "a short time" to refer to the time between the two reports. – Daniel R Hicks Feb 18 '19 at 13:00
  • Great question to ask! Combating the anti-vaxxer brigade requires a strict adherence o fact based statistics, not expanded hyperbole. Thanks for checking in about a number that seemed odd - I hadn't spotted that news story and am sad to hear we are now seeing death numbers rise. I recently did a paper at uni where the underlying premise was numbers of cases of measles will rise as rates of vaccination goes down. I am tempted o re-run the results of that and see what falls out! – kiltannen Feb 19 '19 at 01:14

1 Answers1

31

This is the original WHO Disease Outbreak News, dated 2019-01-17. It states 39 "facility-based" deaths between 2018-10-04 and 2019-01-07.

This is the -- at the time of this writing -- lated WHO Outbreaks and Emergencies Bulletin update, dated 2019-02-10. It states 312 deaths between 2018-09-03 and 2019-02-05.

I did not find a 900+ number of deaths cited in WHO documents. That number ("more than 922") is attributed to a Dr. Katrina Kretsinger of WHO's expanded program on immunization, at a news briefing on 2019-02-14 or 2019-02-15 (depending on which article you're reading). Your own link stated:

"The dramatic increase in such a short time is due to a more complete collection of data in Madagascar [...]"

I suspect the next weekly Outbreaks and Emergencies Bulletin update to reflect that data, but so far the claim lacks a second independent source.

Update:

The WHO Outbreaks and Emergencies Bulletin dated 2019-02-17 lists 828 dead from 2018-09-03 until 2019-02-11. This makes the "more than 922" attributed to Dr. Kretsinger's statement (which was after 2019-02-11) quite plausible.

Update:

The WHO Outbreaks and Emergencies Bulletin dated 2019-02-24 extends the reporting period to 2019-02-15, and still lists 828 dead. It looks as if the worst is over.

DevSolar
  • 19,034
  • 8
  • 77
  • 74
  • Thank you. Seems like 300 is correct then. That's still a big enough number for concern... but it's annoying that the 900+ number is being shared credulously. – Jerome Viveiros Feb 18 '19 at 08:13
  • 12
    @JeromeViveiros: May I mention that I "solved" this question by entering "measles madagascar site:who.int" in my search engine? – DevSolar Feb 18 '19 at 08:18
  • I couldn't find it. Didn't know that the documents are so easily findable, but also I'm surprised that the articles don't link to it in the first place. They're being shared widely by reputable science groups and I was hoping that I'd read the thing wrong. – Jerome Viveiros Feb 18 '19 at 08:26
  • 8
    @JeromeViveiros: Yes, the "not linked" part is something that I find irritating as hell myself. After all, that's what HTML is *for*. It makes referencing your sources so *easy*... – DevSolar Feb 18 '19 at 08:28
  • from the article linked in the q - "That report listed 300 deaths and 53,000 infections. The dramatic increase in such a short time is due to a more complete collection of data in Madagascar, a spokesman said on Friday." so the article seemingly addresses the discrepency –  Feb 18 '19 at 11:41
  • 2
    @Orangesandlemons: As long as no-one actually comes up with some official document... apparently Dr. Katrina Kretsinger made that "at least 922 dead"-statement at a news briefing. But no documents from the WHO back that up. The next weekly bulletin is due pretty soon, but until then, I'd strongly recommend going with numbers that can be actually sourced. – DevSolar Feb 18 '19 at 11:58
  • 1
    @DevSolar wouldn't a news report from a reputable news source (assuming that that is) of a WHO statement count as sourced? I do agree that the next update would be stronger though. –  Feb 18 '19 at 12:06
  • 6
    @Orangesandlemons: You know that drill about "one source is attributable, two sources are reportable"? You can absolutely attribute 922 dead to "Dr. Katrina Kretsinger at a WHO news briefing, according to Reuters". To claim as *fact*, that's not sufficient IMHO. – DevSolar Feb 18 '19 at 12:09
  • @DevSolar fair enough, but going on the end of the question 'Can anyone find the actual report and confirm or refute the figure?', which was based on a false premise that the report was ever claimed to be the same, maybe worth noting at least that the 300 doesn't refute the larger number? –  Feb 18 '19 at 12:15
  • @Orangesandlemons: I think that much is clear from the facts presented, if for nothing else but the Feb. 5th cutoff date for the data? But I will elaborate on the origin of the 922 number. – DevSolar Feb 18 '19 at 12:21
  • 2
    @JeromeViveiros: Note the update in my answer. I think it's fair to use the 900+ number with appropriate attribution; it's probably just not in the document trail yet. – DevSolar Feb 18 '19 at 12:29
  • It's certainly possible that the 900 number is all reported deaths, while the 300 number is those documented via government reports. I would guess than many deaths would not be reported through formal channels, and others would be reported as deaths due to other causes (bronchitis, encephalitis, etc). There's no reason to assume that the 900 number is "made up". – Daniel R Hicks Feb 18 '19 at 12:57
  • 4
    @DanielRHicks: At no point did I assume, or denounce, that number as "made up". But from "not made up" to "reportable" it's quite some distance to walk. Why not go with the reportable "over 300 as of two weeks ago" until the quotable reports are updated? – DevSolar Feb 18 '19 at 16:10
  • 8
    https://news.un.org/en/story/2019/02/1032771 is a better source for the 922, as it's a UN source. – Jon Hanna Feb 18 '19 at 17:28
  • FYI, the [February 11–17 update](https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/310904/OEW07-1117022019.pdf) is out, with 828 reported deaths. – 1006a Feb 19 '19 at 06:33
  • @DevSolar Thanks. Good to see the number is not unreasonable. I do think the original reporting was ambiguous and shoddy though. – Jerome Viveiros Feb 19 '19 at 10:47
  • @JeromeViveiros: As is unfortunately common in a world were headlines make the money, and serious journalism itself gets made into [fiction](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Newsroom_(U.S._TV_series)). "300+ reported dead, numbers bound to increase still" would have been much better. – DevSolar Feb 19 '19 at 10:52