Peter Kasson, Georgia Institute of Technology

The measles outbreak that began in west Texas in late January 2025 continues to grow, with 400 confirmed cases in Texas and more than 50 in New Mexico and Oklahoma as of March 28.

Public health experts believe the numbers are much higher, however, and some worry about a bigger resurgence of the disease in the U.S. In the past two weeks, health officials have identified potential measles exposures in association with planes, trains and automobiles, including at Washington Dulles International Airport and on an Amtrak train from New York City to Washington, D.C. – as well as at health care facilities where the infected people sought medical attention.

Measles infections can be extremely serious. So far in 2025, 14% of the people who got measles had to be hospitalized. Last year, that number was 40%. Measles can damage the lungs and immune system, and also inflict permanent brain damage. Three in 1,000 people who get the disease die. But because measles vaccination programs in the U.S. over the past 60 years have been highly successful, few Americans under 50 have experienced measles directly, making it easy to think of the infection as a mere childhood rash with fever.

As a biologist who studies how viruses infect and kill cells and tissues, I believe it is important for people to understand how dangerous a measles infection can be.

Underappreciated acute effects

Measles is one of the most contagious diseases on the planet. One person who has it will infect nine out of 10 people nearby if those people are unvaccinated. A two-dose regimen of the vaccine, however, is 97% effective at preventing measles.

When the measles virus infects a person, it binds to specific proteins on the surface of cells. It then inserts its genome and replicates, destroying the cells in the process. This first happens in the upper respiratory tract and the lungs, where the virus can damage the person’s ability to breathe well. In both places, the virus also infects immune cells that carry it to the lymph nodes, and from there, throughout the body.

What generally lands people with measles in the hospital is the disease’s effects on the lungs. As the virus destroys lung cells, patients can develop viral pneumonia, which is characterized by severe coughing and difficulty breathing. Measles pneumonia afflicts about 1 in 20 children who get measles and is the most common cause of death from measles in young children.

The virus can directly invade the nervous system and also damage it by causing inflammation. Measles can cause acute brain damage in two different ways: a direct infection of the brain that occurs in roughly 1 in 1,000 people, or inflammation of the brain two to 30 days after infection that occurs with the same frequency. Children who survive these events can have permanent brain damage and impairments such as blindness and hearing loss.

Yearslong consequences of infection

An especially alarming but still poorly understood effect of measles infection is that it can reduce the immune system’s ability to recognize pathogens it has previously encountered. Researchers had long suspected that children who get the measles vaccine also tend to have better immunity to other diseases, but they were not sure why. A study published in 2019 found that having a measles infection destroyed between 11% and 75% of their antibodies, leaving them vulnerable to many of the infections to which they previously had immunity. This effect, called immune amnesia, lasts until people are reinfected or revaccinated against each disease their immune system forgot.

Occasionally, the virus can lie undetected in the brain of a person who recovered from measles and reactivate typically seven to 10 years later. This condition, called subacute sclerosing panencephalitis, is a progressive dementia that is almost always fatal. It occurs in about 1 in 25,000 people who get measles but is about five times more common in babies infected with measles before age 1.

Researchers long thought that such infections were caused by a special strain of measles, but more recent research suggests that the measles virus can acquire mutations that enable it to infect the brain during the course of the original infection.

There is still much to learn about the measles virus. For example, researchers are exploring antibody therapies to treat severe measles. However, even if such treatments work, the best way to prevent the serious effects of measles is to avoid infection by getting vaccinated.

Peter Kasson, Professor of Chemistry and Biomedical Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Jacqueline Rifkin, Cornell University; Barbara Kahn, University of Pennsylvania, and Cindy Chan, University of Toronto

Imagine you’ve planned the trip of a lifetime for your animal-loving family: a cruise to Antarctica with the unique opportunity to view penguins, whales and other rare wildlife. Your adventure-loving kids can kayak through fjords, plunge into icy water and camp under the Antarctic sky.

But rather than being ecstatic, as you anticipated, your kids whine about skipping an after-school scout meeting at a neighbor’s house. Missing this ordinary weekly event triggers such intense FOMO – “fear of missing out” – for them that they don’t want to go on your amazing expedition.

If this kind of debacle sounds familiar to you – or at least if you find it perplexing – you’re not alone. The three of us are marketing professors and social psychologists who focus on how consumers make decisions and how this shapes well-being. We’ve been studying FOMO for over a decade and recently published our work in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Over the years, we’ve learned what really drives intense feelings of FOMO – which explains why a run-of-the-mill meeting might feel more crucial than an over-the-top vacation.

FOMO’s real trigger

People use the term FOMO in many different ways. In our research, we focus on a very specific type of FOMO: the kind that occurs when people miss out on events that involve valued social connections.

With this kind of FOMO, we found that the pain of missing out is not related to missing the actual event or opportunity – although that could be there as well. The FOMO we study happens when people miss the chance to bond with friends, co-workers or teammates they care about.

