To expect mums to get their children vaccinated?(272 Posts)
Met two mums at play group today who said they didn't/weren't. Their reasons were autism, all that stuff on the Internet, drugs companies making money and keeping their children 'clean'. WTF?? Am I right in thinking their kids are safe though because 'the herd' is immunised? I just think there's a certain mother type who thinks anything 'non-natural' or scientific is wrong. Rant over
What are the strong arguments against fascicle? Apart from for children with known reactions to vaccines or illnesses?
I'm not in the UK anymore. That's great that adults can still get them on the NHS, good idea.
OP, yes it is unreasonable to assume other parents should make the same choices as you; that those who don't should be compelled to do so and to stereotype those who choose not to vaccinate their children. There is an assumption that those who don't vaccinate haven't considered the issues properly. Anybody who has looked at the issues in any depth will understand that there are strong arguments for and against.
amandine the clinical evidence for vaccinations is their ability to stimulate antibody production, a fact which is not disputed and which is what your blood tests would have revealed as 'immunity' what is not clear is whether or not such antibody production constitutes immunity. For example, agamma globulin-anaemic children are capable of producing antibodies, yet they recover from infectious diseases almost as quickly as other children. Furthermore, a study published by the BMC in 1950 during a diptheria epidemic concluded that there was no relationship between antibody count and disease incidence. Researchers found resistant people with extremely low antibody count and sick people with high counts.
Natural immunisation is a complex phenomenon involving many organs and systems, it can't be fully replicated by the artificial stimulation of antibody production.
Think about the way the immune system works and the way that it is forced to work when given a vaccine. We are forcing it to go into overdrive in a way that it would not do if the disease was met naturally.
These days they give MMR to adults if needed - I haven't heard if anyone having to pay for it though.
Why couldn't you get it on the NHS? (Genuine question - my rubella status was checked for free prior to ttc and they said they would give me rubella if needed).
As an adult about to ttc, I have just had to get vaccinated against a lot of things. Because I moved around a lot as a child, not because my parents were against it. It has cost me A LOT of money, not to mention the time and hassle of trying to get vaccination records from lots of countries.
Well it depends whether the first is working. And herd immunity depends on monovalents as well (figures not given) so no-one really knows whether it's reached the magic 95%
Actually some tables I saw did reach those rates at 5 years old - but I'll have to try and find them when I'm on my computer rather than phone.
It would be useful to know where the outbreaks are occurring. One report mentioned travellers families - well tbh you would expect measles outbreaks every so many years in pretty much fully unvaccinated populations and increasing the vaccination rate isn't going to affect those. Also teens and young adults mentioned - then we need to know whether they are a) fully immunised b) one dose only c) vaccinated with singles d) never vaccinated. Unfortunately that data isn't available as it is assumed that no MMR = no vaccination (I say it's important as waning immunity could be a factor if teens and young adults affected - in which case you would need a different strategy).
I DO know that the HPA told me the MMR rates in 2001 were not a concern and I was mistaken to think they were (and they were much lower then)
But 95% for the first MMR isn't good enough for herd immunity, the pre-school booster is needed too. Rates for that are much lower.
And even without that - in some areas the MMR rate is very high anyway.
Ha sorry autocorrect - but anyway if high numbers are giving the 5 in 1, then I suspect a similar number are giving a measles vaccine - but some will be choosing singles.
It would be better I think, if the data included singles. It's hard to assess for example whether Brighton parents are rejecting all vaccinations or just have the cash to pay for singles (I suspect the latter as the only people I know who haven't given either MMR or singles haven't given other vaccination either - and the imms rates for pedicel is very high indeed).
But admittedly that's guessing.
I googled and found one with slightly lower figures (but still 95% for first MMR). The one I was looking at the other day had a 98% rate for Northern Ireland. They fluctuate a bit from quarter to quarter but still very high.
I actually have a letter here from the HPA, written at the height of the MMR trouble ( in 2001) saying there was no problem with MMR vaccination rates and coverage was high (and it was a lot lower then than it is now).