So, the critical part of FOMO is missing out on interactions with people you value. FOMO about a group dinner at a restaurant isn’t really about the food and great lighting. Nor is FOMO about a concert just about the band’s performance. Instead, it’s about the lost opportunity to connect and make memories with people who are important to you.

Why is this upsetting? Imagine the scenario where all your best friends go out to dinner without you. They bond and make lasting memories with each other – and you’re not there for any of it.

If they get closer to each other, where does that leave you? What happens to your social relationships and your sense of belonging? Do you become a less important friend? Less worthy of future invites? Or even kicked out of the group altogether? The anxiety of FOMO can begin to spiral.

People with what psychologists call an anxious attachment style chronically fear rejection and isolation from others. Because FOMO involves anxiety about future social belonging, it may not come as a surprise that people who are naturally more anxious about their friendships tend to get more intense FOMO. When we asked people in one of our studies to scroll social media until they encountered something social they missed, we found that the more anxiously attached a participant was, the more intense FOMO they experienced.

Not just missing Coachella

Getting FOMO for an amazing event you can’t attend makes sense. But if FOMO is less about the event itself and more about the social bonding, what happens when you miss something that’s not really fun at all?

We find that people anticipate FOMO even for unenjoyable missed events. As long as there is some form of missed social bonding, feelings of FOMO emerge. One of our studies found that people anticipated more FOMO from missing an un-fun event that their friends would be at, than a fun event without their friends.

For better or for worse, sad and stressful events can often be emotionally bonding: Going to a funeral to support a friend, cleaning up the mess after a party, or even white-knuckling through a harrowing initiation ceremony can all offer opportunities to forge stronger connections with one another. Stressful contexts like these can be fertile grounds for FOMO.

How to fend off FOMO

Popular discussions about the negative consequences of FOMO tend to focus on the FOMO people feel from compulsively scrolling on social media and seeing what they missed out on. Consequently, much of the suggested advice on how to mitigate FOMO centers on turning off phones or taking a vacation from social media.

Those recommendations may be tough for many people to execute. Plus, they address the symptoms of FOMO, not the cause.

Our finding that the core of FOMO is anxiety about missed social relationships yields a simpler strategy to combat it: Reminding yourself of the last time you connected with close friends may provide a sense of security that staves off feelings of FOMO.

In an experiment testing multiple interventions, we asked 788 study participants to look through their social media feeds until they encountered a post of a missed social event. We asked about 200 of these participants to immediately rate how much FOMO they were feeling. They averaged a 3.2 on a 1-to-7 scale.

Another group of about 200 participants also scrolled through their social media feeds until they encountered a post of a missed social event. But before indicating how much FOMO they were feeling, we asked them to think back to a prior experience socializing and bonding with their friends. Encouragingly, this reflection exercise seemed to curtail FOMO. Their average FOMO rating was 2.7 out of 7, a significant drop.

With the remaining participants, we tested other strategies for mitigating FOMO – thinking about the next time they might see their friends or imagining what they’d say to a FOMO-suffering friend – but the simple reflection exercise was by far the most promising.

So, reminding yourself of the meaningful relationships you already have and reaffirming your social belonging in the moment may help combat the rush of anxiety that is characteristic of FOMO.

And missing out on social bonding experiences doesn’t have to be anxiety-provoking. In fact, in our activity-packed, hectic lives, missing some “must-attend” events may be a welcome relief – especially if you remind yourself that your social belonging is not in jeopardy. Cue a recent wave of counter-FOMO programming called JOMO, or “Joy of Missing Out.”

To quote Stuart Smalley, the fictional self-help guru of 1990s “Saturday Night Live,” reminding yourself that “I’m good enough, I’m smart enough, and doggone it, people like me!” might be just the trick to mitigate FOMO.

Jacqueline Rifkin, Assistant Professor of Marketing, Cornell University; Barbara Kahn, Patty and Jay H. Baker Professor of Marketing, University of Pennsylvania, and Cindy Chan, Assistant Professor of Marketing, University of Toronto

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Kayte Spector-Bagdady, University of Michigan

As soon as the genetic testing company 23andMe filed for bankruptcy on March 23, 2025, concerns about what would happen to the personal information contained in its massive genetic and health information database were swift and widespread. A few days after, a U.S. judge ruled that the company could sell its consumer data as part of the bankruptcy.

The attorneys general of several states warned their citizens to delete their genetic data. California urged its citizens to request that 23andMe delete their data and destroy their spit samples. Michigan’s attorney general released a statement warning that “23andMe collects and stores some of the most sensitive personal information, our genetic code.”

When customers originally signed up for 23andMe, they agreed to terms and conditions and a privacy notice that allows the company to use their information for research and development as well as share their data, in aggregate, with third parties. If consumers consented to additional research, which the vast majority did, the company can additionally share their individual information with third parties. 23andMe has also been clear that if it is involved in a bankruptcy or sale of assets, consumer information might be sold or transferred.

While 23andMe has warned customers all along about everything that is currently happening, many are still surprised and concerned.

I’m a lawyer and bioethicist who has been studying direct-to-consumer genetic testing for almost a decade. Understanding what information 23andMe has been collecting, and how it might be used if sold or shared, can help clarify concerns for consumers.

What is 23andMe?

In 2007, 23andMe, named after the 23 pairs of chromosomes found in a human cell, was one of the first direct-to-consumer genetic testing companies to open in the United States. It was backed by a large investment by Google, which quickly attracted the interest of other investors, allowing 23andMe to thrive when many other direct-to-consumer genetic companies went quickly out of business.

The direct-to-consumer business model is fairly straightforward: A consumer orders a genetic test kit online, spits into a tube that comes in the mail, returns it to the company and accesses their results in an online portal. Over 15 million consumers bought 23andMe, and the vast majority consented to its research. At its peak, the company was valued at US$6 billion.

While the market initially believed in the value of 23andMe’s business model, its stock has been in decline for years, and the company owes hundreds of millions of dollars to creditors.

Reasons for this rapid decline include a decrease in the sale of test kits after a 2023 hack of almost 7 million people’s data, as well as a failure to profit enough from providing data access to other private sector companies. Lack of private interest in 23andMe data may be related to the fact that much of the information the company collects is self-reported, which is often considered less reliable than information written down by a doctor in a medical record.

What kind of data does 23andMe collect?

While the saying goes “If you’re not paying, you’re the product,” 23andMe managed to convince its consumers to both pay for AND be the product. It did this by selling genetic testing kits to consumers as well as collecting a massive amount of their valuable data.

And 23andMe collected more than just genetic data generated from consumers’ spit. Eighty-five percent of customers consented to 23andMe research, allowing their individual-level data to be used for studies. The company then collected information from survey questions about their personal health and beyond, such as drinking habits and risk tolerance.

This means that not only does 23andMe possess the genetic data of 15 million people, but it also possesses almost a billion additional data points associated with this genetic information. This makes the 23andMe dataset potentially very private – and very valuable.

At first, drug companies seemed to agree. For example, in 2018, 23andMe granted pharmaceutical company GlaxoSmithKline an exclusive license to use consented customer data to develop new drugs. GlaxoSmithKline also made a $300 million equity investment in 23andMe. When 23andMe went public in 2021, its $6 billion valuation reflected the promise of this business model.

But for over a decade, scholars, including me, have been warning that allowing 23andMe to collect and use personal data was not one that customers fully understood, or were actually comfortable with.

What should 23andMe customers worry about?

In response to current public concern about data privacy, 23andMe has stated that there will be no changes to how it stores and protects data during its bankruptcy proceedings. But once that stage is through, what exactly should customers worry about?

First, law enforcement could use genetic information in civil or criminal cases. This happened in 2018, when police used the genetic testing company GEDmatch to help identify the Golden State Killer. Police pretended they were customers looking for genealogy data and sent in an old crime scene blood spot. This allowed them to connect to known suspects with blood relatives who had given their genetic information to the company as consumers. While this was in violation of GEDmatch’s own policies, the evidence was successfully used in court.

Second, genetic information could be used to discriminate against customers if it shows that they have or are at high risk of developing a genetic disease or disorder. The federal Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act prohibits health insurers and employers from asking about genetic information or using it to discriminate in work or health insurance decisions. It does not, however, protect against discrimination in long-term care or life insurance.

Many of the warnings from the media and attorneys general are focused on genetic information because it is unique to only one person. But direct-to-consumer genetic testing companies also retain a massive amount of personal information from the surveys consumers are asked to complete. Much of this information could be embarrassing if it were inadvertently or intentionally revealed, such as a person’s intelligence.

In the 2025 book “Careless People,” former Meta executive Sarah Wynn-Williams reported that Facebook would use indications of self-consciousness about personal appearance, such as deleting a selfie, to promote beauty products. If companies know such intimate details about a person, they could not only be used to sell products, but also potentially manipulate them over social media or the internet in ways they do not even realize. It could be used for targeted advertising or to build algorithms that exploit a person’s vulnerabilities.

I believe consumers are right to be worried about how their genetic data could be misused. But the survey data containing all sorts of other personal information are at least as much, if not more, of a privacy problem. This is particularly concerning if the data is pooled together with other information available on the internet, like a dating profile, to create a more detailed – and personal – picture of an individual.

I am deleting my own 23andMe data. In the future, I would also warn consumers against freely gifting the private sector with information about their fears, hopes, limitations and successes.

That information is valuable to more people than just you.

Kayte Spector-Bagdady, Associate Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Michigan

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.