Can't link easily as I'm on phone - go to JCVI minutes - I think it was the June 2012 meeting - they discuss imms rates and say they are happy with them and give a link to data (probably on the HPA page?) it's broken down by regions but the MMR rate for the north (where I think there are current outbreaks) was 94/95% at age 5. Given that doesn't include monovalents the measles coverage must be very high -in that age group anyway. Some of the lower figures (in different age groups or areas) may reflect a higher % giving singles but of course that is unknown.
Saintly, where is your data for the 95% figure? This article suggests it's much lower than that (obviously the first and the booster jabs are needed)
95% is the minimum level thought needed for herd immunity and we still fall short of that.
Was looking at the same site purple
According to HPA - up to 25% post pubertal makes have orchitis (usually unilateral) 'sterility seldom occurs'
I genuinely have never understood why mumps vaccination is given - there's a better argument for chickenpox vaccination I think.
Sorry I think it should be 'very low' risk after week 16 rather than no. But still 50% is misleading as your risk at week 8 is going to be very high versus negligible at week 38.
You may think this is pedantic but important I think if you're accusing people who don't vaccinate of being too stupid to understand their decision.
According to NHS Direct, if the mother catches rubella in the first 13 weeks of the pregnancy, there's a 90% risk that the baby will be affected.
If the mother has rubella after 16 weeks pregnant, the risk of the baby being affected is low.
Highest risk for rubella is 10 weeks and under (more severe the earlier you get it - iirc rubella autism is very early on in preganacy - which ties in with the flu-autism research). Up to 16 weeks may get problems which become apparent when older. If you get rubella later than that there isn't a risk.
I grew up next to a rubella baby - which was partly why I had my rubella status checked before ttc. I would love to see some advertising money spent on that - granted there are always accidental pregnancies but I see a positive of vaccination being that they can protect specific groups. In fact I would go so far as to say I have no problem with vaccinations targeted towards specific at risk groups.
The mumps data might be correct given that it says 'if in both testes' which it very very rarely is. The sterility rate from mumps is very low because it so rarely causes problems in both testes. Although the rate of mumps in teens and adults is increasing so maybe it will become more common. The congenital rubella data sounds misleading as well as the damage depends very much at the stage or pregnancy it is caught. Very specific weeks being linked to problems - will google.
The vast majority of people we socialise with as a family kungfu have a mix of vaccinated and unvaccinated kids. As I said I only know 2 with no vaccinations at all - and they both have pretty good reasons IMO.
Actually in US states you can get exemptions ( either philosophical or religious depending on the State).
MMR rates for 5 year olds in the area with current outbreaks are 95% - a media campaign may be a waste of money.
I was quite able to understand the data thanks. I presented my own paper at a conference where I discussed vaccination with researchers (& heard vaccination mentioned in various research groups models).
Do you have any evidence that any of the outbreaks are affecting the 'nice' general public. Measles outbreaks are largely confined to the unvaccinated (mainly teens & adults in the current one). Babies are not vaccinated as they usually have passive antibodies. With the MMR now given earlier everyone has the option to get a measles vaccination at an early age. The risk of non-vaccination in the case of measles is generally to the unvaccinated - so you have a choice.The pertussis outbreaks are occurring in those who have been vaccinated for whatever reason & the dept of health has said non-vaccination is not driving those outbreaks.
If we're going to get hysterical and ban the few people who choose not to vaccinate I hope we're going to introduce compulsory testing of parents to ensure they understand that their child can still catch and spread a disease despite vaccination. Or is not bothering to do the limited research needed to find that out not counted as being irresponsible? (Reminder my son caught rubella from a vaccinated child - which was fine, we stayed in during the infectious period and he presumably now has immunity, but there were quite a few cases associated with that child).
Fwiw I don't particularly think the mother was irresponsible - just pointing out where mass hysteria lands us. The absolute vast majority of people choose to take the protection vaccination offers (have a look at the current rates - they are very high indeed) - do we need to hound those who choose not to. Of the many people I know who have decided not to vaccinate all except two have seen their elder children regress (ie they used to vaccinate). Some have seen their elder children end up in HDU or ICU. In many cases those elder children are no teens who are still in nappies. In a number of cases their doctors have suggested MMR may be responsible at least in part for their children's conditions. Do we really need to hound these people & ban them from education? Really?
divegirl, where did you get your mumps sterility rates from? could you cite a source? thanks
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.